Re: EU is reviewing Arctic policy with deadline for comments in March

[John Nissen]

Hi all,

The Arctic is in a terminal illness from meltdown.  There is a desperate need to lower the Arctic temperature, which will involve refreezing the Arctic to some extent.  The extreme urgency is because of tipping processes which could soon pass a point of no return unless the temperature is lowered.  If any of these processes were to continue unabated, catastrophic climate change and/or sea level rise would soon become unavoidable.  Those powerful people and organisations who wish to exploit an Arctic with less ice, must be countered by those with an interest in the future of humanity.  The EU needs to be advocating for cooling intervention in the collective interest of all their citizens except the most rapacious.  And keeping the Arctic arctic must be an EU priority for the sake of the indigenous peoples, their culture and their livelihoods.

There is a chance for some of us to make a submission to the EU committee dealing with Arctic policy, see attached.  I think there is probably a 200 word limit.

Feedback is here [1], with 53 submissions as of today.  Note that submissions are mostly (if not all) from people or organisations in EU member states.  Doug has looked at them all.  We especially would welcome submissions from EU colleagues and people who can claim EU citizenship (Albert for Finland? Peter or wife for Italy?)

Cheers, John

[1] https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/16154-EU-Arctic-policy-Update_en

On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 5:24 PM John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com> wrote:

https://www.rystadenergy.com/news/eu-arctic-policy-barents-sea-europe-energy-security-us-lng 

[John Nissen]

Hi everyone,

I hope you are all considering a submission.  I think we should have a submission on behalf of PRAG.  But there could be submissions from HPAC, NOAC, and individuals.  Perhaps something can be discussed at the NOAC meeting coming up in a few hours time, Clive.  The EU could make a big contribution to the argument for intervening to protect the Arctic: as an insurance against ever more extreme weather events and coastal flooding - and against AMOC collapse (Iceland being already worried by this possibility)!

There have been two submissions since I emailed before, taking the total from 53 to 55.  You can see the last two here [1].   They are both noteworthy.  

Submission 55 is from the Arctic Centre, University of Lapland (Finland), calling for more research funding, but not mentioning the work by John Moore et al. (at the University of Lapland?) concerned about slowing the disintegration of the Greenland Ice Sheet.  They mention that the EU is an observer for the Arctic Council [2], but I fear that the Arctic Council has a strong motivation for exploiting the Arctic rather than protecting it.

Submission 54 is from Oil Change International (Norway). I don't know whether it will carry less weight because Norway is not in the EU.  However the submission is remarkable in supporting the Sami people and their right to be consulted: Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC).  They are against drilling for oil in the Arctic, pointing out the danger from spills and the upset to marine life.  They mention the impact of the Arctic's rapid warming and ice melt elsewhere in the world, but don't follow it up with the severe warning to the whole world that it deserves. 

Ideas for hard-hitting, well-argued submissions, please.

Cheers, John

[1] Update on submissions received

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/16154-EU-Arctic-policy-Update_en

[2] Arctic council

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Council

[3] Extract from submission 54:

The impacts of changes in the Arctic are not isolated; the Arctic is warming four times faster than the global average. Rapid ice melt in the region disrupts ocean currents and triggers extreme weather globally, threatening biodiversity, agriculture, fisheries, and the resilience of local communities everywhere.

[John Nissen]

Here are some thoughts towards a submission.

The EU needs a drastic rethink on its policy towards the Arctic.  The present policy does not consider the long term protection of its citizens.  The EU needs to recognise that the Arctic is the main source of the immediate climate crisis and the sea level crisis to come.  The EU must change its focus from exploitation of the Arctic to protection of the Arctic: halting its accelerated heating and meltdown.  The EU must accept that a number of tipping processes are being driven by heating and melting, and these processes need to be slowed if not reversed.  The urgent need for cooling intervention has to be squarely faced, otherwise these processes will soon become irreversible with dreadful consequences for the citizens of the Arctic, the citizens of Western Europe, and the citizens of the whole world.

The Arctic is a critical component of the Earth System, as proven from the paleo records.  Evidence suggests that at the end of the Younger Dryas, 11.7 thousand years ago, the temperature in the Arctic (as measured by ice cores) lept by 7-10C over a period of a few decades, with the Arctic becoming seasonally ice-free, the climate in Europe becoming much hotter to herald the start of the Holocene, and the sea level rising by 20 metres in 400 years.  There is also some evidence of megatsunamis originating from the collapse of the Hudson Bay ice dome.  

History could be repeating itself, but starting from a higher base temperature.  Since 1980, the Arctic has been warming at four times the rate of global warming which is now around 0.35C per decade.  Thus 2C could be reached by 2040 and 4C by 2100 globally, with 8C and 16C respectively in the Arctic.  The Greenland Ice Sheet contains enough ice mass to raise the sea level by at least 7 metres.  A partial collapse of the Greenland Ice Sheet could begin at any time, leading to megatsunamis and sudden sea level rise.  The partial collapse could trigger a similar collapse from some large Antarctic glaciers which are already in a critical state.  Together with steric sea level rise from ocean expansion, it has been estimated that a 2.5m sea level rise is quite possible this century, with a significant risk of a much greater rise.

Arctic fragility has been demonstrated since 1980 by rapid warming and accelerated tipping processes: (i) discharge of icebergs and meltwater from glaciers to raise sea level; (ii) discharge of the potent greenhouse gas, methane, from thawing permafrost thereby contributing to local and global warming; and (iii) disruption of polar jet stream behaviour as the temperature gradient from the Arctic to tropics is lowered.  The jet stream disruption is manifest in greater meandering and sticking: there is a growing tendency for the Rossby wave to get into blocking patterns, causing "stuck weather" and associated weather extremes: droughts, heatwaves and floods.  The accelerated growth in stuck weather and its consequences should be a major concern for the EU.

There is also a weakening of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), another tipping process.  It is thought that a collapse could occur within a few decades, sufficient to drastically alter European weather and cripple economies.

A cascade of tipping processes is possible.  For example, a partial collapse of the Greenland Ice Sheet could cause the collapse of the AMOC into a different circulation mode. All four tipping processes are liable to reach a point of no return, when reversal becomes impossible and some kind of collapse becomes inevitable.  

All the EU countries with coastlines are threatened by coastal inundation of sea water, from a combination of sea level rise, storm surges and extremes of precipitation. The EU has a choice between relying on defences against inundation (where a sea level rise of 2.5m or more is quite possible this century; see above) and the deployment of cooling interventions to halt sea level rise and reverse climate change.  The EU would be foolish to ignore cooling intervention with SAI, when its annual cost could be a fraction of the annual cost of sea defences alone.

The EU could take a lead role in protecting the Arctic by cooling it; most major powers seem intent on exploiting the fact that the Arctic is in meltdown by planning sea routes and resource extraction operations.

Must stop now.  I hope I've got you all thinking!  Perhaps some AI work could be done.

Cheers, John

[John Nissen]

Hi everyone,

I would like to make a submission on behalf of PRAG, but welcome comments from others.  I will have a PRAG meeting on Monday 9pm UK time, 5 pm EST (as daylight savings).  We'll send you a link.  Please send comments on the text I sent yesterday: corrections and omissions particularly.

The text could be much improved, I'm sure.  Could kind people with AI bots please apply them to the text.  Doug G and Robert T were very helpful before.

On AMOC, there is news about a potential collapse happening already.  Iceland is really worried.  The AMOC part of the global circulation system is driven by westerly winds across the Atlantic and sinking brine, extruded from the ice when sea ice is formed in the Arctic.  Both drivers are weakening.  Both would be strengthened by starting to refreeze the Arctic.

I've only seen one personal contribution.  Please consider making one yourself, to reflect your own thinking.

Cheers, John

[John Nissen]

Hello Hans,

Thanks for letting us know what you are doing with respect to EU policy.on climate change and SRM.

I'm sorry if your email below bounced from PRAG and HPAC but members can read it below.

It is a great help to know that you think tipping points are key to establishing the urgency for deployment; see conclusions at the end. 

The research I have done with Peter Wadhams and others is clear that at least four tipping processes are active in the Arctic, showing acceleration from positive feedback (the usual definition of a tipping process) since 1980 when the Arctic started warming 4x the global warming rate. This amplification has been driven by a combination of global warming and sea ice retreat known as albedo positive feedback. There is no need for research to discover that tipping has already started!

What we discovered much more recently is that these four processes could collectively reach a point of no return if the Arctic temperature is not lowered soon. The cooling power required was so great that only SAI at high strength (several megatons per year) had a chance of preventing these processes becoming irreversible with catastrophic consequences.

The EU has to be warned!

Best regards,  John 

 

On Tue, 10 Mar 2026, 1:48 pm Hans van der Loo, <hans.va...@iier.eu> wrote:

Hello John,

 

For whatever it is worth, here is the submission of the CFG Centre for Future Generation to the EU Intergenerational Fairness Strategy.

CFG cover a wide range of topics concerning Future Generations. Advanced AI, BioTech, NeuroTech but also Climate Interventions.

Climate Interventions is one of their topics. We work work with them. They recently got a new CEO Thomas Lingard, some of you may know him as he was Senior Associate at CISL - Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership. I would advise those that do know him to contact him, as CFG is very well funded, well staffed (albeit mostly youngsters that would benefit from meeting experienced folk) and very well connected. Their opening event was a class act and the preceding diner – to which I was invited – featured German Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck as the keynote speaker!

 

The CFG Climate Intervention group is led by Matthias Honegger, a Swiss National, relatively new to Brussels. On his team is the very experienced Claudia Scharf, who was one of the Climate Advisors of the UN Sec Gen office in New York. They are particularly concerned about Climate Cooling Governance. I have met them several times and discussed the Moral Hazard dilemma. This can both apply to Cooling as well as to Delaying Cooling. To cool or not to cool. I am not sure they really understand the implications of the non-linear nature of trends. If we are too risk avoidant than we may wait too long and no longer within capacity to make an impact.

 

I talked at length with Claudia Scharf at the Arctic Circle Assembly in Oct 2024 in Reykjavic, where I also met a German PhD Student (in his 50s) who had done is promotion with Paul Crutzen. Since I had spoken about various methods, showing my preference for MCB, but mentioning Crutzen whom I met twice at Alpbach Forum in Austria, first time I heard someone speak about SRM & SAI. The second time we spoke and I asked him if he had also thought of a vacuum cleaner. He laughed and said: “No SAI is managed by suppletion”. I remember responding that in that case it was like a vehicle without brakes. Upon which he merely smiled wryly. The PhD student came to me and asked whether I was aware that Crutzen in the last years of his life had distance himself from his SAI ideas.

 

I shared with Claudia Scharf that the tragedy of delay (of MCB) is, that we maybe forced to use SAI. And that thus Delaying MCB would be the Moral Hazard.

I recorded this podcast on geo-engineering with the Quant Research Group of Societe Generale I only learned about the radio play that preceded the actual interview when I heard it back myself.

 

 

I hope this is of use for your submission preparations. Below is the part concerning Climate Interventions by CGF

 

Kind regards,

 

Hans van der Loo

 

 

 

Climate Interventions

The current lack of global leadership on climate opens an opportunity and need for the EU to demonstrate thought leadership when it comes to another fundamentally disruptive technology. The EU can leverage its world-leading climate science and atmospheric satellite observation capabilities to demonstrate the cost of unilateral moves and vice versa, the benefit of international coordination. No international norm will be as powerful to prevent dangerous unilateral climate interventions as the enlightened self-interest of global actors who understand the risks to their own interests. The EU is uniquely positioned to create such an understanding through responsible research, international assessments, and international monitoring. Even more, the EU faces an immense opportunity to shape this issue at an early stage if it chooses to use public research funding as a lever affording agency to present and future European decisionmakers to define what it means to approach this issue responsibly.

As the world remains on a trajectory toward up to 3°C of heating this century, deliberate global interventions to cool the Earth by reflecting sunlight — Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) – finds increasing attention. Decisions—whether to fund, restrict, or coordinate research—are not merely technical or scientific. They are shaping the conditions under which future generations will confront climate instability and the geopolitical and governance challenges that come with it.

The current lack of coordinated international assessment and public research leaves future decision-makers without the knowledge needed to evaluate SRM’s risks, feasibility, and governance requirements. Conversely, unregulated or fragmented research could normalise unilateral experimentation and create new geopolitical tensions as private companies already invest in deployment capabilities. Both paths carry intergenerational risks: ignorance and overreach alike could constrain future capacities to respond prudently to worsening climate impacts, including potential emergencies arising from crossing tipping points.

The European Commission’s Chief Scientific Advisors have underscored the importance of comprehensive research into risks and uncertainties, while preventing premature large-scale testing or deployment. The European Group on Ethics has pointed out complexities that require an adaptive and reflexive governance approach. And the EU Commission’s 2025 Strategic Foresight Report emphasised the current absence of an international framework for governing SRM.

This situation risks leaving the next generation with a critical deficit in collective decision-making capacity and insufficient European expertise to influence global decisions on such powerful interventions. For the EU’s intergenerational strategy, this highlights the need to ensure that today’s research and policy choices on SRM strengthen the foundation for future decisions. The policies of today should expand rather than narrow the policy options available to future generations facing climate breakdown and the geopolitics that come with it.

Recommendation: We have previously argued that a comprehensive Climate Security Strategy may need to be developed as part of Europe’s broader Preparedness strategy. Following the Niinistö report’s recommendation to prepare for worst-case scenarios,^[26][26]Niinistö, “Safer Together”, https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/5bb2881f-9e29-42f2-8b77-8739b19d047c_en?filename=2024_Niinisto-report_Book_VF.pdf this strategy should outline response options for major disruptions such as a halt of Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation or unilateral climate interventions with regional or global impacts.^[27][27]JRC, “Earth System Tipping Points”, https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC140827

Recommendation: Yet acceleration must be paired with restraint where risks outweigh benefits. Climate intervention technologies, particularly Solar Radiation Modification, require putting public research funding before private for-profit technology development. Future decision-makers should be equipped with the knowledge needed to assess the risks and potential benefits comprehensively rather than being forced by particular interest holders.^[28][28]As stressed by the European Commission’s Chief Scientific Advisor’s recommendation on SRM

Recommendation: For climate resilience, the EU’s scientific agencies (JRC, European Environment Agency, Copernicus Climate Services) could be mandated and resourced to detect early signs of climate tipping points^[29][29]Following ARIA’s “Forecasting Tipping Points” program approach and ensure these warnings reach policymakers in real time. Similarly, European satellite capabilities across the European Space Agency, EUMETSAT and member states’ own organizations could be directed toward a coordinated effort to ensure the early detection and monitoring of any atmospheric test of climate interventions.^[30][30]In line with recommendations by the EU Commissions’ Chief Scientific Advisors referenced elsewhere and ongoing efforts by ESA: https://climate.esa.int/nl/solar-radiation-modification/statistics/