In early September I had the privilege of hosting a fascinating discussion about an urgent issue –the potential melting of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets and what could happen if we fail to save them. I’ve had many conversations on the topic of climate change, but this one felt especially critical. Joining me were some extraordinary intellectual leaders who are actively working on solutions to mitigate the impending disaster. The conversation was eye opening, filled with technical insights and deeply thoughtful reflections about the future of our planet.

Our guest list was exceptional, featuring Vinton Cerf, one of the fathers of the internet. It’s a thrill to speak with him, not just for his contributions to technology, but also because he brings a calm and rational perspective to difficult discussions. Robert Axelrod was with us as well. His book The Evolution of Cooperation, was essential in my teaching and thinking for years. Also joining us was Peter Wadhams, an expert on Arctic ice and a dear friend who has graciously participated in many of my previous conversations about climate repair. And Alex Luebke is a technical expert in Cerf and Axelrod’s group who will be involved in implementing the project if it ever is adopted.

We opened the discussion with Vinton Cerf, who shared a bit of the background on their current efforts
to preserve the ice in Antarctica. It was clear from the start that this is a massive, complex endeavor. The ice, particularly in the Western Antarctic, is at risk because of warm ocean water underneath that allows it to slip and maybe break off. As Cerf explained, this is especially concerning in places like the Thwaites Glacier, which would lead to catastrophic sea level rises if it breaks off. If the glacier goes, it could mean half a meter of sea-level rise globally, and if the entire Western ice shelf goes, we’re looking at up to three meters.
The conversation quickly moved toward possible interventions. Cerf and his group have been working on a solution: to pump water from beneath the ice back to the surface where it

would freeze again. This would anchor the ice to the rocky soil below and buy us time—though it wouldn’t solve the underlying problem of global warming. So far, they’ve held one workshop with 40 glaciologists at Stanford and are preparing for another in New York to focus on the governance of the
project. As you can imagine, this type of intervention requires input and permissions from various stakeholders, including indigenous communities and national governments.

When Cerf mentioned the technical challenge of pumping water out from under the ice, it reminded me of another discussion I’d hosted about putting a barrier or “curtain” under the water to prevent warm water from reaching glaciers. During that previous forum, Peter Wadhams had seemed skeptical about that engineering feat. Indeed, such ideas can sound a bit like science fiction. Yet, as Cerf noted, the situation we face isn’t fictional at all.

It’s a genuine emergency, and while all these measures may seem extreme, they may also be necessary.
Robert Axelrod raised an important point that’s often overlooked when talking about large-scale climate interventions. That’s the ‘moral hazard’ argument—that by focusing on mitigating the effects of global warming, we may get distracted from the crucial work of reducing emissions. He’s absolutely right to point out that saving the ice is not a substitute for reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Alex Luebke helped break down the logistical hurdles that come with such interventions. Gathering data is a massive undertaking, and they’re looking at several years of research just to determine whether the project is feasible. For instance, how many holes would need to be drilled in the ice? How much water would need to be pumped? How much energy would this require? These are big questions, and answering them will involve a lot of fieldwork, some of which may not even happen in Antarctica. The team is looking at testing sites in Greenland, Iceland, and Alaska, where conditions are similar but more accessible.

Throughout the conversation, I found myself thinking about the urgency of this work. I can’t help but feel that we should be doing something now. These experts are cautious, and rightly so, but if the situation is as dire as it seems, why aren’t we moving faster? When I raised this concern, Alex Luebke agreed that time is running out and that we need to fund research immediately to start gathering the necessary data. It was reassuring to know that they’re ready to act and that they just need the resources to do it.

One of the major challenges they face is, unsurprisingly, money. I pressed Cerf on that a bit; he knows some billionaires and with their deep pockets they could fund this work. But, as he pointed out, these wealthy individuals didn’t get rich by making rash decisions. They want to see solid data and a well thought-out plan before opening their wallets. So, the team has been working on proposals and reaching out to philanthropic organizations. They’re hoping to raise around $10 million for the initial research phase—a daunting but not impossible goal.

Of course, another obstacle is getting permission to carry out experiments in places like Greenland and Antarctica. As Robert mentioned, indigenous communities often have spiritual and cultural connections to the land, and their approval is critical. I offered to help by organizing conversations with indigenous leaders, something Project Save the World is doing for other climate projects. It’s important that we involve everyone in these discussions because, ultimately, we’re all affected by what happens to the planet.

One of the more moments in the conversation was when Peter Wadhams shared his experiences studying the Greenland ice sheet, where he has encountered “black ice”– ice darkened by soot from fires as far away as Siberia. This black ice absorbs more heat, accelerating the melting process. It’s a stark reminder that everything is connected and there are often unintended consequences.

By the end of the conversation, I felt both hopeful and apprehensive. The hope comes from knowing that brilliant minds like Cerf, Axelrod, Wadhams, and Luebke are dedicating themselves to finding solutions. The apprehension comes from the sheer scale of the challenge and the fact that time is not on our side. But as Cerf said, their goal with pumping water up from under the ice isn’t to solve global warming—it’s to buy us time. Time to reduce emissions, time to find better solutions, and time to adapt.

I feel a sense of urgency. We’ve all heard the warnings, and now we’re seeing the effects of climate change in real-time. Whether or not the Thwaites Glacier collapses tomorrow morning, the threat is real. And while these scientists may not have all the answers yet, they’re asking the right questions— and that’s where solutions begin. We’re planning another forum on the same topic with some of the experts who hope to do the first experiments on the ground to assess the feasibility of the plan. Wish them luck!

To watch the video of this one-hour long conversation, click here: https:// tosavetheworld.ca/episode-629-saving the-ice. Then, after watching, you can scroll down to the blue button and click to post your comments in the discussion.