We Need to Build a Wall (No Not That Wall)

Trump went to California this week to inspect prototypes for the wall he wants to separate the United States from Mexico.  Protesters greeted him with jeers that the wall as ineffective and nothing more than a symbol of racism.  Local politicians, including the mayor of San Diego and the governor of California, took to social and conventional media to voice opposition to immigration hostility that could harm the economy. 

Maybe we do need a wall, just not the wall Trump and his nationalist supporters are planning.

Researchers at Princeton University have postulated the idea of building large underwater walls using sand and boulders to stave off the collapse of glaciers.  It is a radical idea offered to solve the unexpected, but dreadful problem of rising sea levels.

The unmistakable warming trend on Planet Earth is accompanied by melting of polar ice caps and shrinkage of mountain glaciers.  There is clear evidence gleaned mostly from satellite images, weather records and the solid testimony of coastal land owners.  Arctic sea ice has thinned by at least 10% over the past three decades.  Spring freshwater ice breakup in the Northern Hemisphere is coming nine days earlier in the season and the autumn freeze-up is coming along at least ten days later.  Ice melt sends more water to the sea, pushing sea levels at high tides well into populated coastal areas.

Most climate change efforts have been focused on root causes, targeting the rapid and widespread use of fossil fuels and the accompanying mushroom in greenhouse gases.  The world’s economies have been slow to make needed changes in fuel and power sources through a mix of denial and foot dragging.  No one wants to see their oil and gas dividends decline and everybody likes to take long drives in gas-guzzling sport vehicles.  However, sea water is lapping at our toes and greenhouse gases are as prolific as ever.

The Princeton researchers, led by glacier expert and postdoctoral researcher Michael Wolovick, want to sidestep the recalcitrant oil and gas industry with their expert lobbyists and ‘climate-denial’ media campaigns.  Wolovick is focused on preventing sea level rise by keeping glaciers in place.  He points to the glacier in Thwaites, West Antartica to illustrate how the collapse of just one glacier could have far reaching implications by destabilizing the ice sheet in the entire region.  The Princeton group estimates that the collapse of the Thwaites glacier could lead to an increase in sea level of over a foot in some areas.  That could in turn trigger the collapse of the greater West Antarctic ice sheet, which could add another fifteen feet to global sea level. 

The Wolovick plan calls for building large underwater walls with a layer of sand and outer layers of boulders.  The walls would be built at what is called the glacier’s grounding zone where the glacier edge meets the ocean.  He would start with the most unstable glaciers in the world in Antarctica and Greenland where glaciers commonly float right out into the ocean.  

The common sense of this unusual plan is found in some glacier basics.  The glaciers in Antarctica and Greenland are called tidewater glaciers because they are moving down and toward the sea. Grounding occurs when the ice shelf at the leading edge comes into contact with bedrock below.  When so grounded at the edge, the glacier’s movement is slowed or stabilized by the basal friction in the grounding zone.  Changes in the grounding zone can result in very rapid changes in glacier and ice-shelf behavior, dramatically accelerating glacial melt.  Without grounding, glaciers can end in floating ice tongues or ice shelves that move with the tide.  Ice shelves extended into the ocean, exposed to both warming air and water.  This causes faster melt.  Indeed, ice shelves are the largest source of melting ice in the world and contribute directly to the sea level.

Floating ice shelves versus grounded ice shelves are tough to spot.  However, scientists are using satellite images to study elevation of the glacier leading edges.  Elevation at the outer line of the grounding zone is often higher, tipping off scientists to its outer edge.    With barriers in place at this point, exposure to warm sea water would be reduced.  This could lead to a thickening of the ice shelf and potentially a ‘reground’ in areas currently exposed to warm ocean waters.  The ice melt would be slowed.  Based in preliminary work, the Princeton group estimates glaciers could last as much as ten years longer than otherwise.  This would potentially giving humans more time to finally kick the fossil fuel habit in favor of more sustainable, environmentally-friendly energy sources.

So far Wolovick has used only computer modeling to challenge and prove his idea.  He presented his work at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in December 2017.  The AGU is the collaboration forum for over 60,000 earth and space scientists.

Proof of concept may be the least of Wolovick’s challenges.  The constantly moving and sometimes violet oceans are a tough place to work, even with a well laid out plan.  The seabed also presents an inconsistent foundation for a man-made wall.  Besides the challenges of the design there would be very high costs in sourcing the sand and boulder materials.  Furthermore, such a project would probably require a consortium of geo-engineering and construction firms, none of which have had any prior experience in building something of such magnitude as a glacier wall. 

It would be premature for any investor to invest on this idea, but ultimately the largest construction companies in the world would be the beneficiaries of a green light decision.  U.S. engineering firm Bechtel, Britain’s Laing O’Rourke, Kiewit in the U.S., France’s Vinci, and Sweden’s Skanska all have infrastructure experience.  However, there are a number of smaller marine construction companies that could ultimately become involved in such a large undertaking.  Many have extensive experience in laying undersea cable, building off-shore oil well platforms and exploring for undersea minerals.

There appear to be more unanswered questions that certainties in Wolovick’s idea.  Yet, if otherwise intelligent people can seriously consider a monument to racism, then it seems plausible for the same citizens to contemplate a fortress for the environment. A Glacier Wall, even if achieved at a high cost, would well serve all peoples around the world, providing a far better bargain than a Border Wall that divides and diminishes all on both sides. 

Neither the author of the Small Cap Strategist web log, Crystal Equity Research nor its affiliates have a beneficial interest in the companies mentioned herein.