And while we are thinking deeply about this potential threat, we will continue to strip mine the ocean of edible fish.
I am not a big fan of ocean fertilization, but I do not think that anybody has come up with any plausible damage from a well-managed ocean fertilization program that is of the same order-of-magnitude as what we are already routinely doing to the ocean with overfishing. I am even less clear on what the "irreversible risk" is supposed to be from a well-managed ocean fertilization program. Assuming that you monitor for anticipated risks, what could happen that would not be likely to reverse itself after fertilization ceases? [ By *well-managed,* I mean that endemic species abundances and oxygen contents and things like that are being monitored, so that you do not induce extinctions ... which are irreversible. ] [ This is not an excuse to induce more damage, but just a comment to note that attention to various potential risks are often incommensurate with the amount of actual risk incurred. ] On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 5:29 AM, Alvia Gaskill <[email protected]> wrote: > http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/SP39844.htm > > RPT-FEATURE-Scientists urge caution in ocean-CO2 capture schemes > 15 Dec 2008 13:04:25 GMT > Source: Reuters > (Repeats story that moved at 0000 GMT) > > By David Fogarty, Climate Change Correspondent, Asia > > SINGAPORE, Dec 15 (Reuters) - To some entrepreneurs, the wild and icy seas > between Australia and Antarctica could become a money spinner by engineering > nature to soak up carbon dioxide and then selling carbon credits worth > millions of dollars. > > To some scientists and many nations, though, the concept of using nature to > mop up mankind's excess CO2 to fight global warming is fraught with risk and > uncertainty. > > An analysis by a leading Australian research body has urged caution and > says more research is crucial before commercial ventures are allowed to > fertilise oceans on a large scale and over many years to capture CO2. > > "I don't think the scientific community has even sat down and made a list > of the things we need to check before we feel comfortable that this would be > a low-risk endeavour," said one of the Australian report's authors, Tom > Trull. > > "We never even designed measurement programmes to look at ecological change > and the risks," said Trull, Ocean Control of Carbon Dioxide programme leader > at the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre (ACE > CRC) in Hobart. > > Scientists say sprinkling the ocean surface with trace amounts of iron or > releasing other nutrients over many thousands of square kilometres promotes > blooms of tiny phytoplankton, which soak up carbon dioxide in the marine > plants. When the phytoplankton die, they drift to the ocean depths, along > with the carbon locked inside their cells where it is potentially stored for > decades or centuries in sediments on the ocean floor. > > Firms eyeing this natural carbon sink hope to commercialise it to yield > carbon credits to help industries offset their emissions. > > The problem is no one knows exactly how much carbon can be captured and > stored in this way, for how long, or the risks to ocean ecosystems from such > large-scale geo-engineering. > > Some scientists fear such schemes could change species composition in the > oceans, increase acidity or cause oxygen depletion in some areas, even > promote the release of another powerful greenhouse gas, nitrous oxide. > > BLOOMING > > "Ocean fertilisation may cause changes in marine ecosystem structure and > biodiversity, and may have other undesirable effects," says the ACE CRC > position analysis on ocean fertilisation science and policy, soon to be > publicly released. > > "While controlled iron fertilisation experiments have shown an increase in > phytoplankton growth, and a temporary increase in drawdown of atmospheric > CO2, it is uncertain whether this would increase carbon transfer into the > deep ocean over the longer-term," it says. > > It also says the potential for negative impacts is expected to increase > with the scale and duration of fertilisation. There are doubts that any > damaging effects could be detected in time. > > "It is very important to recognise that if deleterious effects increase > with scale and duration of fertilization, detection of these cumulative > effects may not be possible until the damage is already done," said John > Cullen, professor of oceanography at Dalhousie University at Nova Scotia in > Canada. > > "It is extremely important to look at the ecological risks of this kind of > activity," he said. > > Oceans soak up vast amounts of CO2 emitted by nature or through burning of > fossil fuels and deforestation and the Southern Ocean plays the greatest > role of all the oceans. > > But much of the Southern Ocean is depleted of iron and experiments have > shown even small amounts of the nutrient can trigger phytoplankton blooms > that can last for up to two months. > > Companies such as California-based Climos and Australia's Ocean Nourishment > Corp are planning small-scale experiments to test their ocean carbon capture > and sequestration projects. > > Ocean Nourishment uses ammonia and urea, delivered via a marine pipeline to > a region deficient in nitrogen, to boost phytoplankton growth and boost fish > stocks. Climos uses iron and plans experiments in the Southern Ocean in > 2010. > > "Iron fertilization is no silver bullet for climate change -- which > underscores the severity of the problem we have, and the urgency for > immediate emissions reductions worldwide," Climos founder and CEO Dan Whaley > told Reuters in an email interview. > > But he said it was premature to judge iron fertilisation as dangerous. > > "Phytoplankton are nature's way of sequestering CO2 to the deep ocean, > where nearly 90 percent of earth's carbon lies. Further, most everything we > put up in the air is going to the deep ocean eventually. The only question > is how long it takes," he said. (For separate Q&A with Climos, click on > [ID:nSP376631]) > > Many nations, though, remain cautious and member states of two treaties > that govern dumping of wastes at sea passed a non-binding resolution in > October calling for ocean fertilisation operations to be allowed only for > research. > > Parties to the London Convention and related London Protocol, part of the > International Maritime Organisation, signed the resolution that said member > states were urged to use "utmost caution" to evaluate research proposals to > ensure protection of marine life. > > ABSORPTION LIMIT > > Trull, who participated in the first ocean fertilisation experiment in > 1999, one of a dozen since conducted globally, said commercial ventures > would need to operate over huge areas of ocean for many years. > > The ACE CRC report also says ocean fertilisation just using iron would > likely hit an absorption limit of about 1 billion tonnes of carbon (3.7 > billion tonnes of CO2) annually, or about 15 percent of mankind's total > carbon emissions. > > "That really puts the risk in context. We're talking about altering > ecosystems of planetary scale for a benefit that won't actually relieve us > from dealing with all the other issues, such as conservation or alternative > energy generation." > > Cullen of Dalhousie University said studies suggested that to sequester > large amounts of carbon would require fertilisation of most of the Southern > Ocean for long periods of time. > > "The question is can we assess those large-scale and long-term effects on > the basis of experiments 100 by 200 km (60 by 120 miles) in size. I have not > seen evidence it can be done." > > (Editing by Megan Goldin) > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
