Parminder et al, Thank you for bringing up the mangrove/salt marsh/peatland issue. As we know, the past 50-100 years have seen vast coastal areas simply devastated due to many human factors. One of the most far reaching factor, which is little known to the general public, is related to shrimp farming.
I'm sure you and the Atlanta Botanical Garden <http://newcaledoniaplants.com/plant-catalog/mangrove-plants/> organization are well aware of this problem. However, this simple video presentation <http://mangroveactionproject.org/shrimp-farming/> is a good primer on that issue for those not familiar with the scale of devastation. Further insight on this primary threat to the mangroves is also found in this brief NRDC article; Meals of Mass Destruction: Shrimp <http://www.nrdc.org/living/shoppingwise/meals-mass-destruction-shrimp.asp>. For those readers wishing to lean more, at a deeper level, on the mangrove/shrimp suite of subjects, Paul Greensberg's recent book 'American Catch <http://www.amazon.com/American-Catch-Fight-Local-Seafood/dp/1480599069>' offers a welcomed and in-depth treatment of the mangrove/shrimp issue as well as informative and enlightening insights into the environmental/social impacts of a number of other coastal region related problems; which all clearly have global scale climate change ramifications. In short, we need to develop offshore mariculture operations on a vast scale to provide a sustainable supply of this and other important marine proteins while removing the need for such wide area environmental devastation within these most productive and fragile coastal regions. One current project which is aimed at bring such a paradigm into reality is the TROPOS Project <http://www.troposplatform.eu/TROPOS-on-different-sectors/Aquaculture>. Clearly, the EU Programme for Research and Development can not be faulted as being flighty in thought or actions. And, the TROPO Project is but one of a number of efforts to shift fulfillment of our basic resource needs out into the marine environment. The Shizimu Corp <http://www.shimz.co.jp/english/theme/dream/pdf/greenfloat_e.pdf>. and the Seastead Foundation <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOa31wJD3G4> have also offered up plans for large scale marine operations. As an important technical note, offshore cultivation of shrimp and other cultivars, using organic recirculating aquacultural systems <http://www.recircaqua.com/topics.html> (i.e. organic feed, no antibiotics/chemicals and no 'waste' released), is well within the related STEM fields of knowledge. Such a systems approach to mariculture is a central focus of the protein related mariculture technology called for in the IMBECS <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m9VXozADC0IIE6mYx5NsnJLrUvF_fWJN_GyigCzDLn0/edit> Protocol Draft. Further, coupling offshore protein farming with micro/macro algal farming offers the highest level of coastal environmental benefits as this eliminates cultivation pressure on both the mangroves and the broader marine littoral environments; which is an important factor in regenerating the balance needed between the two. The human footprint within the littoral waters needs to be kept to a minimum as a means of reducing the real and apparent potential of propagating pathogens, generating and building levels of toxins and destabilization of natural pray/predator relationships. Unlike many who champion the marine littoral cultivation approach to climate change mitigation, I propose a '*hands off the littorals*' stance and promote offshore cultivation above all other forms of CDR and CO2 utilization/sequestration. The logic of working well offshore being; Why interfere with a fragile coastal zone when the added cost of going well offshore is well within reason at the profit level? Some readers may view this marine based 'Soft Geoengineering' approach, with the call for biological management on a vast scale, as being too complicated and thus inferior to other more simplistic (reductionist) approaches. Beyond the apparent absurdity of thinking that global warming mitigation will ever be simplistic, the offshore regions offers us a vastly abundant and profitable opportunity to avoid the worst of climate change while reducing environmental pressures within critical littoral and coastal regions. This offshore marine based global carbon management method will also help reduce pressure on land protein production (marine protein can be grown with far fewer acquired resources than beef/fowl/pork) and provide a global abundance of organic fertilizer and biochar, for the building of soil organic carbon, as a by-product of marine biofuel production. The potential vast scale of ancillary freshwater production <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_thermal_energy_conversion#Desalination> offered by offshore operations is something of a side bonus. We need a holistic, not reductionist, view of the problems we face and that of the future we want. If we are ever to properly manage the global carbon cycle, while providing for an ever increasing population, which demands an abundance of fresh water, quality food, cheap biofuel and a stable climate/environment, we must turn to the open oceans as they are the only regions which can offer us the needed additional (and simply vast) resources required for such an environmental and socio/political stable future. The oceans are our last reasonable frontier and we must use the expensive lessons we've learned within industrial agriculture, and other commodity production fields, to get this one last global scale frontier opportunity right. We have no other rational option. Best regards, Michael On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 7:42:35 PM UTC-7, Parminder Singh wrote: > > http://newcaledoniaplants.com/plant-catalog/mangrove-plants/ > > In addition to return crops and other plants back on soil there is also > the need to return mangroves and other plants on peatlands, > salt marshes etc. Their ability to take up CO2 as much as 4 times in tidal > conditions compared to forests on land makes alot of > sense to do it. Besides they can protect the coasts against SLR and > erosion problems. > > Parminder Singh > Malaysia > > > > On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 1:29:08 AM UTC+8, andrewjlockley wrote: >> >> http://www.thestarphoenix.com/touch/story.html?id=10331200 >> >> Soft geoengineering could mitigate change >> >> BY PAUL HANLEY, THE STARPHOENIX OCTOBER 28, 2014 >> >> Climate change looms over our children's future. >> >> For those not confident in global targets to reduce C02 emissions, >> geoengineering - the deliberate large-scale intervention in the Earth's >> natural systems to counteract climate change - offers a last-ditch >> solution.Proposals have been made to fertilize or increase the alkalinity >> of the oceans in order to increase carbon absorption or to release >> stratospheric aerosols to block sunlight and cool the atmosphere. While >> such proposals are rightly met with skepticism - if not fear - we should >> acknowledge that burning fossil fuels, deforestation and cultivation are >> inadvertent forms of "reverse geoengineering." >> >> The American soil scientist Rattan Lal and others argue that restoring >> vegetation on degraded lands and increasing soil organic carbon (SOC) on >> existing farmland has the potential to sequester sufficient CO2 to >> substantially mitigate climate change if done on a large scale. This form >> of "soft geoengineering" is a safe, win-win solution, since land >> restoration and soil improvement also restore watersheds, foster >> biodiversity, improve productivity and assist with rural poverty reduction. >> >> The potential to reduce climate change by sequestering atmospheric C02 in >> soil and vegetation is huge.Photosynthesis converts 112 billion tons of >> atmospheric CO2 into biomass annually. (By comparison, only nine billion >> tons of carbon emissions are produced from fossil fuel combustion.) >> However, almost all of the CO2 synthesized by plants is returned back to >> the atmosphere through plant and soil respiration.According to Lal, if 10 >> per cent of what plants photosynthesize annually - about 11 billion tons - >> could be retained in the biosphere, it would be possible to balance the >> global carbon budget, halting climate change. >> >> Lal explains that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 from fossil-fuel >> combustion and land-use changes has increased by 30 per cent since 1750, >> resulting in gradual global warming. Since the Industrial Revolution, >> global emissions of carbon are estimated at around 270 billion tons due to >> fossil-fuel combustion and about 136 billion tons due to land-use change >> and soil cultivation.Emissions due to land-use change include those from >> deforestation, biomass burning, conversion of natural ecosystems to >> agriculture, drainage of wetlands and soil cultivation. Depletion of the >> SOC pool has contributed around 78 billion tons of carbon to the >> atmosphere. Some cultivated soils have lost one-half to two-thirds of the >> original SOC.The depletion of SOC is accentuated by soil degradation and >> exacerbated by land misuse and soil mismanagement. >> >> Soil is the third-largest carbon sink after oceans and fossil fuels. Soil >> contains 4.5 times the sequestration capacity of all vegetation (including >> trees) and 3.3 times that of the atmosphere.While Rattan Lal estimates that >> 10 to 20 per cent of annual greenhouse gas emissions could be removed each >> year by sequestering carbon in cultivated land, a study by the Rodale >> Institute was more optimistic. It states, "multiple research efforts verify >> that practical organic agriculture if practised on the planet's 3.5 billion >> tillable acres, could sequester nearly 40 per cent of our current CO2 >> emissions." >> >> Even by the more conservative estimate, carbon farming holds significant >> potential to mitigate climate change. >> >> The global potential of SOC sequestration through the application of >> recommended management practices on a large scale, at an average of one ton >> per hectare year, is one billion tons of carbon per year, which would >> offset one-fourth to one-third of the total human-caused annual net >> increase in atmospheric CO2, estimated at 3.3 billion tons per year.The >> cumulative potential of SOC sequestration over 25 to 50 years could be as >> much as 60 billion tons, close to half of all emissions from land-use >> changes since 1750.The potential of soil sequestration to mitigate climate >> change of course depends on the extent of the application of recommended >> practices. >> >> Some 1.5 billion hectares of land are currently under cultivation. There >> is an optimum range of SOC concentration of two to three per cent in the >> root zone of most soil types. Given that cultivation has generally led to >> substantial decreases in SOC, most soils can benefit from increased SOC >> formation. >> >> On top of that is the vast potential to increase SOC formation in >> billions of hectares of deforested, degraded and desertified lands should >> they be reclaimed. >> >> © Copyright (c) The Starphoenix >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
