Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

A Plankton-based Carbon Offset

By

I’m not sure that dumping tons of iron powder in the ocean is going to stop ‘climate change’, but I am hopeful it can reduce atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide:

“The first commercial venture into growing vast plankton blooms big enough to suck carbon from the atmosphere starts this month.

Tons of powdered iron will be poured into the Pacific to induce the growth of blooms big enough to be seen from space. The scheme’s backers believe that the iron seeding technique could radically reduce the carbon in the atmosphere and will open up a multimillion-pound carbon-offsetting industry. Simultaneously, they hope to reverse the decline in plankton levels, which are estimated to have fallen by at least 9 per cent in the past two decades.

Iron seeding is thought to work because it provides a crucial nutrient for plankton growth that is missing or in short supply in up to 70 per cent of the world’s oceans.

As the phytoplankton multiplies it will absorb large quantities of carbon and, if the trials are a success, much of it will sink to the seabed when the microscopic plants die and sink…

Read the complete article here: http://timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1739124.ece .

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Ann Novek says

    Excuse me Jennifer, but this proposal to dump tons of irons into the ocenas to promote plankton blooming seems really crazy in my opinion.

    Isn’t an excess of iron btw toxic???

  2. Nexus 6 says

    Ummmmmm…..why would you be hopeful that it’s going to reduce levels of atmospheric CO2 if your not sure it’s going to stop climate change?

    Do you think it will markedly slow the rate of warming or does atmospheric CO2 have some negative properties we don’t know about?

  3. Ian Mott says

    This use of the oceans as a carbon abatement strategy highlights the importance of including natural fluxes on both land and territorial oceans in national carbon budgets.

    Clearly, the operators of this experiment are doing so with the intention of gaining some sort of carbon credit from this activity. This one is in international waters so there would be no issues of sovereignty.

    But if one were to succeed in producing a massive plankton bloom then it would be basic prudence to do so in a location where one could have exclusive access to the resulting increase in other marine organisms that would take advantage of this new food chain.

    The most successful abatement measures would be those that combine those aims with other compatible commercial objectives. This would not be the case if every other nation’s fishing fleets took a shine to your newly created marine resource.

    Whether they want to or not, the IPCC will eventually have to get their little minds around the issue of contributive territorial oceans and stop this silly pretending that all all oceans are planetary commons.

  4. Ann Novek says

    Actually , I’m a bit worried about uncontrolled plankton bloomings as some might produce some very lethal toxins.

    The toxins can be lethal to copepods as well to bigger animals such as sea birds and marine mammals.

    What proof do we have that these plankton bloomings are harmless and not producing toxins???

  5. Ann Novek says

    There is as well another drawback with pythoplankton that blooms and decomposes on the sea bottoms. The vast amounts of pythoplankton that decompose will consume lots of oxygen that will destroy bottoms and fish habitats etc.

    Now this experiment will take place in the pelagic zone and there seems not to be so much experience on harmful plankton bloomings in pelagic waters as there are in more coastal areas.

  7. Lawrie says

    There has to be a legion of potential downsides to this kind of endeavour(insanity?). Where is the “science” behind all this?
    All in the name of GOREBULL WARBLING.

  8. Jim says

    I find it staggering that such unproven and potentially environmentally damaging solutions are considered when existing , proven , reliable and safe methods of dramatically reducing CO2 outputs are staring us in the face.

    Why doesn’t the literate AGW crowd throw it’s support behind nuclear energy?

    If we’re going to stick to science and leave the politics out of it then here’s an oppurtunity to demonstrate just that.

  9. Luke says

    RC have a new post on iron filings. Lots of hairs by the looks.

    Maybe some of the literate AGW crowd is up for nuclear already !

  10. steve munn says

    Huh?

    You have already told us that the extra warmth and acidification will do wonders for the ocean, so why would you want to contaminate it with tonnes of iron filings?

  11. steve munn says

    Some of the disasters that Jen’s iron fertilisation plan will potentially cause:

    “Iron addition will impact upon the source strengths of other radiative gases, such as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) via a shift towards hypoxia. Although oxygen-deplete environments are classically regarded as the significant sources of these gases, oxygen rich waters are generally supersaturated with respect to these gases12. It would seem logical that bacterial process rates and the microsites which support these processes will increase in the surface mixed layer in response to the increased particulate carbon and heterotrophy resulting from iron fertilisation. The enhanced particle export will lead to increases in rates of methanogenesis, denitrification and nitrification in the mid and deep water, and consequently will increase production of both methane and nitrous oxide gases. However, the transport of these biogases to the atmosphere would occur over relatively long time scales.”

    “There is a danger of creating oxygen-deficient areas in deeper and adjacent waters resulting from increased microbial respiration. The study of Orr and Sarmiento (1992) suggests that this is likely if their figure of only 0.44 Gt C yr-1 is sequestered by macroalgal farms. Not only does this have important implications for the use of the ocean as a food resource, there is also the potential for increased fluxes of CH4 and N2O from the ocean to the atmosphere (Fuhrman and Capone 1991). Both of these gases are greenhouse gases (see introduction) and might well counteract any benefits accruing from CO2 sequestration.”
    http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/panel-sd/position/co2/annb.htm

    Unfortunately Jen’s plan would not permanently sequester CO2 either. We would be locked into an ongoing cycle due to the problem of leakage.

  12. Arnost says

    Steve – totally agree with what you say above.

    But it’s not Jen’s plan and I doubt that she would endorse it. However, it’s symptomatic of the goupthink that CO2 is the paramount threat to gaia, and anything and everything can be (and must be) done to eliminate it – regardless of the the consequences.

    cheers

    Arnost

  14. Arnost says

    Nexus

    I thought the greenies are of the opinion that nuclear releases more CO2 than coal or something – so OBVIOUSLY that’s not an option.

    cheers

    Arnost

  15. Ann Novek says

    I believe Greenpeace’s opinion is that nuclear will have a little impact on climate change , if you don’t construct lots of reactors. That is what I have heard…. their solution is mainly wind turbines and solar.

    However, I spoke to one leading ornithologist and he complained that Greenpeace had very little knowledge about the impacts on wildlife when it came to wind turbines…. yeah, we have had that discussion as well! He said that Greenpeace had a too easy attidute on this and neglected the dangers with wind turbines, especially off shore ones….

  17. Arnost says

    Ann

    I was being flippant in response to Nexus’ comment…

    And I agree windturbines are bird-killers – I recall that here in Australia a proposed windfarm was nixed because it was in the habitat of an endangered parrot.

    There are other problems with windfarms – which I think were covered in this forum (so won’t go there) – but I think that this type of technology actually is ideal in the developing nations if the downsides (i.e. bird killing) are accepted.

    One of the biggest problems in underdeveloped nations is access to energy for simple things like light / cooking. Typically this is provided by burning wood or animal dung. Doing both has significant impact on the ecosystem. Cutting down trees for wood exposes the nutrient rich topsoil and by not ploughing the animal dung back into the soil reduces binding and does not fertilise it. Once exposed and loose, the the topsoil then either gets washed or blown away. Result – the nutrient poor substrate can’t support the agriculture required to feed the population and results in a perenial famine.

    Sunlight and wind are too dilute sources of energy to support an industrialised nation – but are perfectly adequate to support an underdeveloped one. I think that all the “experiments” with these types of energy sources don’t belong in the western world – where they are doomed to fail – but belong in places like Africa where they will do lots of good. They will provide a leg up to get these nations on to the road to prosperity.

    cheers

    Arnost

  18. Ann Novek says

    OK,OK , Arnost , I realise that you were flippant;)

    Interesting link btw about the iron dust clouds.

    So overall phytoplankton has decreased worldwide.
    But, but, where I live toxic phytoplankton blooming has increased enourmously and poses really a threat.

    The situation is even more serious in California , where seabirds, fish and marine mammals are affected by phytoplankton blooming, which contains a neurotoxin that is lethal and kills animals from fish to whales. It is a major news right now!

    So the question is , can we safely manipulate the eco-system by the way ,that the Planktos company suggests, without disturbing or harming sea bottoms, wildlife etc????

  19. Arnost says

    Ann, thanks…

    WRT to your last question – that’s why I agreed with Steve Munn’s post. I agree that it really is scary that somebody can propose manipulation of the ecosystem without a deep understanding of the ramifications. Mammon rules – IMO it’s to get access to carbon credits – exploiting a frenzied anti CO2, politically correct meme.

    WRT to the main body of your post – it happens, I will not pretend that I can answer. All I can do is ask more questions. All I know is that phytoplankton is a source of food for zooplankton which itself becomes food for the filter feeders from corals to whales. I also know that most phytoplankton is not “toxic” – in fact the vast majority is beneficial.

    But harmful algal blooms do occur – do we really understand the “great circle of life”?

    cheers

    Arnost

  21. Ian Mott says

    The really curious thing about both solar and wind power is that by far the highest users of these sources are farmers. Indeed, the windmill is still a potent symbol of rural life. And those who use these sources least are the residents of inner city electorates that record green vote levels as high as 20%.

    The delicious irony in this alternate power debate is that the city development plans, like the SEQ Regional Development Plan, has gone out of its way to prohibit the kind of housing development that will maximise the utilisation of solar power in particular.

    Under the guise of protecting “open space” etc, the prevailing fashion amongst regional plans is to stop all further acreage lot development in favour of medium density housing, infill development of vacant land in existing suburbs, and high rise.

    But it is the acreage lots that account for the majority of solar power installations and the majority of water tanks. And this is not a result of the high ideals of the lot dwellers but, rather, entirely on the economics of supply.

    The extension of mains power to a new house some 200 metres from an existing power line will routinely set the home owner back by about $20,000. And that means that their real cost of electricity is much more than the price shown on their quarterly power bills.

    Indeed, the annual total of the power bills may be $1000 but when the 8% interest on the $20,000 connection cost ($1,600) is included it adds another 22 cents to the 14 cent cost of a kWh.

    And while some owners see this connection cost as an investment that will add to the value of the property, many others simply conclude that solar power is a more economical option.

    Acreage lot owners often don’t even get the option of having mains water connected so the purchase of a substantial water tank is a given.

    So here we have Labor governments in every state in the country, and put there with green preferences, all spruiking their superior environmental credentials, and all wrestling with climate change and claimed associated water supply problems, and they have gone out of their way to eliminate the one form of housing development that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce demand from dwindling water supplies.

    Good one Pete, Maurie, Stevo, go for it fellas, gotta save that planet now, your place in history is at stake.

  22. Arnost says

    I take your point Ian – you are right.

    I accept that there is a role for solar / wind in the industrialised nations. No disrespect intended, but to a certain extent the same economics that apply to underdeveloped nations also apply to certainly the remote, and proabaly most rural areas.

    thanks for the lesson

    Arnost

  23. Ann Novek says

    I checked out what Greenpeace stated on the IPCC report.

    Their advice was renewables together with more energy efficiency using to cut CO2 emissions.

    Re nuclear power plants. It was extremely expensive and to construct a new nuclear plant will take 10 years together, with problems as safety and weapons proliferation etc.

    To use more energy efficient methods was a very cheap and clever way to cut emissions , according to Greenpeace. There seems to be a big potential for doing so….

  24. Ann Novek says

    Back again to the topic.

    Not only is it extremely difficult to manipulate the eco-system, but this Planktos experiment shows us now again how weak our protection is for the high seas. It is the Wild West out there.