"Give me half a tanker of iron and I’ll give you the next ice age." What if there was a way to capture more CO2 than we’ve ever dreamed, reduce the surface dedicated to farmland, plant more trees, increase life around the world, solve world hunger, grow the economy, and make money along the way?
Excellent summary on helping ocean deserts bloom and sequester carbon. Phytoplankton feeds the food chain When those animals respire below 100m (e.g. anchovies at night) that CO2 dissolves and stays in solution for decades, even 100s of years. When organic matter from decaying zooplankton and diatoms remineralize into their base elements, that carbon sequesters for generations. When iron is added and phytoplankton grows, the blooms often attract fish and whales that cause vertical mixing. This brings nitrogen and nutrients from deeper levels to the surface which can keep the bloom going. Mimicking nature by adding iron and missing minerals is an inexpensive way to sequester carbon and help restore our oceans. Kevin Wolf, Co-chair Ocean Iron Fertilizatioin Alliance, https://oifalliance.org kevinjwolf @ gmail.com
Living in the Sonoran desert of Tucson, here is the biggest problem. While obviously we need water and more of it, we lack an essential ingredient - Humidity.
Even fully watered plants will desiccate by mid day in our 95 to 105F, 5 to 15% RH. And we have dust.
Very interesting! Caution seems justified, however. Given the complexity of oceanic currents, upwelling, downwelling, thermoclines, wind patterns, etc there is high potential for local manipulations spreading out and for unintended consequences. Here in the Pacific Northwest salmon farming seemed like a good idea. But there are many incidences of farmed fish escaping and breeding with wild salmon, to the detriment of the wild fish gene pool. These farms also becomes sources of pollution from food wastage and salmon excretion, and this can lead to undesired algal blooms. Agricultural run-off shows how too much nitrogen can devastate local marine life. This isn't to say that we shouldn't explore the ideas you discuss, but it is prudent to use caution. In the mean time a proven way to increase marine protein production is to set catch limits in traditionally rich fishing grounds or place them off limits for a few years. There are numerous examples of wild fish stocks recovering spectacularly if given the chance and then fished at sustainable levels.
So why don't commercial organisations invest in seeding the ocean?
Because the reward is earned by every business that jumps on the opportunity. The investor pays, but only gets a part of the return.
I live near a beach that is being eroded. If someone built a submerged reef then the beach would grow instead of being eroded, and everyone would win. But the individual businesses can only see the short bit of beach in front of them. They build a concrete wall which makes the erosion worse.
This sort of action needs governmental intervention. But even national governments will see this size of action as benefiting the neighbours instead of their own national GDP.
As we now know, the UN is a useless and counter-productive body that needs to be dissolved and replaced by something else. Maybe we need continental sized versions of the UN.
Excellent presentation, marine traffic crossing those empty areas can be a solution in spreading nutrients on ocean surface, I'm just workin on this...Even a seasonal lasting bloom provide in reducinc Co 2.
I think it sounds like a great idea but what would be the unintended consequences that we do not know yet or have not thought about. I believe the below book gives a few great examples of something that started as a good idea ended up creating a disaster.
The above book also talks about other ideas such as "geoengineering," where global warming is countered not by reducing fossil fuels but by literally rewiring the atmosphere. As Kolbert shows, the lurking, unintended consequences geoengineering can be pretty frightening. One plan to cool the planet by spraying tiny sunlight-reflecting particles high into the air would turn the sky from blue to white.
I believe that only doing the above things won't be enough even they work and have a limit the unintended consequences. We will have to reduce our consumption.
Here is the quote from Jorgen Randers:
“Humanity’s main problem is luxury carbon and biosphere consumption, not population. The places where population is rising fastest have extremely small environmental footprints per person compared with the places that reached peak population many decades ago.”
I have seen the seabed damage caused by net fishing. It is utterly catastrophic! Everything but everything is killed and after a few weeks the area is completely lifeless. The result is mud, sand and pebbles; an underwater desert.
Any method of fishing that drags something across the seafloor must be stopped.
Jun 21, 2023·edited Jun 21, 2023Liked by Tomas Pueyo
Sorry to nitpick, but I wanted to add a comment about this sentence: “Fish protein could replace much less environmentally-friendly meat. This would allow us to reclaim pasture (and farmland for animal feed) and convert it back into forest.”
Cattle pastures come from deforestation only in certain parts of the world. In other parts, they are reservoirs of the last remaining parts of the prairie grasslands ecosystem. When the cattle market drops off, these pastures (which are usually marginal soil to begin with) may be converted to farmland. Natural grassland ecosystems are efficient carbon sinks which can be on parallel with forests, as carbon is pulled from the air and deposited several feet underground thanks to a dense root system. This carbon capturing effect is largely lost when grasslands are converted to farmland.
Hi Thomas. A week ago, BBC4 screened "The Witness is a Whale." I am sure you would find it as fascinating as I did. Before whaling, whales were very numerous. And they were a keystone species. And they brought nutrients from the deep to the surface, thus helping to build populations of krill, etc. - on which they later fed, of course. So, they played a big part in making sure oceans back then were not deserts. Enjoy!
Roughly fifteen years ago, during an end-of-semester engagement exercise in a bio course, I had a community college student design an alien life form he called a Plastiwhale, which functioned like a giant ocean water lily, suctioning up bottom nutrients through a long tube and photosynthesizing at the surface.
Complex ecosystems are needed with reefs and their inhabitants. Will addressing just this one factor of iron supplementation while the reefs die and inter species relationships change solve the problem ? There may be other limiting factors when the entire ecosystem is considered ? Even consider the effects of increased fishing with environmental damage and the potential of a fish epidemic like influenza or plague in humans; the ocean equivalent of the bat in transmission in new epidemics
Tomas, another great and well researched piece. It illustrates just one of the many ways that science can solve climate change. Progress is not the problem, it's the solution....if we allow it to be. I am going to add this to Risk+Progress's "Worthwhile Reads" section: https://www.lianeon.org/p/worthwhile-reads
Algae seems to be, more generally, an underappreciated resource. Some years ago, I read about companies using genetically-modified algae to produce carbon neutral hydrogen and methane fuel in vertical algae farms. It is not obvious to me why this idea has not caught on yet. Maybe you know?
I could not help but notice the perfect overlap of the dead zones in the map from the article with the plastic waste patches world map which was depicted at the local zoo, yesterday.
Have the dead zones always been dead? Is there historical date on this available?
Excellent summary on helping ocean deserts bloom and sequester carbon. Phytoplankton feeds the food chain When those animals respire below 100m (e.g. anchovies at night) that CO2 dissolves and stays in solution for decades, even 100s of years. When organic matter from decaying zooplankton and diatoms remineralize into their base elements, that carbon sequesters for generations. When iron is added and phytoplankton grows, the blooms often attract fish and whales that cause vertical mixing. This brings nitrogen and nutrients from deeper levels to the surface which can keep the bloom going. Mimicking nature by adding iron and missing minerals is an inexpensive way to sequester carbon and help restore our oceans. Kevin Wolf, Co-chair Ocean Iron Fertilizatioin Alliance, https://oifalliance.org kevinjwolf @ gmail.com
Another fascinating article!. Thanks!
Living in the Sonoran desert of Tucson, here is the biggest problem. While obviously we need water and more of it, we lack an essential ingredient - Humidity.
Even fully watered plants will desiccate by mid day in our 95 to 105F, 5 to 15% RH. And we have dust.
Very interesting! Caution seems justified, however. Given the complexity of oceanic currents, upwelling, downwelling, thermoclines, wind patterns, etc there is high potential for local manipulations spreading out and for unintended consequences. Here in the Pacific Northwest salmon farming seemed like a good idea. But there are many incidences of farmed fish escaping and breeding with wild salmon, to the detriment of the wild fish gene pool. These farms also becomes sources of pollution from food wastage and salmon excretion, and this can lead to undesired algal blooms. Agricultural run-off shows how too much nitrogen can devastate local marine life. This isn't to say that we shouldn't explore the ideas you discuss, but it is prudent to use caution. In the mean time a proven way to increase marine protein production is to set catch limits in traditionally rich fishing grounds or place them off limits for a few years. There are numerous examples of wild fish stocks recovering spectacularly if given the chance and then fished at sustainable levels.
So why don't commercial organisations invest in seeding the ocean?
Because the reward is earned by every business that jumps on the opportunity. The investor pays, but only gets a part of the return.
I live near a beach that is being eroded. If someone built a submerged reef then the beach would grow instead of being eroded, and everyone would win. But the individual businesses can only see the short bit of beach in front of them. They build a concrete wall which makes the erosion worse.
This sort of action needs governmental intervention. But even national governments will see this size of action as benefiting the neighbours instead of their own national GDP.
As we now know, the UN is a useless and counter-productive body that needs to be dissolved and replaced by something else. Maybe we need continental sized versions of the UN.
Excellent presentation, marine traffic crossing those empty areas can be a solution in spreading nutrients on ocean surface, I'm just workin on this...Even a seasonal lasting bloom provide in reducinc Co 2.
I think it sounds like a great idea but what would be the unintended consequences that we do not know yet or have not thought about. I believe the below book gives a few great examples of something that started as a good idea ended up creating a disaster.
https://www.amazon.com/Under-White-Sky-Nature-Future/dp/0593136284/ref=sr_1_1?crid=QIS74LEJ8FML&keywords=under+the+white+sky&qid=1688263302&sprefix=under+the+whi%2Caps%2C239&sr=8-1
The above book also talks about other ideas such as "geoengineering," where global warming is countered not by reducing fossil fuels but by literally rewiring the atmosphere. As Kolbert shows, the lurking, unintended consequences geoengineering can be pretty frightening. One plan to cool the planet by spraying tiny sunlight-reflecting particles high into the air would turn the sky from blue to white.
I believe that only doing the above things won't be enough even they work and have a limit the unintended consequences. We will have to reduce our consumption.
Here is the quote from Jorgen Randers:
“Humanity’s main problem is luxury carbon and biosphere consumption, not population. The places where population is rising fastest have extremely small environmental footprints per person compared with the places that reached peak population many decades ago.”
I have seen the seabed damage caused by net fishing. It is utterly catastrophic! Everything but everything is killed and after a few weeks the area is completely lifeless. The result is mud, sand and pebbles; an underwater desert.
Any method of fishing that drags something across the seafloor must be stopped.
Sorry to nitpick, but I wanted to add a comment about this sentence: “Fish protein could replace much less environmentally-friendly meat. This would allow us to reclaim pasture (and farmland for animal feed) and convert it back into forest.”
Cattle pastures come from deforestation only in certain parts of the world. In other parts, they are reservoirs of the last remaining parts of the prairie grasslands ecosystem. When the cattle market drops off, these pastures (which are usually marginal soil to begin with) may be converted to farmland. Natural grassland ecosystems are efficient carbon sinks which can be on parallel with forests, as carbon is pulled from the air and deposited several feet underground thanks to a dense root system. This carbon capturing effect is largely lost when grasslands are converted to farmland.
Good points with which I agree.
Hi Thomas. A week ago, BBC4 screened "The Witness is a Whale." I am sure you would find it as fascinating as I did. Before whaling, whales were very numerous. And they were a keystone species. And they brought nutrients from the deep to the surface, thus helping to build populations of krill, etc. - on which they later fed, of course. So, they played a big part in making sure oceans back then were not deserts. Enjoy!
Roughly fifteen years ago, during an end-of-semester engagement exercise in a bio course, I had a community college student design an alien life form he called a Plastiwhale, which functioned like a giant ocean water lily, suctioning up bottom nutrients through a long tube and photosynthesizing at the surface.
https://evostudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Hayes_Vol5Iss1.pdf
Complex ecosystems are needed with reefs and their inhabitants. Will addressing just this one factor of iron supplementation while the reefs die and inter species relationships change solve the problem ? There may be other limiting factors when the entire ecosystem is considered ? Even consider the effects of increased fishing with environmental damage and the potential of a fish epidemic like influenza or plague in humans; the ocean equivalent of the bat in transmission in new epidemics
Tomas, another great and well researched piece. It illustrates just one of the many ways that science can solve climate change. Progress is not the problem, it's the solution....if we allow it to be. I am going to add this to Risk+Progress's "Worthwhile Reads" section: https://www.lianeon.org/p/worthwhile-reads
Algae seems to be, more generally, an underappreciated resource. Some years ago, I read about companies using genetically-modified algae to produce carbon neutral hydrogen and methane fuel in vertical algae farms. It is not obvious to me why this idea has not caught on yet. Maybe you know?
I could not help but notice the perfect overlap of the dead zones in the map from the article with the plastic waste patches world map which was depicted at the local zoo, yesterday.
Have the dead zones always been dead? Is there historical date on this available?
I guess those cooperatives were in the USA. I have some doubts that the European fisheries could ever agree.
Do you really want to sequester huge amounts of carbon ? What will the plants up top eat?
We need more CO2 in the atmosphere not less
https://youtu.be/LmmmgiPha_Y