Posted on 06/19/2007 6:58:34 PM PDT by fanfan
Proposal to boost plant life not a proven tactic to combat global warming, officials say
A clash with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is threatening to scuttle a U.S. company's plan to "seed" the Pacific Ocean with iron dust to offset global warming.
Planktos Inc., which has offices in Vancouver and San Francisco, wants to set sail this month from Florida to dump more than 45 tonnes of iron dust into the sea near the Galapagos Islands.
The iron nutrients would stimulate the growth of phytoplankton, which would then absorb large amounts of carbon dioxide -- an experimental process Planktos compares to reforestation. Planktos Inc. says phytoplankton, seen in bright blue and green, would be increased if iron dust was dumped in the ocean, boosting carbon dioxide absorption.
A for-profit "ecorestoration" company, Planktos plans to sell carbon credits from this type of project to firms like Vancouver's Wedgewood Hotel and Spa, which has agreed to buy 5,000 tonnes of carbon credits.
The firm launched its two-year "Voyage of Recovery" program in March, launching a public relations campaign in Washington, D.C., to promote its "green message of hope."
But in May, the EPA warned the firm it may need a permit under the U.S. Ocean Dumping Act if it uses its U.S.-registered vessel, the Weatherbird II.
Planktos CEO Russ George says U.S. regulations should apply only when a firm dumps levels of a substance that are one per cent or more above the level considered toxic.
His firm's plan would fall "roughly a billion times below regulatory limit," he said.
If the EPA stands in his way, he says he will use a flag-of-convenience ship.
Planktos' controversial plan, which has drawn fire from environmental groups and many scientists, will be on the agenda of this week's meeting of the International Maritime Organization in Spain, which sets international shipping standards for matters such as ocean dumping.
In a submission to the group, of which Canada and the U.S. are members, the U.S. government urges nations to scrutinize any such project, adding "Planktos was not able to provide the EPA with any information ... (on) the potential environmental impacts" of the plan.
The U.S. cites the possibility that the project would lead to toxic algae blooms, and that the decomposing plankton masses would release other greenhouse gases or choke off the oxygen supply in the deep ocean.
Nonsense, says Mr. George.
"The world has spent the last 20 years and more than $100 million" developing the science behind the plan, he says.
"These questions have all been addressed," he says, blaming the EPA's reservations on "fear mongering" by environmental groups, such as the Ottawa-based ETC Group, which discovered the U.S. government document this week.
Ken Caldeira, also of the Carnegie Institution, says "there's no practical way to verify" that ocean seeding would sequester any additional carbon -- and if it did, "it would exacerbate ocean acidification."
Mr. Caldeira was co-author of a section of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report that dealt with ocean-carbon capture.
"It's far-fetched to claim you help ocean ecosystems by disturbing them," he said.
Such projects are a disincentive to pursue real reductions in fossil-fuel emissions, he said.
Ping
There was an old lady who swallowed a fly.
Gee what a genius plan. derrrrrr....
Looks like someone has found a way to scam the "carbon credit" system and make big bucks. Hats off to them.
I was thinking that they were merely wrapping a green banner around ocean dumping of old iron.
thanks, bfl
Just think what they will think about this in 100 years..that some dude scammed people into paying him for dumping iron in the ocean and got pennaces for it..wow.
At worst — it’ll work. It’s like the opening scene in a disaster flick. Next scene: someone says “Oops, I guess this worked too well. Our bad.” Final scene: snowball earth.
Why does this bring to mind the dumping of thousands of tires into the ocean off of Florida? I wonder what the unintended consequences of this little experiment will be?
I say hell, go for it, can’t really hurt that much.
They are hoping to do this off the coast of Florida.
That’s the east coast, not the left coast.
;-)
Yes, screw with mother nature some more with screwball ideas!
I saw this in Popular Science, and like the idea a lot. But then, I use fertilizer, too, and think this pristine wilderness myth is nutty.
Piss in wind.
Sell carbon credits, dump iron into the sea off the Galapagos, kill the green sea turtle, an endagered species, pay your percentage to algore, and we all feel better.
Man screwing with the environment.
I think it would be much more effective if they dumped it into Hudson Bay.
Exactly.
Why don’t they build a ten million gallon tank to test the hypothesis.
It is somewhat important that this does not cause harm.
This is the eco system they claim to be trying to protect.
Not a good idea.
This is a whole lot cheaper than cutting back on our carbon dioxide emissions.
You will be able to drive your hummer, fly in the US or to other countries, heat your house with natural gas, get electricity from coal, etc. to any degree you wish. It will all be offset by carbon dioxide absorbing plankton through this plan.
This may have no effect on global climate change, which happens for other reasons such as the sun, earth's orbit, and volcanic activity.
Let me see if I have this straight. “we’ll dump iron dust in the ocean, and you can pay us millions and we’ll give you these certificates of carbon credits”.
Dang I wish I thought of that. I got lots of stuff I could dump in the ocean...
A little background on this. The ocean around Antarctica has almost no free iron, and a lot of opportunistic organisms that need iron. So a few years ago, a ship tried dumping some iron fertilizer, just to see what would happen.
Explosive growth of plankton happened. The trouble was that they did their dumping just before the storm season kicked in, so they couldn’t hang around and see what happened after.
As far as “why should that matter?”, for one thing, large amounts of plankton warm surface water by as much as a degree or two. That alone can increase the power of a hurricane by 1 category (say cat 2 to cat 3). In turn, hurricanes significantly *lower* surface water temperature.
Another plus is that when the plankton dies, it will feed lots of critters in the region, so there will be a general improvement in wildlife numbers, up the food chain.
In any event, it is highly unlikely that anything bad will happen; but lots of things can be learned and maybe some good will come of it.
Like the witch doctors of the middle ages. Come up with a hair brained cause of an illness, and then an equally hair-brained “cure,” then torture the poor patient to death.
Mass hysteria funded with tax dollars with the intention to enslave us all.
You have it straight.
On a different planet this phenomenon might be called huckstering.
Of course once this happens they'll blame it on so-called global warming and say it would have been much worse if they hadn't intervened.
LOL
While atmospheric carbon is measured in BILLIONS of tons -- and guess what? All that CO2 helps more plants grow already...which absorbs CO2.
Kind of a natural balance thing.
I don’t understand the science behind it, it just seems weird to ‘dump’ a ton or two of iron shavings, or powder into the ocean.
It doesn’t seem like the smartest thing to do.
Al Gore, I'm holding you accountable, you have the sap of dead baby trees on your hands.
Ah, now we have the harebrained schemes coming to fore. This meme has about run its course apparently.
Back in the 1970’s, we were going to dump ash and dust on the polar caps to encourage warming.
Back then, it was an ice age that we were fearing. A lot can change in a geological second, can’t it?
we used to call it "talking out the trash" now "carbon credits"
That's got to be worth billions in carbon credits.
Pay me.
It's not just that Dr.
I'm visualizing all these little fish with little iron hats. Poor fish.
Whales eat phytoplankton, whales fart and create lots of methane - a "greenhouse" gas.
James Hansen was willing to sign off on injecting methane into the stratosphere to increase ozone production to offset the ozone loss from chlorine and bromine compounds until he figured out that he had no way to get them there.
It depends on what your goal is. If you want to "stop climate change" it is just plain silly. The climate always changes and we can't stop that. Moreover, if we could influence the direction of climate, warm seems much better then cold, ice ages really suck. Also having more CO2 in the atmosphere is better then less, it makes for more plant life, which means more food for animals and people.
If its simply intended as a cynical scam, then maybe it is smart.
My advertisement to greens: I live on 70 acres of hardwood forest-—rent one (or more) of my trees and assuage your guilt.
The Western world is cracking up.
The idea will very probably work but, because everyone could keep on driving their SUVs, the econazis won’t have it.
If the U.S. Navy torpedoes their boat, does Dubya get the carbon offset credits for the cargo and the ship’s hull?
ping
Whale fart, so that’s what the blowhole expunges?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.