Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Plan Calls for Using Oceans to Soak Up CO2
NY Times ^ | November 20, 2001 | KENNETH CHANG

Posted on 11/22/2001 1:24:02 PM PST by AdrianZ

November 20, 2001

Plan Calls for Using Oceans to Soak Up CO2; Critics Cite Perils

By KENNETH CHANG

n the continuing debate over global warming and how to fight it, some scientists and entrepreneurs advocate using the oceans as a sponge to absorb carbon dioxide from the air.

Others are saying not so fast. They argue that widespread ocean dumping of carbon dioxide could unbalance the aquatic environment.

Carbon dioxide is one of the "greenhouse gases" that trap heat. Most scientists believe that carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels is a large factor in the warming temperatures of the last century and that capping those emissions is essential for limiting future warming.

Much of the extra carbon dioxide already dissolves into the oceans, where it has no effect on temperatures. Two schemes seek to augment that natural process.

One is to catch carbon dioxide from the smokestacks of power plants before it enters the atmosphere, squeeze it into liquid form and then pump it into the deep oceans.

The other is to fertilize oceans to produce blooms of algae that pull carbon dioxide out of the air. Proponents believe that as the bloom dies off, much of the algae will sink to the ocean floor, and the carbon dioxide — transformed into plant material — would be safely subtracted from the warming equation. A private company called GreenSea Venture hopes to make a business of this.

But some scientists argue that engineering nature to avoid environmental damage inevitably causes other, perhaps greater damage.

Writing in the Oct. 12 issue of Science, Dr. Brad A. Seibel of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute in Moss Landing, Calif., and Dr. Patrick J. Walsh of the University of Miami caution that carbon dioxide could harm deep-sea creatures.

Enshrouded in perpetual cold and dark, these creatures like the anglerfish live in slow motion, their metabolisms consuming energy at as little as one-thousandth the rate of those closer to the surface. The slow metabolism makes them particularly sensitive to chemical changes in their environment, the authors say.

When carbon dioxide dissolves, it turns into carbonic acid, making the water more acidic. But biologists have observed that a change of 0.3 in the pH level in the blood of some deep sea creatures can halve the amount of oxygen. "It may not kill them," Dr. Seibel said, "but they may not be able to swim as actively as they could be before. It'd be like they were out of breath."

Damage to deep-ocean ecosystems could eventually alter the mix of nutrients and chemicals that well up from the depths. "It's still not known what the links between the deep ocean and the shallow ocean are," Dr. Seibel said. "If you damage one, you hurt the other potentially."

A small-scale experiment to pump about 40 tons of liquid carbon dioxide into the waters off Hawaii has run into stiff opposition from some environmentalists and has not received final approval.

Carbon dioxide does kill, as researchers demonstrated in even smaller-scale experiments this year in Monterey Bay.

From a small submarine, the scientists, from the Monterey Bay Research Institute, squirted about five gallons of liquid carbon dioxide into each of several small plastic pools at the bottom, 12,000 feet down. They then put cages containing five sea urchins and five sea cucumbers each about a foot and a half from the carbon dioxide pools, wanting to see how they fared compared with others in cages farther away.

When they returned three weeks later, everything in the cages next to the pools was dead. The researchers found that creatures like small crustaceans living in the nearby sediment were also injured or killed. Modifying the experiment, the researchers then placed sea urchins and sea cucumbers 6 and 15 feet away from the carbon dioxide. Those animals survived without visible injury; tissue samples are being examined for cellular damage.

"It seems CO2 injection will have detrimental effects," said Dr. James P. Barry, an associate scientist at the institute involved in the experiment. "That's almost certain. The degree of damage is the question."

These cautionary notes contrast with the views of Dr. Peter G. Brewer, a senior scientist at the research institute, who supervised the bay bottom experiments and has advocated exploring the idea of injecting carbon dioxide in the ocean. Still, he said the data deserved a full airing.

"Just as putting in a sewage outfall or drilling an oil well, there's an environmental question to be asked," Dr. Brewer said, "and people should do it in an objective way."

In a second Science article on Oct. 12, three scientists — Dr. Sallie W. Chisholm of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dr. Paul G. Falkowski of Rutgers University and Dr. John J. Cullen of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia — strongly criticize the idea of fertilizing to counter global warming.

Some parts of the oceans, primarily in the Southern Hemisphere, are full of nutrients, but sparse in sea life because of a lack of iron. Several small experiments have shown that dumping iron into these waters produces large blooms of algae.

Proponents like Dr. Michael Markels, who founded GreenSea Venture, say the proposal simply mimics a natural process, in which iron-rich dust and volcanic ash blow from land to water. "It would be minuscule in comparison to what happens naturally," Dr. Markels said.

But Dr. Chisholm contends that it is difficult to measure how much carbon sinks and that the algae blooms could suck oxygen out of the water, chasing away fish and that a profit motive would lead to reckless overfertilization.

"It's like saying: `What's so bad to adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere? There's already CO2 in the atmosphere," she said.

The GreenSea approach has not yet received widespread support, with the Department of Energy turning down its grant proposals.

GreenSea's business plan also depends on the selling of "carbon credits" proposed under the Kyoto treaty on global warming. The Bush administration has rejected the Kyoto treaty and has also objected to the concept of carbon credits.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 next last

1 posted on 11/22/2001 1:24:02 PM PST by AdrianZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: AdrianZ
Tsk, tsk!

If you read the NYT it will grow hair on your palms!!

2 posted on 11/22/2001 1:57:43 PM PST by Nitro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdrianZ
The fact is that no technological solution to the "problem" of global warming will be acceptable to the "greens". This is because they are Luddites, and it is technology and capitalism which they hate.

--Boris

3 posted on 11/22/2001 2:02:40 PM PST by boris
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boris
And I'm not too comfortable with the concept of 'squeezing' manufacturing waste into a "liquid" and dumping it in the ocean. Sounds like a toxic waste scam.
4 posted on 11/22/2001 2:05:48 PM PST by Justa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: AdrianZ
I feel an ice age coming on. Do they really thing they have the inteligence to forsee all the consequences.
5 posted on 11/22/2001 2:07:40 PM PST by hsszionist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdrianZ
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
6 posted on 11/22/2001 2:12:36 PM PST by CWRWinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
The very latest in crazy schemes, green variety...
7 posted on 11/22/2001 2:14:19 PM PST by okie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: okie01
Here's a tip. Don't do anything!

Maybe you could sell the liquid CO2 to Coke. Beyond that Mr. "Scientist", Utopian master planner, that CO2 should only be used to blow up your colon.

And you just know that tax dollars were spent producing that gaseous idea.

8 posted on 11/22/2001 2:23:39 PM PST by Thebaddog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: okie01
I was proposing this mechanism for atmospheric carbon reduciton in 1985! Of course, at that time, I thought that anthropogenic global warming was an established fact. Fifteen years have convinced me otherwise.

There is merit to improving ocean productivity if only to privide food to the world. The mechanics would be very complex and FAR BEYOND the ability of any central planning agency (that means you, IUCN).

I have proposed a management system that could work to improve ocean productivity while assuring private accountability.

Note that I did NOT say that mine was some Kyoto justified system. That whole business is, as far as I can tell, the world's most elaborate hoax. I do think it worth developing marine productivity. We have certainly hit it hard especially in the Gulf of Mexico and the Mediterranean.

9 posted on 11/22/2001 2:31:19 PM PST by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: AdrianZ
I call for using the ocean to hide the bodies of the environmentalist wackos we had to kill because they went from being annoying crackpots to being genuinely dangerous enemies of economic and political freedom.
10 posted on 11/22/2001 2:49:04 PM PST by redbaiter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdrianZ
Is this a joke? The ocean is ALREADY our lartgest CO2 Sink!!??
11 posted on 11/22/2001 2:49:33 PM PST by RaceBannon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdrianZ
"The other is to fertilize oceans to produce blooms of algae that pull carbon dioxide out of the air.'

Doesn't this contradict the proposals to prevent fertilizer runoff from farms that is "damaging" the environment ?

12 posted on 11/22/2001 3:09:59 PM PST by gatex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Justa
And I'm not too comfortable with the concept of 'squeezing' manufacturing waste into a "liquid" and dumping it in the ocean. Sounds like a toxic waste scam.

Carbon dioxide is, well, carbon dioxide. At atmospheric pressure, it's a gas above a certain temperature and a solid (i.e. dry ice) below. When compressed, however, it can exist in liquid form at normal temperatures.

There is no need for the 'funny' "quotes" in your above sentence. Liquification of carbon dioxide for storage and transport has been quite normal for many years (some fire extinguishers used to use liquid CO2 before better alternatives came along, though luddites have outlawed one of the best; CO2 canisters for beverage carbonation are filled with liquid CO2, as are those used for air guns and similar devices. Why do you find the concept of liquifying CO2 odd?

13 posted on 11/22/2001 3:46:09 PM PST by supercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: AdrianZ
I guess these folks never heard of the CO-2 cycle. Most carbon dioxide dissolved in natural waters has been becoming limestone for untold millinia. The oceans are a natural carbon dioxide sink.
14 posted on 11/22/2001 4:02:24 PM PST by zebra 2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: supercat
"There is no need for the 'funny' "quotes" in your above sentence. Why do you find the concept of liquifying CO2 odd?"

Bada-bing.

15 posted on 11/22/2001 4:50:52 PM PST by fourdeuce82d
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: AdrianZ
Fill CO2 cartridges, stick them up environmentalists butts, and launch them across the Salt Flats.
16 posted on 11/22/2001 4:52:37 PM PST by lds23
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lds23
Fill CO2 cartridges, stick them up environmentalists butts, and launch them across the Salt Flats.

OK, but only if wagering is allowed.

17 posted on 11/22/2001 5:05:12 PM PST by Moonman62
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: boris
The fact is that no technological solution to the "problem" of global warming will be acceptable to the "greens". This is because they are Luddites, and it is technology and capitalism which they hate.

Or maybe it's because there is no problem.

18 posted on 11/22/2001 5:49:01 PM PST by Valin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
Thank you, Race. You have spoken the truth again. If I had stayed in school, my doctoral thesis was going to be about nutrient renrichment of the Gulf Stream. The oceans ARE the largest CO2 sink in thew world. The limiting factor for (plant) growth in many parts of the oceans is a LACK of CO2.

Folks should learn about the science of Marine Ecology before they debunk an idea linke this out of hand.

19 posted on 11/22/2001 5:58:55 PM PST by Blueflag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: AdrianZ
We can nuke the deep sea critters first, then the ocean bottom will be nice and clean before we pump in the CO2...
20 posted on 11/22/2001 5:59:26 PM PST by lafayette76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson