Rule three of offsets: No geo-engineering

Smacking down a bad idea

Posted by Joseph Romm (Guest Contributor) at 4:27 PM on 27 Jul 2007

I know you've all been eagerly waiting for this (don't worry, I don't have many more rules). I got sidetracked by last week's offset hearing.

Offset projects should deliver climate benefits with high confidence -- that's a key reason trees make lousy offsets, especially non-urban, non-tropical trees. An even more dubious source of offsets is geo-engineering, which is "the intentional large scale manipulation of the global environment" (PDF) to counteract the effects of global warming.

As John Holdren, President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, noted in 2006 (PDF), "The 'geo-engineering' approaches considered so far appear to be afflicted with some combination of high costs, low leverage, and a high likelihood of serious side effects."

The only reason for this rule is that a company, Planktos, wants to sell offset credits for carbon that is supposedly sequestered when iron is seeded in the ocean to create algae blooms. Seriously. (This is the same company that is selling trees as offsets to the Vatican.)

This is such a dubious idea that 18 leading experts from 13 countries, who comprise the Scientific Steering Committee of the Surface Ocean-Lower Atmosphere Study (SOLAS) -- a lead-in group studying the ocean-atmosphere system -- went to the trouble of issuing a "Position Statement on Large-Scale Ocean Fertilisation" last month:

Large-scale fertilisation of the ocean is being actively promoted by various commercial organisations as a strategy to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels. However, the current scientific evidence indicates that this will not significantly increase carbon transfer into the deep ocean or lower atmospheric CO2. Furthermore, there may be negative impacts of iron fertilization including dissolved oxygen depletion, altered trace gas emissions that affect climate and air quality, changes in biodiversity, and decreased productivity in other oceanic regions. It is then critical and essential that robust and independent scientific verification is undertaken before large-scale fertilisation is considered. Given our present lack of knowledge, the judgement of the SOLAS SSC is that ocean fertilisation will be ineffective and potentially deleterious, and should not be used as a strategy for offsetting CO2 emissions.

Ouch.

In 2001, ocean scientists Sallie Chisholm, Paul Falkowski, and John Cullen wrote an article in Science, "Dis-Crediting Ocean Fertilization" (sub. req'd). They point out the leakage problem:

Despite the claims of the proponents, carbon sequestration from ocean fertilization is not easily verified. Besides measuring carbon flux profiles and comparing them with a control basin, one would have to determine what fraction of the natural stores of N [nitrogen] and P [phosphorus] used up in the fertilized patch would no longer be available for phytoplankton growth in downstream ocean regions. This would require complex numerical models of large-scale ocean physics and biogeochemistry, the predictions of which cannot be validated through small perturbations such as patch fertilizations.

They also note that while "no single application" of small-scale fertilizations subsidized by carbon credits "would cause sustained ecosystem damage":

But if it is profitable for one, it would be profitable for many, and the cumulative effects of many such implementations would result in large-scale consequences -- a classic "tragedy of the commons."

One simple way to avert this potential tragedy is to remove the profit incentive for manipulation of the ocean commons. We suggest that ocean fertilization, in the open seas or territorial waters, should never become eligible for carbon credits.

Double ouch.

We may some day need to pursue geo-engineering, but (1) only after we have exhausted every plausible mitigation strategy, and (2) only after we have done rigorous, small-scale experiments to prove its safety and effectiveness. But geo-engineering projects should certainly not be sold to the public any time soon as carbon offsets.

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

For story: Rule three of offsets: No geo-engineering
5 Comments | Post a Comment

Hey let's farm seaweed!

I agree that using ferrous oxide and other compounds (not pure iron, mind you) would be polluting the oceans in the name of false carbon credits.

I haven't researched this very well, but some folks such as in Japan actually farm seaweed. I'm serious. As plant, it does its carbon absorption thing. It seeds itself and dies every year.

So then they take the seaweed up onto the beaches and do several things with it, all good.

Drying and burning it as a renewable energy source in a boiler. Seems old fashioned, but seaweed can burn pretty dang hot and no petroleum products are used, except maybe some natural gas to get things going.
Eating the stuff and using it for consumer products. We don't eat much seaweed but I like it in some oriental dishes, and plus the stuff can be used in all kinds of products, amazingly. Sold in some alternative vitamin stores as well.
Fertilizing with it. This actually has some American roots along the coastlines, since as late as WWII people were hauling seaweed onto the breach to be dried, and to allow natural rain to reduce the salt content. Then throw it on the fields as a soil conditioner and fertilizer. Great stuff.
Brewing. Whoa, don't forget this one, certain kinds of moss seaweed make excellent products for helping clarify beer on the cool-down cycle, the "break." I use two heaping spoons of Irish Moss per 5 gallons.
One heck of a clam bake. This classic Indian inspired method requires a beach fire pit with lots of rocks in the bottom with a huge amount of coals; seaweed is put on top of layers having clams, fish, lobsters, corn, and whatever works.
Making a bullwhip from Pacific kelp roots - now how cool is that?

I'd better stop before I get carried away. Seaweed is useful and the idea of creating biomass and then using it seems cool. I'm no expert and I'm heard that invasive aquatic species are taking over from the "good" kinds of seaweed, although its extent is not clear in my mind. /sammie

Onward through the fog

by Sam Wells at 9:22 PM on 27 Jul 2007

Joseph

You don't know where I can listen to an archived version of that hearing's webcast do you? Being a government run web site, devoid of a profit motive, they of course have not bothered to provide an archive of such trivial events to keep interested parties informed and coming back for more, or at least have hidden it well.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

by biodiversivist at 10:28 AM on 29 Jul 2007

soil the solution

That trees make lousy offsets may be unpopular but it is correct. Trees hold carbon, but not that much, and for not that long before decay or fire returns it to the atmosphere. Making a tree into a valuable wood floor will hold the carbon out of the atmosphere for another century or so. Making a tree into a house, or a library, or something else of value, is the best way to watch over the carbon.

Soil, even in its presently depleted state, holds more carbon than the atmosphere and all the world's vegetation combined. The best thing about soil is that it's a proven sink, we influence it greatly, and soil carbon is a tremendous asset as organic matter. We can feed soil with carbon using perennial grasses (mainly in temperate climates) using current solar energy. It's proven, it works. Let's not use it to offset more fossil fuel burning. Let's use it to stop global warming.

Details at www.biospheremedia.org

soilcarboncoalition.org

by Peter Donovan at 5:48 PM on 29 Jul 2007

Most recent science is more positive

In 2007, two very positive papers on iron fertilization came out. Boyd (Nature) and Buesseler (Science) demonstrated that phytoplankton blooms can cause significant carbon export to the deep ocean. It's interesting to note that the most recent paper cited by SOLAS came from 2005. Iron fertilization is a "hot" topic in oceanography these days, so expect a rapid increase in the state of knowledge about the process. SOLAS does mention that this is necessary.

Another interesting paper came out in Science last week, which demonstrated that mineral dust from melting icebergs has significant biologic benefits on the local food chain. Apparently, mineral dust lands on ice as it forms high on the Antarctic continent. When that ice eventually melts as an iceberg, this dust is released and stimulates the local plankton because of the beneficial effects of iron. The krill eat the plankton, and also increase in numbers, which feeds everything that eats krill (fish, baleen whales). The paper noticed an increased population of birds around the bergs, which eat the fish. This is discussed in Time magazine this week:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1647451, ...

According to this study, it sure seems like natural iron fertilization has positive effects on the food chain in the antarctic, and I think that humans could figure out beneficial ways to stimulate it as a way to solve global warming. It's not the only solution, but it sure seems like a natural one that can be applied in parallel with energy efficiency and renewable energy.

by kwhilden at 9:09 PM on 29 Jul 2007

Rule #3

I've been following most of Romm's posts with my own commentary, but I don't really have much to add to this one. I agree, geoengineering is not a first or even a second recourse, and the experts have spoken with a pretty clear voice on iron fertilization.

I do want to point out, though, that as far as I know, there really aren't any offsets available from geo-engineering projects. Certainly there aren't any in the compliance markets. I think Planktos briefly tried to offer some in the voluntary market, but then stopped, probably in response to criticism. So unless I'm mistaken, this rule is more theoretical than practical.

www.terrapass.com/blog

by Adam Stein at 7:16 PM on 30 Jul 2007

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.