on the move

Last week it was reported that there was some research indicating that the release of iron sulfate into the ocean could trap some carbon dioxide.  

As a result, a group of scientists wanted to dump large amounts of iron sulfate in the coeans off the Antarctic, as an experiment, to see if the theory could be proven.  Many warned that this should not be done in haste, as there was not enough evidence of the affect to the surrounding areas.

It seems that the warnings have gone unnoticed, because a ship from Germany is currently headed to the region to dump its contents, according to Nature News.  This has raised much concern.  No one knows who “approved” this mission and some feel it violates international law.  The United Nations put a moratorium on such experiments until more data was gathered of the potential consequences.

The body recommended that until a “global, transparent and effective control and regulatory mechanism is in place for these activities”, only small-scale scientific studies in coastal waters should be exempted.

Which is why the approval of this is such a surprise.  Another criticism for why this may have undergone fast approval: American companies interested in using this as a way to sell carbon offsets.

Companies in America and Australia are looking at this experiment very closely to see if it can be used as a way to sell offsets to the citizenry.  Offsets are controversial as they are seen as ways to continue to live a gluttonous lifestyle, without the guilt.  But companies that sell offsets are under investigation to see if they actually do what they promise.

This is a topic that will be on our radar for the days to come.

miracle plant?

When you think of global warming certain images always come to mind: polar bears, penguins, clear cutting, and the ever melting icebergs.

However, the melting of the icebergs, may be creating a global warming paradox. Those melting bergs may just be a key to saving our planet, so says some researchers in the Antarctic, on the HMS Endurance.

They have found that when the icebergs melt, small particles of iron are being released into the water. Those particles are feeding algae, which in turn blooms, and sucks up all the extra CO2.

Due to this finding there is a push for researchers to be allowed to dump massive amounts of iron sulfate into the oceans to prove that the hypothesis is accurate. Doing this would create an algae bloom that would be big enough to see from space. However, many environmentalists are warning that this experiment should not happen. Siting that the excess amount of iron sulfate may do irreparable damage to an already failing ecosystem.

Regardless, the new findings are compelling enough that the scientists have been granted approval by the UN to proceed with the experiement.

The aim is to discover whether artificially fertilising the area will create more algae in the Great Southern Ocean. That ocean is an untapped resource for soaking up CO2 because it doesn’t have much iron, unlike other seas.

It covers 20million square miles, and scientists say that if this could all be treated with iron, the resulting algae would remove three-and-a-half gigatons of carbon dioxide. This is equivalent to one eighth of all emissions annually created by burning fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal.

It would also be equal to removing all carbon dioxide emitted from every power plant, chimney and car exhaust in the rapidly expanding industries of India and Japan.

Of course, the experts warn it is too early to say whether it will work. This entire exercise may be for nought. And, the flip side is that if it doesn’t work, we may be in more trouble than we are in now. Oceans are not isolated boxes, whatever is done in the ocean will have an affect on the surrounding areas. As stated that ocean is unaccustomed to having large amounts of iron present, and ecosystems have flourished, as a result. If the algae does not bloom, there could be damage due to a high level of iron. Or, the blooming could cause unnecessary resource depletion resulting in mass extinction of otherwise healthy species.

Or, it could all work out and global warming and the increase of CO2 in our atmosphere is resolved.

HERE is the article, via The Daily Mail.

how do we save our planet?

The United Kingdom seems to be a leader in environmental reporting. A very interesting piece came out of the Independent this week, asking the world’s leading climate scientists what can be done to save our planet.

The results are very interesting. Getting input from 44 people across the globe, would, obviously result in a wide range of opinions.

Below are a sampling of some of the more compelling, but going to the article, HERE, is recommended.

Professor Chris Rapley, director of the Science Museum, London: I am not enthusiastic about geo-engineering, as to intervene on a massive scale in the Earth’s climate system will certainly have unforeseen consequences, some of which could be as regrettable as the problem the intervention was designed to address in the first place. This is why Jim Lovelock and I have been encouraging thought and exploration of means to “help the Earth help itself”; i.e. by amplifying carbon sequestration processes that the Earth already practises – in the ocean and on land.

Professor John Latham, US National Centre for Atmospheric Research: Since CO2 levels seem certain to rise for a long time, we think it vital to examine geo-engineering schemes for stabilizing Earth’s temperature for long enough to allow alternative, clean forms of energy to be developed.

Professor James Shulmeister, University of Canterbury, New Zealand: There is NO prospect of getting cuts in emissions of the scale needed to have a large impact on the problem. We need all the cuts we can get but we also need to engineer ourselves out of the problem. However, geoengineering on its own is NOT the solution.

Frank Schwing, National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration, US Department of Commerce: I am more optimistic about global reduction efforts because the new Obama Administration in the US is poised to be a world leader in this effort, and because the public groundswell for such an effort is growing rapidly. Regarding geoengineering, we clearly will need some concerted and effective efforts to engineer our way to reduced greenhouse gas levels. However, I am concerned that the public, and governments, will see such efforts as a panacea, thereby eliminating the need for public action to reduce emissions.

Steven Sherwood, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut: At the present time, I do not know of any geoengineering strategy that I feel would ever be worth implementing. For example, the most popular idea (creation of stratospheric aerosols) would render us susceptible to a devastating climate whiplash if the program were ever halted. However, as a matter of principle I believe that such strategies should be carefully studied, their merits and defects weighed and discussed, and better alternatives sought. International agreements on how to decide on geoengineering need to be put in place before such actions are seriously contemplated, rather than after.”

lights, camera, action!

I have written about the large amount of environmental waste created in making a movie. It has always been hard for me to reconcile my feelings about wanting to see a movie and being entertained and knowing what was damaged in the process of making that film or show. I have never been able to reconcile the amount of waste when it goes to making something that has no societal value (many of the current television shows)

That is why I was happy to read an article about the steps the movie industry is trying to make to lessen its impact on our home. In a way, it is about time. I mean with many of the celebrities being the face of environmental awareness, I have thought that it was hypocritical that it has taken so long. And, they are kind of called out on it:

“While celebrities have long been environmental activists, studios and production companies have been cautious about adopting the green philosophy as it applies to their business operations,” says Zahava Stroud, of iHollywood Forum

However there has been a switch and I see it as hopeful:

“There’s no question that shooting on location uses a lot of energy, and we’re looking at ways to reduce our impact… running tests with biodiesel fuel and solar energy to power our production equipment, and exploring new technologies such as more efficient LED lighting and using digital cameras,” said Jim Kennedy, a spokesman at Sony Pictures.

I think that it is time that many of these people walked the walk that they keep talking. I know, that in any industry, it is hard to change standard operating procedures. It is long overdue and I hope they embrace a new direction.

HERE is the whole article.

great blog

I found another fantastic blog that I want to direct your attention to… SUSTAINABLOG. And, more specifically, THIS article.

well, on the bright side…

Good news for shipping companies… they now can map shorter distances, by thousands of miles, for their sea bound journeys.

Bad news for us…. it’s because the the Arctic just became an island.

click here for the article.