Global Warming - Planktos ?

Question

What do you think about this company's idea of slowing global warming by creating more plankton to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere?
I read that environmental groups are worried that Planktos may make a profit by seeding and feeding the seas. So what? Gas companies and car manufacturers make big profits by releasing CO2, why shouldn't Planktos make a profit by reducing it?
Besides taking CO2 out of the atmosphere, plankton is a foodsource for multitudes of creatures, and wouldn't a blanket of plankton also cool the water (I heard that warmer water accelerates global warming)?
IMO I think we should back this guy up and investors should buy his stock, so he can get on with his work!

Trevor - I do agree with what you say - and 10 billion tons to slow it down is at least a turn in the right direction, IMO!

Answer 1

Planktos is a profit making company; it makes no secret of this. Its business model is that of a for-profit publicly traded company. Seems a bit odd to criticise them for doing something they've already openly declared.

There are two approaches to seeding the oceans in order to produced increased amounts of phytoplankton. The approach adopted by Planktos is to seed the ocean with tiny iron filings, this enriches the water with much needed iron and makes a more conducive environment for the phytoplankton to breed. The other approach is similar but enriches the oceans by releasing urea on the seabed - same result but different method.

Planktos have already run trials and the success of them depends very much on whom you speak to. From an independent point of view I'd say they met with moderate success but have the potential to advance.

The idea behind ocean seeding is to increase the numbers of phytoplankton, tiny marine plants that absorb carbon dioxide through photosynthesis. When the plants die they sink to the ocean bottom taking the carbon with them. A similar land based scheme has been tried using algae.

Unlike some ideas that have been proposed for controlling the climate, this one does at least have a degree of controllability about it and is one of the least expensive options. However, current research (not by Planktos) suggests that the maximum amount of additional CO2 that could be sequestered from the atmosphere each year is about 10 billion tons. This would slow down global warming but not stop it; to do this a reduction of 40 billion tons per year would be required.

There are many other geoengineering schemes that are being considered, if this scheme were implemented as part of the approach to tackling climate change then it could prove to be beneficial.

Answer 2

This is an interesting topic (great question). To tell you the truth, I haven't figured out what my opinion is. I'll tell you my thoughts.

The last time temperatures rose to the kind of temperatures we are now approaching, all life on earth died out back to the level of the single celled green plants, It took nearly 10,000 years to accomplish that by natural causes. We're halfway to the goal in less than 200 years! Species are going extinct at the rate of 3 per hour, faster than any6 natural mass extinction known. If we cut to the chase right now, and poured all our resources into plankton, would that stop or slow Climate Change? Or would it just give the plankton a slightly better chance of surviving the environmental disaster? It was after all the plankton which first removed the CO2 in the air and replaced it with Oxygen, allowing more advanced forms of life to develop. It took HALF of the time life has existed for the single celled green plant to developed. Everything else came in the second half. If they make it through the catastrophe, life could return to the land in a few hundred million years, as it did the other time temperatures reached these levels. Without the algae, life would have to develop all over again from scratch. That would take billions of years, as it did the first time.

One thing that's easy to observe is that if you poison any body of water not quite to the point of sterilization, algae completely takes over. I work with two waterways in my area, the Little Blue River, and the Lazy Branch Creek. The Lazy Branch is very polluted with acid, which nobody seems to know the source of. Not a single living thing lives in it except the algae. It's just thick green pea soup.

On the other hand, the ocean ecosystems are far more complex than just the algae and the carbon cycle. Science doesn't pretend to understand it. The human race has a dismal record in it's attempts to modify the environment in it's favor. None of those efforts have ended up benefiting us or the environment. Could it be that the better course of action would be to leave it alone, and focus on cleaning up after ourselves, and reducing the poisons we add to our environment every day? We sure can't claim any expertise except at destroying that which allows us to live.

Answer 3

Take all the CO2 out of the air, and what will the trees breathe? The deforestation these global warming nuts have been crying about for decades will speed up like mad.

Besides, water vapor is a way more abundant greenhouse gas than CO2. What are we going to do about that, DRAIN THE OCEANS???

Answer 4

Good idea if it works and is carefully trialled and assessed to check for adverse side effects. It may not be as economic as Planktos think though as I have heard that early trials of seeding the oceans with iron were costly and not as successful as hoped. It would be good if this organisation does have a worthwhile approach.