Jump to content

Blue Carbon


geordief

Recommended Posts

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/11/02/opinions/mittermeier-nicklen-oceans-blue-carbon-climate-change-scn-spc-c2e/index.html

 

"Opinion: The ocean’s ‘blue carbon’ can be our secret weapon in fighting climate  change"

 

 

This is the first I have come across this idea.

How promising  is it?

 

  1. Can we "farm" the seas to sequester carbon from the atmosphere?
Edited by geordief
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, geordief said:

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/11/02/opinions/mittermeier-nicklen-oceans-blue-carbon-climate-change-scn-spc-c2e/index.html

 

"Opinion: The ocean’s ‘blue carbon’ can be our secret weapon in fighting climate 6"

 

 

This is the first I have come across this idea.

How promising  is it?

 

  1. Can we "farm" the seas to sequester carbon from the atmosphere?

The article seems pretty poor at explaining it. There is a handwaving mention of kelp and seagrass but no discussion of the associated carbon cycle. These are plants with finite life. What happens to the carbon when they die? Maybe someone here can comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, exchemist said:

The article seems pretty poor at explaining it. There is a handwaving mention of kelp and seagrass but no discussion of the associated carbon cycle. These are plants with finite life. What happens to the carbon when they die? Maybe someone here can comment.

This seems much better  and goes into much more detail but they are "players in the game" (not that I would be a skeptic for that  )

 

https://www.thebluecarboninitiative.org/about-blue-carbon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, geordief said:

This seems much better  and goes into much more detail but they are "players in the game" (not that I would be a skeptic for that  )

 

https://www.thebluecarboninitiative.org/about-blue-carbon

Thanks, that is more informative. I notice however that the emphasis is on conserving existing littoral ecosystems, i.e. preventing their loss, rather than developing them as new carbon sinks  to sequester more carbon from the atmosphere.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Thanks, that is more informative. I notice however that the emphasis is on conserving existing littoral ecosystems, i.e. preventing their loss, rather than developing them as new carbon sinks  to sequester more carbon from the atmosphere.  

Yes ,I noticed that.Makes it more immediately practical I would think.

 

I wonder if it  is much less costly  to maintain those systems than to develop  them after they have been lost.Does the soil just get washed away  and take hundreds of years to reestablish.

I wonder if the carbon credit economy will take off  as I think I saw mentioned  there or perhaps  it was elsewhere.

 

Would be good if that system worked to the advantage of poorer regions .

 

I noticed that the marshes in Essex (and elsewhere).were being flooded in recent years by punching holes in the sea walls.

 

Would that be the sort of thing they have in mind?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, geordief said:

Yes ,I noticed that.Makes it more immediately practical I would think.

 

I wonder if it  is much less costly  to maintain those systems than to develop  them after they have been lost.Does the soil just get washed away  and take hundreds of years to reestablish.

I wonder if the carbon credit economy will take off  as I think I saw mentioned  there or perhaps  it was elsewhere.

 

Would be good if that system worked to the advantage of poorer regions .

 

I noticed that the marshes in Essex (and elsewhere).were being flooded in recent years by punching holes in the sea walls.

 

Would that be the sort of thing they have in mind?

Not sure, but it could be. Salt marsh seems to be what they are advocating.

But actually this marsh stuff is different from your original link, which was about things like kelp and sea grass i.e. actual seaweed, growing under salt water. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, exchemist said:

The article seems pretty poor at explaining it. There is a handwaving mention of kelp and seagrass but no discussion of the associated carbon cycle. These are plants with finite life. What happens to the carbon when they die? Maybe someone here can comment.

I've heard a bit about seagrass, which is that it forms stable communities and root systems that can trap and hold carbon longterm, just as climax communities do on land.  

I remain skeptical about carbon credits where the worst emitters can keep doing so but greenwash their polluting business-as-usual.  We likely need both seagrass communities and the cessation of emissions.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, geordief said:

How promising  is it?

 

  1. Can we "farm" the seas to sequester carbon from the atmosphere?

It won't be a major climate solution and can only be an adjunct to building an abundance of clean energy to displace fossil fuel burning - which remains our single most effective action, the one that is not optional.

Saving the seagrass that exists - preventing it's loss, which would add to atmospheric CO2 - looks like the more significant thing and that appears to require that shift to zero emissions to prevent the ocean heating that could damage existing area and slow the sea level rise that could kill them. Farming seagasses might help but unless it has some other commercial value to sustain it the funding will be hard to come by and is likely to get better results elsewhere, such as supporting that essential growth of clean energy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seagrass has commercial value in maintaining fisheries and generally helping keep intact ecosystems that coastal economies depend on.  And they can also stabilize coastal sediment, mitigate wave action, and thereby protect shorelines.  So I think it might pay its own way, especially in the fisheries aspect.  Here's a site that summarizes the benefits:

https://www.seagrasswatch.org/seagrassimportance/

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

Seagrass has commercial value in maintaining fisheries and generally helping keep intact ecosystems that coastal economies depend on.  And they can also stabilize coastal sediment, mitigate wave action, and thereby protect shorelines.  So I think it might pay its own way, especially in the fisheries aspect.  Here's a site that summarizes the benefits:

https://www.seagrasswatch.org/seagrassimportance/

 

 

 

The value to fisheries may be there but there is no existing arrangement (as far as I know) for financing of seagrass habitat maintenance by the fishing industry - and I expect attempts to do so would be opposed. Like a lot of the value derived from environmental "services", they have been treated as free. Taxpayers will foot the bill and the fishing industry will - like most businesses - fiercely resist paying more taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

 

The value to fisheries may be there but there is no existing arrangement (as far as I know) for financing of seagrass habitat maintenance by the fishing industry - and I expect attempts to do so would be opposed. Like a lot of the value derived from environmental "services", they have been treated as free. Taxpayers will foot the bill and the fishing industry will - like most businesses - fiercely resist paying more taxes.

I wonder if the fishing industry  is in any way directly  responsible for the degradation  of those particular habitats.

 

They might have to cough up something if they were(and pass it on to the consumer as well so they wouldn't even be out of pocket,I suspect)

 

Over here ,in Ireland the farmers are being told they have to cut their emissions and they are digging in their heels

(claiming they are being asked to do too much)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.