In my first post I
spoke about global CO2 levels reaching 400ppm, an all time
high since before the evolution of Homosapiens. One comment
asked if ocean iron fertilisation (OIF) could be an answer to
reducing the global CO2 levels, so I decided to look into
it. This post aims to assess the suitability of OIF as a combat
against anthropogenic carbon emissions.
The biological pump (BP) is an important part of the global carbon cycle; the ocean's phytoplankton reduce carbon dioxide levels via photosynthesis. However, on a global scale, net carbon dioxide flux between the ocean and the atmosphere is zero. Sometimes the BP acts as a sink, removing CO2 in the form of biogenic carbon that is buried in the sediment, but often the sequestered carbon never makes it to the ocean floor and is instead recycled back into the ocean-air system.
Locally there is variation in the net flux of CO2 by the BP. In a 2008 paper by Jin et al. they define an area that removes CO2 from the atmosphere as efficient while an area that that loses CO2 to the atmosphere is inefficient. The experiments they carried out (along with many other experiments) prove that the addition of iron to these inefficient sites would increase the downward flux of CO2, effectively reducing the impact of anthropogenic emissions. That said, is this alteration of an earth system such a good idea?
What is yet to be understood is what effect increased phytoplankton will have on food web dynamics – it is likely that an increase in phytoplankton population will put strain on other microorganisms. It could also link to nutrient deficiency and increased ocean acidification, however more research does need to be carried out.
The fact that iron is often the limiting factor of BP's CO2 sequestering properties is widely accepted in the scientific community, but to what extent fertilisation can increase its potential sink is still uncertain. Jin et al. suggest that the effect of iron fertilisation is in fact small, which may make it unsuitable when taking into account the negative implications of OIF.
In a Kiel policy brief by Christine Bertram, she concludes that it is unlikely that iron fertilisation will be used due to the costs and amount of surveillance involved. However there is some concern that big carbon emitting companies will use iron fertilisation in an unregulated fashion to produce a carbon offset. Bertram believes a policy should be set in place to avoid this, as it could have drastic results if left unresolved.
I believe that a better insight into the negative impact of iron fertilisation should be achieved before this is made available as a mode of carbon offset, if made available at all. As one might say, prevention is better than cure and this only sets out to cure.
 |
| Taken from: www.wikipedia.com |
The biological pump (BP) is an important part of the global carbon cycle; the ocean's phytoplankton reduce carbon dioxide levels via photosynthesis. However, on a global scale, net carbon dioxide flux between the ocean and the atmosphere is zero. Sometimes the BP acts as a sink, removing CO2 in the form of biogenic carbon that is buried in the sediment, but often the sequestered carbon never makes it to the ocean floor and is instead recycled back into the ocean-air system.
Locally there is variation in the net flux of CO2 by the BP. In a 2008 paper by Jin et al. they define an area that removes CO2 from the atmosphere as efficient while an area that that loses CO2 to the atmosphere is inefficient. The experiments they carried out (along with many other experiments) prove that the addition of iron to these inefficient sites would increase the downward flux of CO2, effectively reducing the impact of anthropogenic emissions. That said, is this alteration of an earth system such a good idea?
What is yet to be understood is what effect increased phytoplankton will have on food web dynamics – it is likely that an increase in phytoplankton population will put strain on other microorganisms. It could also link to nutrient deficiency and increased ocean acidification, however more research does need to be carried out.
 |
| Do we want this to be a common sight in our oceans? Taken from: http://www.ohiolakefrontgroup.com |
The fact that iron is often the limiting factor of BP's CO2 sequestering properties is widely accepted in the scientific community, but to what extent fertilisation can increase its potential sink is still uncertain. Jin et al. suggest that the effect of iron fertilisation is in fact small, which may make it unsuitable when taking into account the negative implications of OIF.
In a Kiel policy brief by Christine Bertram, she concludes that it is unlikely that iron fertilisation will be used due to the costs and amount of surveillance involved. However there is some concern that big carbon emitting companies will use iron fertilisation in an unregulated fashion to produce a carbon offset. Bertram believes a policy should be set in place to avoid this, as it could have drastic results if left unresolved.
I believe that a better insight into the negative impact of iron fertilisation should be achieved before this is made available as a mode of carbon offset, if made available at all. As one might say, prevention is better than cure and this only sets out to cure.
No comments:
Post a Comment