At least they get the point; reducing emissions will do squat for our problem. Is it true that even cutting emissions as proposed, will lead to CO2 levels of 700-800 ppm (double today's levels)? WT....
My thought is that it'd be better to have everyone involved with something like this scheme so as to monitor, measure, test, give oversight, suggestions, input, data, etc.; rather than "banning" the scheme and driving it "underground."
...and as they point out, we've degraded the planet's ability to absorb CO2 as it used to do. That's why levels are rising so quickly these days (not our emissions).
...about Planktos (their own propaganda)
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/02/planktos.php
"....coccolithophorid ....runs on chlorophyll & carotenoids, forms massive blooms, sequesters his CO2 inhalations in CaCO3 scales, and then sinks in great numbers to form deposits of chalk."
The really important point here is that we are only proposing "restoration" of phytoplankton to 1980 levels of health and activity as defined by NASA and NOAA scientists. Their studies show a 25% decline in Pacific plankton populations in the last 25 years and a 6~9% die off globally.
Considering that 1980 levels of marine photosynthesis metabolized about 50 gigatons of CO2 annually, the recent shortfall equals nearly 3 gigatons of lost photosynthetic capacity or approximately half of all industrial and automotive emissions each year.
Returning plankton populations to 1980 levels would neutralize about 50% of industrial society's greenhouse gas emissions, and we feel that is about all you can or should ask a single ecosystem to contribute to our self-inflicted climate wars. The rest of the problem must eventually be handled by our own species, changing our basic energy systems and insane consumption patterns.
One reason is that if our collective response to Climate Change is limited to lessening future CO2 emissions with better technologies today, these same technologies may [need to] be used more intensely in the future. Such a narrow focus also overlooks legacy emissions of CO2 that will remain in the stratosphere for decades....
First off, we are not talking about "large" infusions of bio-available iron. We are talking are about very dilute infusions over very large areas. Iron only has to be replenished in parts per trillion.
Our projects will add something on the order of 50 tons of iron to seed an ocean surface area of approximately 10,000 square kilometers in diameter. This would be only a few percent of the scale of naturally occurring blooms.
I don't know.... At this point I figure they can't screw things up worse than they already are.
Even if they fail, there are
land-based opportunities to do the same type of thing.
~SA
