3 ms·

This statement in the article is really dumb: "whales accumulate an average of 33 tonnes of CO2". Yes, but that's from eating other plants & animals that would

This statement in the article is really dumb: "whales accumulate an average of 33 tonnes of CO2". Yes, but that's from eating other plants & animals that would otherwise accumulate that same CO2 themselves. Furthermore, whales (like all mammals) breathe in oxygen and breathe out CO2 so the net effect of breathing and eating alone (ignoring the 'whale pump' phenomena) is an increase in CO2.

crispinb 7y ago
Based on stuff I've read in the past, I think it may be a net figure. But you'd need to check the literature to be sure.
llukas 7y ago
Please be more polite. You didn't comment on this part of the article: > When they die, they sink to the bottom of the ocean, locking that carbon away for hundreds of years.
- aaron695 7y ago
  ""The plankton absorb the carbon dioxide like a tree," Barton says, "and when they die, they sink to the bottom of the ocean and that carbon is locked away for thousands of years. " https://psmag.com/environment/global-warming-is-putting-phytoplankton-in-danger https://psmag.com/environment/global-warming-is-putting-phyt... We are back to dumb again?
  - llukas 7y ago
    https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0012444 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... "The carbon stored in populations of marine vertebrates is only a small part of the total carbon in marine ecosystems; however, the impact of rebuilding stocks of fish and whales would be comparable to existing carbon sequestration projects."
    - aaron695 7y ago
      I find it strange after 40+ years of Save the Whales we are discussing using whales as a carbon sink. But to me increasing animals that eat plants which are the actual cabon sinks would decrease the ability of the ocean to sequester carbon. But I'd have to see a mathematical model. Animals hasten death but also reduce reproduction speed. Edit - whales are carnivores so not applicable

crispinb 7y ago

Based on stuff I've read in the past, I think it may be a net figure. But you'd need to check the literature to be sure.

llukas 7y ago

Please be more polite. You didn't comment on this part of the article: > When they die, they sink to the bottom of the ocean, locking that carbon away for hundreds of years.

aaron695 7y ago
""The plankton absorb the carbon dioxide like a tree," Barton says, "and when they die, they sink to the bottom of the ocean and that carbon is locked away for thousands of years. " https://psmag.com/environment/global-warming-is-putting-phytoplankton-in-danger https://psmag.com/environment/global-warming-is-putting-phyt... We are back to dumb again?
- llukas 7y ago
  https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0012444 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... "The carbon stored in populations of marine vertebrates is only a small part of the total carbon in marine ecosystems; however, the impact of rebuilding stocks of fish and whales would be comparable to existing carbon sequestration projects."
  - aaron695 7y ago
    I find it strange after 40+ years of Save the Whales we are discussing using whales as a carbon sink. But to me increasing animals that eat plants which are the actual cabon sinks would decrease the ability of the ocean to sequester carbon. But I'd have to see a mathematical model. Animals hasten death but also reduce reproduction speed. Edit - whales are carnivores so not applicable