Oh my. The cold numbers aren't good: whales just don't currently represent enough biomass to make that much of a difference in the grand scheme of Gigatonnes an

Oh my. The cold numbers aren't good: whales just don't currently represent enough biomass to make that much of a difference in the grand scheme of Gigatonnes and Teratonnes of CO2. If a rational team wanted to lock away as much carbon as possible using biological processes (BeCCS), going far up the food-chain doesn't seem like the most efficient way to do it. Here a couple of the kind of options that seem to make more sense: 0. When conditions are right, ferrous ocean seeding at scale to stimulate phytoplankton blooms because relatively little iron is required to have a massive effect. [a] It might make sense to have a floating system of self-replicating drone factories that can send out floating fertilizer drones went conditions are good.. easier said than done. 1. Fertilizing and planting kelp wherever it seems to grow best. There is currently a massive kelp forest in the Atlantic and Caribbean between the Yucatan and Africa that is causing all sorts of havoc with tourist beaches. That kelp should be expanded, harvested, concentrated and sequestered on an enormous scale, either at the bottom of deep ocean trenches (cheaper) or below ground ($$ but more permanent). Drastic actions that are efficient at scale must be tried. Even if it costs upwards of $50 trillion because survival is worth any treasure since there are no U-hauls behind hearses. What doesn't help is fixation over any comparatively-insignificant biomass like whales or planting a biomass-insignificant number of trees; virtue signaling is a cognitive-dissonant participation award, not solutions that move the needle enough to avoid a climate catastrophe. References: a. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization