13 ms·
Seeding oceans with volcanic ash could be new tool to tackle climate change
- danschumann 5y agoI like solutions that are simple... Sprinkling dust is in that category.
- throwawaysea 5y agoCan’t we just institute population controls? I feel like that’s a higher confidence path to curb emissions while not requiring a change in quality of life.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- baron816 5y agoNo, that’ll neither work to solve the problem, nor would it work as a matter of practicality. We either need to get to 0 net emissions pretty much now, or negative emissions in the not too distant future. Even if we cut the world’s population by half through very unethical means, and did nothing else, we’d still be in trouble. We’re going to have to push forward and innovate our way out, most likely.
- EastOfTruth 5y agodumping ashes in the ocean will work much better....
- kataklasm 5y agoDo you really think the the large part of human population around the world living in extreme poverty (multiple billion people) are the problem? As one poster said, if they do transition to "middle class" (whatever that means to them) then they will become part of the climate problem. But right now, the problem lies with us, our hyper-capitalist and super corrupt western societies. Don't distract from that with whataboutism to Africa. Currently, we (meaning western countries, not just geographically, I would count China for example as a western country as well, since to me "western" is a financial/economic definition, not a geographical one) are the problem, not the people living in mud huts, drinking water that Nestlé seized and now sells to them.
- xionon 5y agoIs this sarcasm? Population controls are a massive change to quality of life for most people.
- dane-pgp 5y agoIt depends what sort of population control is being suggested. Already, most people live in countries with less than replacement fertility (i.e. with a total fertility rate (TFR) below 2.1 births per woman).[0] That means if someone wants developed countries to reduce their population, they are really arguing for stricter limits on immigration, and possibly for those developed countries to use economic pressure to make people in poorer countries have fewer children. Even if the people advocating for that aren't motivated by racism, colonialism, or eugenicism, it might be difficult to convince people of their good intentions. [0] https://ifstudies.org/blog/half-the-worlds-population-is-reaching-below-replacement-fertility https://ifstudies.org/blog/half-the-worlds-population-is-rea...
- User23 5y ago> Already, most people live in countries with less than replacement fertility (i.e. with a total fertility rate (TFR) below 2.1 births per woman). This is a textbook example of what unsustainable means. In the long run most people will live in the countries with the highest fertility rates.
- R0b0t1 5y ago> Even if the people advocating for that aren't motivated by racism, colonialism, or eugenicism, it might be difficult to convince people of their good intentions. It's enough to let them starve.
- throwawaysea 5y agoI am thinking out loud here but I am imagining a simple tax. If someone wants to have a child they pay a massive offset fee. Put another way people have to give up spending on other things or create more value for society (earn more income) to have that right. Perhaps this cutoff can be decided on a per country basis to get every country on board. It’s either that or we rely on a very complex series of technological and policy changes that are potentially not going to work out and will cause everyone to live more limited lives of restraint rather than live freely.
- holomorphically 5y agoMost developed nations are not growing anymore in terms of population so this is essentially already happening without any government intervention.
- bpodgursky 5y agoThe vast majority of net-new carbon emissions over the next 30 years are going to be the 4 billion people in the developing world who are transitioning into the middle class. Population controls (especially in the developed world) would be 100% pointless. Unless you're talking about invading and sterilizing people in developing countries... and I really hope you're not.
- ygjb 5y agoNo, just countries building stronger borders to prevent ecological and economic migrants from escaping the countries that don't have enormous wealth as a buffer against change. :(
- kevingadd 5y agoPopulation controls won't fix our emissions problems. A bunch of our emissions are from things that won't suddenly stop even if we drop population growth to 0, like manufacturing and power generation.
- throwawaysea 5y agoWouldn’t a smaller population consume less goods and power?
- PeterisP 5y agoIn the long run yes, however, (a) realistic population controls would likely mean a stable population, not a much smaller one, so that doesn't help much for deceasing consumption; and (b) even with totally unrealistic population controls (e.g. zero births worldwide) the population decrease would be slower than the time scale in which we need to reduce emissions - zero births would mean a population decrease of less than 1%/year (currently 60m deaths/year over 7.8 billion, the world skews young-ish so the death rates don't match what you'd expect from life expenctancy) but we need an emissions decrease of 1.5%-2%/year to keep the global warming in reasonable limits. A smaller population would consume less goods and power, but since we need much less carbon emissions, achieving that through a population decrease alone would require a much smaller population i.e. so much extra death that IMHO that would be more horrible than the consequences of any climate change.
- kingkawn 5y agoThe population of China is expected to halve in 45 years. Japan down to 1/3rd of its currently level by century’s end. We are doing it already, no need to impose a heartless bureaucracy over it.
- callamdelaney 5y agoThe world has always been in a state of change. It seems to be a widely believed falsity that there is a magic ideal environment for all of its species. The world changes, species die, other species take their place.
- MildlySerious 5y ago> It seems to be a widely believed falsity that there is a magic ideal environment for all of its species The thing everyone is talking about and thing we need to address is called anthropogenic climate change, which specifically refers to the damage we humans do to the environment, the long term changes, uncertainty and instability we risk with that damage, and the damage already done. > The world changes, species die, other species take their place. Nobody argues against that, because that's simply not where the conversation is at. Anthropogenic climate is caused by humans, it comes to the detriment of humans, and it is in the interest of humans to prevent as much of it as we can. As it stands, we are polluting and destroying our home, and the home of future generations. It's in our interest for species not to go extinct and to preserve as much biological diversity as possible, it's in our interest for the oceans not to be polluted, it's in our interest for the weather to stay somewhat stable and predictable. It is in our best interest for our pollution not to compound for another 100 years. If the externalized, emotional appeal doesn't work for you, that's fine and I am very much in that camp with you. But for entirely rational and selfish reasons, human-caused climate change is something that we desperately need to address, hoping to avoid the worst of what could be ahead of us. Sure, there are individuals and interest groups who are trying to appeal to emotions via the damage and suffering we're causing, talking about the poor animals and the forests burning down and the coral reefs disappearing, but in the end, you're right: Earth doesn't care. Humans on the other hand have every reason to care about sustainability.
- blacksqr 5y agoAny thoughts on species Homo sapiens surviving?
- callamdelaney 5y agoYeah, have you seen TikTok?
- holomorphically 5y ago> Using the coast of Peru as a case study, the team calculate that depositing 50,000 tonnes of tephra – a bulk carrier vessel’s worth – offshore could sequester 2750 tonnes of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Current global CO2 output is 51 gigatons. Their solution is not viable. It won't even put a dent in the current output. [1] 1: https://mobile.twitter.com/BillGates/status/1453367874848837638 https://mobile.twitter.com/BillGates/status/1453367874848837...
- Chris2048 5y agoSpecifically, it would take 927.27 gigatons of tephra. That said, a quick google suggests tephra is about a ton per m^3; so a 100100100 metre cube of the stuff would be 1 kiloton. a 111km cube would be a gigaton. So we need less than a thousand of those a year :-)
- jdkee 5y agoA 100^3 meter would be one megaton.
- mkl 5y agoPut spaces around your *s or escape them like \*: 100*100*100m is one megaton, and 10*10*10 times that, a 1*1*1km cube, is indeed a gigaton. No one would suggest recapturing all emitted CO2 with this one method though.
- Chris2048 5y agosorry, yes, that should be 100*100*100 ...
- BurningFrog 5y agoNo one thing will solve this problem by itself. Just like one workout won't make you fit. It's not that kind of problem.
- silisili 5y ago
- kevingadd 5y ago"Two issues remain: the concern that tephra could harm marine ecosystems – an area which Longman concedes needs investigation – and the fact that marine dumping in general is banned under the 1972 London Convention on marine pollution." What about "how do we haul all that tephra out into the ocean without producing a bunch of pollution in the process"? Are there solar-powered bulk carriers that we can load up with solar trucks, diggers and forklifts? I assume you could at least get to break-even with that process if you optimized everything enough, but then you start wondering about the materials costs and environmental impact of all the special-case equipment...
- Koffiepoeder 5y agoMaybe the reverse is more efficient? I. e. landscaping the sea into the volcanic ash?
- kingkawn 5y agopollute our way to a better tomorrow
- codr7 5y agoThe climate has always changed and will always change, that's never been the real problem. The real problem is raping the planet for profit. These so called solutions are little more than excuses to keep on doing it.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- jsmeaton 5y agoNot so. We’re not getting to 0 pollutants any time soon, so to reach a net 0 (or negative) amount of carbon we’re going to need to remove what’s already there.
- codr7 5y agoWe don't need to get to 0, we need to start giving a shit about anything but profit and stop making excuses.
- jeabays 5y agoThis is exactly it. The wealthy and powerful of our world want to continue their reckless and rampant exploitation of the planet for profit; bullshit solutions like these are what they come up with because they want to keep doing what they're doing, earth be damned. That's why the solution isn't these absolutely absurd "solutions", but rather in destroying the power of the profit motive, reorganizing our economic model based on rational resource allocation rather than chasing infinite growths and profits for the 1%.
- DantesKite 5y agoCrustaceans would put a dent into it. It's why carbon levels fell from 4000ppm to where they are today. All those shells absorb a lot of carbon over millions of years.
- desertraven 5y agoIs there any research on harnessing the same process as crustaceans? Sounds absurd to write, but genuinely curious.
- SturgeonsLaw 5y agoConversion of carbon dioxide to calcium carbonate (one of the materials found in shells) has been researched: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenrg.2017.00017/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenrg.2017.0001... Using the exact technique that crustaceans use during biomineralisation will be very, very expensive at scale due to the enzymes needed. Current techniques involve using high-pH hydroxide solutions to perform the reactions. Carbon sequestration by pumping concentrated carbon dioxide gas underground would naturally use the high-pH geological environment to run this reaction over time. There are still unanswered questions about pumping CO2 gas underground with regards to leakage - nevermind the fact that when it's pumped into old oil wells, it has the side effect of forcing out more oil which is recovered, sold and burned. Converting CO2 to a solid, stable form like CaCO3 then storing the solids is a nice sequestration option, but like a lot of things in this space, the economics are holding it back more than the technology is.
- splittingTimes 5y ago> the economics are holding it back more than the technology is. Is it not more the missing political will? (and yes, they are related as politics always seeks/ caters to big corps to get their buy-in) In 2008 when the financial system felt some distress, the German finance minister provided 400bn euros over a weekend to Deutsche bank and others. It took politics 2 fregging days to unlock that amount of resources. And it was like no questions asked. And we kept pumping that amount in there on a quarterly basis ever since. I do not need to go into military spending. So for me the earth ecosystem which needs to sustain is as a species is in as much of distress as the financial system was back then. It warrants the same sense of urgency and resource allocation.
- DisjointedHunt 5y agoIs it "An" idea? Yes. Does it scale or work at the scale of humanity or has any potential to do so? No. There is a climate summit presently underway and the topic of nuclear energy has been completely banned from it. That should tell you enough about the political forces manipulating genuine climate concerns to further their own ends.[1] [1]https://theferret.scot/were-barred-from-cop26-nuclear-industry-complains/ https://theferret.scot/were-barred-from-cop26-nuclear-indust...
- rsj_hn 5y agoChina is also not participating, so that should tell you how serious this is.
- FooBarWidget 5y agoChina isn't explicitly not participating though. The president hasn't traveled to any foreign country for 2 years now due to COVID.
- rsj_hn 5y agoBiden will not be attending either. But you can send delegates. China isn't sending any delegates (neither is Russia).
- shalmanese 5y ago> China isn't sending any delegates China's @COP26 delegation will be headed by Climate Envoy Xie Zhenhua & Vice Minister Zhao Yingmin. The delegation, smaller than previous yrs due to COVID, will bring China's NDC and arrive in London on 26th. While there, they will conduct pre-sessional talks with key countries. https://twitter.com/LiShuo_GP/status/1451801646749519876 https://twitter.com/LiShuo_GP/status/1451801646749519876
- rsj_hn 5y agoI stand corrected. Thank you -- unfortunately I can't edit my comment.
- Animats 5y agoHow available is volcanic ash as a product? Some kinds are known to make good concrete? It's $2/pound on Amazon, but presumably cheaper in bulk.
- m4rtink 5y agoEffectively free if you happen to live in Kagoshima City: http://www.city.kagoshima.lg.jp/soumu/shichoshitu/kokusai/en/garbage/ash.html http://www.city.kagoshima.lg.jp/soumu/shichoshitu/kokusai/en... Just go to the closest ash collection spot and pickup as much as you need. ;-)
- formvoltron 5y agoThis sort of thing might actually work according to George Church. However, it would require one more very important step. Most blue green algae do not live long. They are swiftly killed by a virus that has evolved to kill that particular algae. cyanobacteria (BG algae) are hyper prevalent. However, so are cyanophages. Once killed the cyanobacteria re-release the carbon they sequestered back into the environment. The idea is to genetically modify cyanobacteria to be unaffected by its cyanophage. These organisms would then flourish, sucking insane amounts of CO2 out of the atmosphere and then eventually sinking to the bottom, where apparently it is harder for them to be re-consumed and their carbon to be re-introduced to the atmosphere. Interesting idea...
- pvaldes 5y agoBut could enter easily in trophic chains of mollusc filterers, that make durable shells lasting for many years.
- PeterisP 5y agoI would think that it's effectively impossible to modify cyanobacteria to be unaffected by "its cyanophage" (it would be many different cyanophages, wouldn't it?) in the long run - you can create a strain that's immune to the currently popular cyanophages, but viruses and phages do mutate quickly and given a cyanobacteria bloom I'd expect another functioning phage to emerge soon. Also, it seems to me that a major cyanobacteria explosion would be sufficiently fundamental to screw up the whole ecosystem around them; it might help carbon capture but at a cost/risk to other green values such as biodiversity and security of the ocean-based food chain for humans.
- whb07 5y agoAll this presupposes the global system is a 1 variable tweak away from being “fixed”: if CO2 lowered then Earth saved, else death for all species. Never mind that the plants consume CO2. Or that we are wise enough to know what is the correct cooling/heating rate for the planet. Or that CO2, is even the right metric at all. Last but not least, that it if humans had stayed pre-industrial, at what temperature would the planet be at and is that good or bad?
- mrfusion 5y agoCareful. You’re getting a bit off narrative there.
- newacct583 5y agoYou're just throwing up arguments to see what sticks here. Almost everything you're saying is wrong or misdirected. > Never mind that the plants consume CO2. The linked technique is literally about getting more plants to grow to consume CO2. > Or that we are wise enough to know what is the correct cooling/heating rate for the planet. Strawman. You don't have to have a perfect master plan to know that "wildly distorted CO2 levels from the geological baseline of the last epoch" is almost certainly the WRONG level from the perspective of existing ecosystems. You don't need to be able to engineer a perfect wheelbarrow to fix a broken handle with duct tape. > Or that CO2, is even the right metric at all. Same deal. It's pretty clearly a metric, and something we're messing up. You're right that there are other greenhouse forcing mechanisms (methane being the big one). That doesn't constitute an argument for "don't fix CO2". You don't skip an alignment appointment on your car because it also has a rattle under the hood.
- eximius 5y agoif the house is on fire, putting out the fire good, regardless of what other deficiencies the house might have.
- spywaregorilla 5y agohttps://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/ Look at the graph and share your inferences on those questions?
- mrfusion 5y agoI thought iron and possibly phosphorus were already known to be very promising for this idea?
- neltnerb 5y agoI can't tell you whether the below is accurate, but this was why they said it is novel. ‘Tephra is cheap, not limiting, and all the required tech already exists. Bentonites – altered tephra – are already regularly mined, so we don’t need to develop new approaches,’ Longman says, adding that tephra would only require sieving in preparation for use. This, he added, ‘is unlike other ocean fertilisation approaches, which use processed iron oxide liquids.’
- blacksqr 5y agoThe chief problem with iron seeding is that it is one of many nutrients required. It may be the one most needed, but stimulating growth by supplying just iron depletes the ocean of the other needed nutrients, so you stimulate growth in the seeded area and depress it elsewhere. Seeding with volcanic ash provides a fuller range of required nutrients.
- chmod600 5y agoWhat happened to olivine? https://www.projectvesta.org/ https://www.projectvesta.org/
- LorenPechtel 5y agoI would be very surprised if this actually works. Ocean fertilization has been tried before and busted. Fundamentally, you are supplying the nutrients that are limiting growth. You get a bunch of growth because of that. Most of what grows is eaten by other things up the food chain--atmospheric carbon dioxide becomes bound up in algae, fish and the like. When things die they mostly are eaten by something else. However, not every scrap is eaten--what isn't eaten falls into the ocean depths were bacteria get to it and produce methane. The end result is more fish to eat but basically no change to the greenhouse effect as methane is far more potent than carbon dioxide. Also, ocean fertilization only works to the extent that you can supply the missing nutrients. Dump too much fertilizer into the ocean and you get algal blooms that are bad for everything else in the ocean.
- kcplate 5y agoOr maybe, we could not do that.