3 ms·

Why isn't there more focus on phytoplankton since it produces more O2? Maybe have a device that seeds/catalyzes their growth on every boat?

by _8j50 4y ago

lapetitejort 4y ago
There's been talk of dumping iron particles into the ocean to to spur phytoplankton growth [0]. [0]: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/iron-dumping-ocean-experiment-sparks-controversy/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/iron-dumping-ocea...
gumby 4y ago
This is an area of active research but at the moment essentially all such efforts are banned by the London Protocol. The ocean is 70% of the planet’s surface and, I think, is where a lot of the work should go on.
- smallerfish 4y ago
  > essentially all such efforts are banned by the London Protocol. Interesting, why? Plankton != dumping, right? Could there be contained plankton "farms" that are similar to fish farms?
  - shagie 4y ago
    https://www.whoi.edu/fileserver.do?id=24744&pt=2&p=28442 https://www.whoi.edu/fileserver.do?id=24744&pt=2&p=28442 is specifically on the deliberate introduction of iron into the ocean ecology to stimulate plankton growth.
shagie 4y ago
This is known as the "Geritol solution" and was an idea that was debated back in the early 90s.
TheBlight 4y ago
I don't think you can treat phytoplankton as having this singular property of O2 production. The ocean and its food chain is a complex system.
thangalin 4y ago
Stop killing whales. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2019/12/natures-solution-to-climate-change-chami https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2019/12/nat... > When it comes to saving the planet, one whale is worth thousands of trees. > Marine biologists have recently discovered that whales—especially the great whales—play a significant role in capturing carbon from the atmosphere. > In recent years, scientists have discovered that whales have a multiplier effect of increasing phytoplankton production wherever they go. How? It turns out that whales’ waste products contain exactly the substances—notably iron and nitrogen—phytoplankton need to grow.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Sending plankton is a lot more scaling and economical than saving whales directly. It may also have the added benefit of increasing whale populations.
- detritus 4y ago
  In addition to this, it's a belief of mine that we need to make shipping quieter too, so that we don't bother large sea creatures so much. If there's one use-case for civilian small-scale nuclear reactors in trasport, it's behemoth cargo ships. And yes, I get how complicating a matter that is in the short-term. Here's hoping one day (soon-ish) we can make hugely contained fail-safe reactors that don't act as a high prize for trrrsts and such... .
- Maursault 4y ago
  > Stop killing whales. Definitely. But we should probably focus on stopping the major contributors of atmospheric carbon and greenhouse gasses. The idea that planting trees or saving whales will help us now is unrealistic. We'd make a huge dent if we double-timed replacing fossil fuel energy producers with clean energy production, whether geothermal, solar, wind, nuclear, or a little bit of everything, whatever. Then we should replace the entire global bunker oil burning shipping fleet. Then we should figure out how to replace or manufacture concrete cleanly, then glass. We should be using pure ethanol for air travel, how hard could it be to invent a clean airliner? Then we should regulate the meat industry into the ground, and figure out how to do agriculture cleanly without contributing to the problem. All ICE should be phased out within a decade. And we should do all these things with a mind towards global cooperation; if we want to remove a major contributor in a foreign country like China or South Africa or Turkey or Texas, we should be investing there in kind towards clean energy. Most of all we need to sacrifice, even the damn libertarians. We are energy and travel and consumer hogs. Every new structure should generate its own power, everything else converted into doing so. If everything was off-grid and clean, the petroleum and coal energy industry would vanish. 90% of what we need should be produced locally. We need to stop the clearing of forests and natural ecosystems for more urban sprawl that everyone hates. It is ridiculous how the elephants in the room are being ignored. If we'd just usher them out, it would be a lot easier on everyone and the planet.

Why isn't there more focus on phytoplankton since it produces more O2? Maybe have a device that seeds/catalyzes their growth on every boat?

by _8j50 4y ago

Why isn't there more focus on phytoplankton since it produces more O2? Maybe have a device that seeds/catalyzes their growth on every boat?

lapetitejort 4y ago

There's been talk of dumping iron particles into the ocean to to spur phytoplankton growth [0]. [0]: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/iron-dumping-ocean-experiment-sparks-controversy/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/iron-dumping-ocea...

gumby 4y ago

This is an area of active research but at the moment essentially all such efforts are banned by the London Protocol. The ocean is 70% of the planet’s surface and, I think, is where a lot of the work should go on.

smallerfish 4y ago
> essentially all such efforts are banned by the London Protocol. Interesting, why? Plankton != dumping, right? Could there be contained plankton "farms" that are similar to fish farms?
- shagie 4y ago
  https://www.whoi.edu/fileserver.do?id=24744&pt=2&p=28442 https://www.whoi.edu/fileserver.do?id=24744&pt=2&p=28442 is specifically on the deliberate introduction of iron into the ocean ecology to stimulate plankton growth.

shagie 4y ago

This is known as the "Geritol solution" and was an idea that was debated back in the early 90s.

TheBlight 4y ago

I don't think you can treat phytoplankton as having this singular property of O2 production. The ocean and its food chain is a complex system.

thangalin 4y ago

Stop killing whales. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2019/12/natures-solution-to-climate-change-chami https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2019/12/nat... > When it comes to saving the planet, one whale is worth thousands of trees. > Marine biologists have recently discovered that whales—especially the great whales—play a significant role in capturing carbon from the atmosphere. > In recent years, scientists have discovered that whales have a multiplier effect of increasing phytoplankton production wherever they go. How? It turns out that whales’ waste products contain exactly the substances—notably iron and nitrogen—phytoplankton need to grow.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
Sending plankton is a lot more scaling and economical than saving whales directly. It may also have the added benefit of increasing whale populations.
detritus 4y ago
In addition to this, it's a belief of mine that we need to make shipping quieter too, so that we don't bother large sea creatures so much. If there's one use-case for civilian small-scale nuclear reactors in trasport, it's behemoth cargo ships. And yes, I get how complicating a matter that is in the short-term. Here's hoping one day (soon-ish) we can make hugely contained fail-safe reactors that don't act as a high prize for trrrsts and such... .
Maursault 4y ago
> Stop killing whales. Definitely. But we should probably focus on stopping the major contributors of atmospheric carbon and greenhouse gasses. The idea that planting trees or saving whales will help us now is unrealistic. We'd make a huge dent if we double-timed replacing fossil fuel energy producers with clean energy production, whether geothermal, solar, wind, nuclear, or a little bit of everything, whatever. Then we should replace the entire global bunker oil burning shipping fleet. Then we should figure out how to replace or manufacture concrete cleanly, then glass. We should be using pure ethanol for air travel, how hard could it be to invent a clean airliner? Then we should regulate the meat industry into the ground, and figure out how to do agriculture cleanly without contributing to the problem. All ICE should be phased out within a decade. And we should do all these things with a mind towards global cooperation; if we want to remove a major contributor in a foreign country like China or South Africa or Turkey or Texas, we should be investing there in kind towards clean energy. Most of all we need to sacrifice, even the damn libertarians. We are energy and travel and consumer hogs. Every new structure should generate its own power, everything else converted into doing so. If everything was off-grid and clean, the petroleum and coal energy industry would vanish. 90% of what we need should be produced locally. We need to stop the clearing of forests and natural ecosystems for more urban sprawl that everyone hates. It is ridiculous how the elephants in the room are being ignored. If we'd just usher them out, it would be a lot easier on everyone and the planet.