DOCSLIB.ORG

Ecological Impact

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ecological Impact COMMERCIAL OCEAN IRON FERTILIZATION: READY FOR THE OFFSET MARKETS? Justin Felt, Daniel Fishman, Daniel Horton, and Karla Knudson University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA Abstract Ocean iron fertilization refers to the commercial scheme to sell carbon offsets generated by stimulating algal blooms in the open ocean. Ocean primary production accounts for half of the yearly global primary production. In large areas of the ocean, primary production is lower than would be otherwise expected due to acute iron limitations on phytoplankton growth. A fortuitous byproduct of the scientific exploration of the role of aeolian dust deposition on primary productivity, iron fertilization experiments have demonstrated that fertilizing small patches of the ocean with 1-3 tons of dissolved iron stimulates blooms of phytoplankton. The potential of these blooms to export carbon from the surface ocean and “sequester” it in the deep sea has drawn commercial interest due to the recent establishment of voluntary carbon offset markets. Increased phytoplankton populations potentially pose a number of ecological problems, and the overwhelming water quality management imperative of the last 50 years has been diminishing algal blooms by reducing anthropogenic fertilization of aquatic ecosystems. Current studies suggest that phytoplankton blooms in the open ocean do not export carbon in a predictable manner, and less than 1% is ever permanently sequestered. Significant advances in the scientific understanding, political and legal framework, and business model are necessary if ocean iron fertilization schemes are to be successful. This paper examines the scientific and economic rationale underlying ocean iron fertilization and the pratfalls therein. We conclude that the utilization of ocean iron fertilization technologies in carbon offset mitigation schemes is premature, though the nascent state of the science demands continued research and development. 1 INTRODUCTION The rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations since the industrial revolution has been definitively linked to the anthropogenic release of combustion reaction gases driven by the burning of fossil fuels (IPCC Report, 2008). The role of atmospheric CO2 in driving global climate is complex, but the preponderance of scientific evidence tightly links CO2 concentrations to global temperature and climate (Royer, 2006). As a mitigation strategy to avoid harmful repercussions from altered global climate, strategies to increase global sinks of biological CO2 are being explored (Dilling -1 et al., 2003; Pacala et al., 2004). Approximately 105 Gt yr of CO2 are removed from the -1 atmosphere by photosynthesis (Field et al., 1998), while 23 Gt yr of CO2 are released by the burning of fossil fuels1. THE BIOLOGICAL PUMP Oceanic primary production represents 1% of global photosynthetic biomass but accounts for 50% of the carbon fixed by photosynthesis every year (Field et al., 1998). The cycling of primary production product (fixed carbon) in the ocean is referred to as the biological pump. Primary production by algae (phytoplankton) is consumed by higher trophic levels, which includes heterotrophs from zooplankton to whales. The gravitational transport of carbon-rich biomass detritus ‘pumps’ fixed atmospheric CO2 below the mixed layer (~100m depth; Figure 1). As in terrestrial ecosystems, the majority of the carbon fixed is assimilated in the higher trophic levels and respired back to the atmosphere as CO2 (Martin et al., 1987). Some primary production does sink to the ocean sediments. Areal primary production rates are lower in the ocean than on land and approximately 1/5 of the ocean surface is the aquatic analog to terrestrial deserts (Boyd et al. 2007) (Figure 2). While concentrations of macronutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous) are high, productivity in these oceanic deserts is limited by a lack of micronutrients (Martin, 1990). These ocean deserts are persistent and characterized by high nutrients and low chlorophyll (HNLC). The major HNLC zones are found in the Southern Ocean, the Equatorial Pacific, and the North Pacific sub-arctic (de la Rocha, 2004). By increasing the rate of primary production in HNLC areas some companies hope to profit via carbon offset sales. MARTIN’S HYPOTHESIS The idea of oceanic iron fertilization as a primary mechanism in the alteration of atmospheric CO2 concentrations is derived from studies of glacial-interglacial cycles. Evidence suggests that increased iron-rich dust deposition to oceanic waters may have spurred CO2 uptake in times of continental glaciation, further cooling the environment. Consequently, a reduction in dust deposition has been chronicled during the interglacial periods of the Pleistocene. Recently published data have successfully tracked this 1 http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html 2 regulatory capacity of iron on atmospheric CO2 over the past 800 kyrs (Figure 3, Lambert et al., 2008). Dr. John Martin established that the reason for the persistent HNLC zones of the ocean was acute iron limitation. Iron is a necessary micronutrient for phytoplankton metabolism (Martin, 1990). In phytoplankton (the planktonic organisms responsible for oceanic primary production), iron limitation is particularly problematic. Aeolian iron-rich dust deposited in the ocean sparks massive phytoplankton blooms in HNLC zones (Figure 4). In essence, Dr. Martin’s hypothesis stated that on geologic time scales, increased iron deposition during glacial periods removed 30% of the 80 ppm CO2 decrease observed during glacial maxima (Sigman, 2000). The promise of increased productivity in HNLC ocean waters through iron fertilization is rooted in the evolutionary history of phytoplankton. The limitation of iron on biological ecosystems in today’s oceans stems from the earliest origins of life on planet Earth. The evolution of single celled organisms ~1.6 Ga occurred in an environment of low atmospheric and subsequently low oceanic oxygen concentrations. Low levels of oceanic oxygen allowed high levels of dissolved iron within ocean waters. It was under these high levels of dissolved iron that photosynthetic phytoplankton developed. As photosynthetic organisms became more prevalent, their primary waste product, oxygen, began to accumulate in the atmosphere. With the rise of atmospheric oxygen and the subsequent oxidation of dissolved iron within the water column, available dissolved iron levels dropped precipitously, and iron became the primary limiting micro- nutrient of phytoplankton (de la Rocha, 2004). The self-imposed evolutionary quirk that is iron limitation has persisted throughout much of geologic time. Starting in 1993, 12 oceanographic research expeditions tested Martin’s hypothesis with small scale iron fertilization experiments. For iron deposition to lead to a drawdown in global CO2 atmospheric concentrations, a net increase in the export of fixed carbon from the mixed layers of the ocean following fertilization is necessary. By adding small amounts (450-2800 kg) dissolved, biologically available iron to patches of HNLC ocean and observing the phytoplankton response (as chlorophyll concentration, a proxy for primary production), these experiments proved that iron fertilization can produce rapid, intense blooms of phytoplankton and exponentially increase carbon uptake (Boyd et al., 2007). The experimental success of ocean iron fertilization in increasing primary production in HNLC zones is drawing the attention of the private sector. There is already a growing commercial industry dedicated to generating “carbon offsets” in terrestrial forests. The timeframe of iron fertilization results (phytoplankton blooms occur over the course of days and weeks and can be captured with stunning space photography while forests grow slowly for decades) and the hypothetical maximum amount of carbon that HNLC zones could fix from the atmosphere (on the order of Gt of carbon) presents an attractive picture to investors. CLIMOS CASE STUDY Climos is a Silicon Valley startup attempting to commercialize large scale iron fertilization projects and convert the carbon sequestered into sellable carbon offsets. The company would release a form of iron into the open ocean from large ships and create large algae blooms that feed off the nutrients. Climos aims to quantify the carbon rich 3 detritus which descends below the mixed layer, and create carbon offsets for potential sale on the voluntary carbon offset market. The company was founded in November 2006 and is headed by CEO Dan Whaley, who previously created the pioneering internet travel company Get There. He is supported by Margaret Leinen, who serves as the Chief Science Officer. She previously served as Assistant Director for Geosciences at the National Science Foundation, were she managed a research budget of over $700M. The team in total has 8 employees. CARBON OFFSET MARKET Climos, as a private startup company, plans to build its business around the ability to “monetize” the carbon reductions and create carbon offsets. Carbon offsets represent the equivalent of one ton of carbon dioxide that would otherwise be in the atmosphere. In this case, the case for carbon dioxide reductions depends on the level of long term carbon sequestration into deep-ocean. Offsets can be also created through changes in behavior, through the implementation of a renewable energy generation, energy efficiency procedures, or incineration of greenhouse gases among others. In order to package them, offset projects need to
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Limits of Iron Fertilization
    LIMITS OF IRON FERTILIZATION Anand Gnanadesikan1, John P. Dunne1 and Irina Marinov2 1: NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, PO Box 308, Princeton, NJ 08542 [email protected], [email protected] 2: Department of Earth, Atmosphere and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, [email protected] ABSTRACT Iron fertilization has been proposed as a cheap, controllable, and environmentally benign method for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. While this is in fact the case in simple, 3-box models of the carbon cycle, more realistic models show that these claims fall short of reality. The fact that the efficiency of iron fertilization depends on the long term fate of the added iron and on the carbon associated with it makes tracking the effects of iron fertilization much more difficult and expensive than has been asserted. Additionally, advection of low nutrient water away from iron-rich areas can result in lowering production remotely, with potentially serious consequences. INTRODUCTION The idea of offsetting anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions by fertilizing the ocean with iron has a number of superficially attractive features. A host of iron fertilization experiments have demonstrated that adding iron to surface waters leads to a local increase in productivity [see for example Coale et al., 1996]. Our own survey of the literature [Dunne et al. subm.] shows that this should be expected to lead to a local increase in particle export. It is claimed however, that this local increase in particle export would necessarily lead to an easily verifiable drawdown in atmospheric carbon dioxide. It is further claimed that the increase in export is controllable and environmentally benign, implying that the effects cease as soon as the fertilization stops.
    [Show full text]
  • Uts Marine Biology Fact Sheet
    UTS MARINE BIOLOGY FACT SHEET Topic: Phytoplankton and Cloud Formation 1.The CLAW Hypothesis Background: In 1987 four people (Charlson, Lovelock, Andrea, & Warren) introduced a theory that a natural gas called Dimethylsulfide (DMS), produced by microscopic plants in the ocean (phytoplankton), was a major contributor to the formation of clouds in the atmosphere. This theory was named the CLAW Hypothesis (from the first letter of each of their surnames). Fast facts: . Phytoplankton produce DMSP (dimethylsulphoniopropionate), an organic sulphur compound, which is converted to DMS in the ocean. The majority of this DMS is consumed by bacteria but around 10% escapes into the atmosphere. When DMS is released into the air, a chemical reaction takes place (called an oxidation reaction) and sulphate aerosols are formed – a gas which acts as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN). This means it combines with water droplets in the atmosphere to form clouds. As a result, more clouds increase the reflectivity of the sun’s rays (earth albedo) which decreases the amount of light reaching the earth’s surface, and contributes to cooling the overall climate. A decrease in light causes a decrease in phytoplankton productivity of DMS. (Phytoplankton are primary producers which rely on light to function). This sequence of events is called a Negative Feedback Loop, because phytoplankton increase DMS production but DMS forms clouds which lowers the amount of light reaching the earth, resulting in less phytoplankton and less DMS. DMS emissions are a key step in the global sulphur cycle, which circulates sulphur throughout the earth, oceans, and atmosphere. It is an essential component in the growth of all living things.
    [Show full text]
  • Fertilizing the Ocean with Iron Is This a Viable Way to Help Reduce Carbon Dioxide Levels in the Atmosphere?
    380 Fertilizing the Ocean with Iron Is this a viable way to help reduce carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere? 360 ive me half a tanker of iron, and I’ll give you an ice Twenty years on, Martin’s line is still viewed alternately age” may rank as the catchiest line ever uttered by a as a boast or a quip—an opportunity too good to pass up or a biogeochemist.“G The man responsible was the late John Martin, misguided remedy doomed to backfire. Yet over the same pe- former director of the Moss Landing Marine Laboratory, who riod, unrelenting increases in carbon emissions and mount- discovered that sprinkling iron dust in the right ocean waters ing evidence of climate change have taken the debate beyond could trigger plankton blooms the size of a small city. In turn, academic circles and into the free market. the billions of cells produced might absorb enough heat-trap- Today, policymakers, investors, economists, environ- ping carbon dioxide to cool the Earth’s warming atmosphere. mentalists, and lawyers are taking notice of the idea. A few Never mind that Martin companies are planning new, was only half serious when larger experiments. The ab- 340 he made the remark (in his Ocean Iron Fertilization sence of clear regulations for “best Dr. Strangelove accent,” either conducting experiments he later recalled) at an infor- An argument for: Faced with the huge at sea or trading the results mal seminar at Woods Hole consequences of climate change, iron’s in “carbon offset” markets Oceanographic Institution outsized ability to put carbon into the oceans complicates the picture.
    [Show full text]
  • M1 Project: Climate - Biosphere Interactions Using ODE Models
    M1 Project: Climate - Biosphere interactions using ODE models Jan Rombouts Erasmus Mundus Master in Complex Systems Science Ecole´ Polytechnique, Paris Supervisors: Michael Ghil, Regis Ferri`ere Ecole´ Normal Sup´erieure,Paris June 30, 2014 Abstract There are many examples of the complex interactions of climate and vegetation through various feedback mechanisms. Climatic models have begun to take into ac- count vegetation as an important player in the evolution of the climate. Climate models range from complicated, large scale GCMs to simple conceptual models. It is this last type of modeling that I looked at in my project. Conceptual models usually use differential equations and techniques from dynamical systems theory to investi- gate basic mechanisms in the climate system. They have in particular been applied to investigate glacial-interglacial cycles. These models have not often included vege- tation as one of their variables, and this is what I've looked at in the project. First I investigate a simple, two equation model, and show that even in such a simple model, interesting oscillatory behaviour can be observed. Then I go on to study models with three equations, based on an existing model for temperature and ice sheet evolution. I extend this model in two ways: by adding a vegetation variable, and by adding a carbon dioxide variable. Again, oscillations are observed, but the existence depends on parameters that are linked to the vegetation. Finally I put it all together in a model with four equations. These models show that vegetation is an important factor, and can account for some specific features of glacial-interglacial cycles.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case Against Climate Regulation Via Oceanic Phytoplankton Sulphur Emissions P
    REVIEW doi:10.1038/nature10580 The case against climate regulation via oceanic phytoplankton sulphur emissions P. K. Quinn1 & T. S. Bates1 More than twenty years ago, a biological regulation of climate was proposed whereby emissions of dimethyl sulphide from oceanic phytoplankton resulted in the formation of aerosol particles that acted as cloud condensation nuclei in the marine boundary layer. In this hypothesis—referred to as CLAW—the increase in cloud condensation nuclei led to an increase in cloud albedo with the resulting changes in temperature and radiation initiating a climate feedback altering dimethyl sulphide emissions from phytoplankton. Over the past two decades, observations in the marine boundary layer, laboratory studies and modelling efforts have been conducted seeking evidence for the CLAW hypothesis. The results indicate that a dimethyl sulphide biological control over cloud condensation nuclei probably does not exist and that sources of these nuclei to the marine boundary layer and the response of clouds to changes in aerosol are much more complex than was recognized twenty years ago. These results indicate that it is time to retire the CLAW hypothesis. loud condensation nuclei (CCN) can affect the amount of solar The CLAW hypothesis further postulated that an increase in DMS radiation reaching Earth’s surface by altering cloud droplet emissions from the ocean would result in an increase in CCN, cloud number concentration and size and, as a result, cloud reflectivity droplet concentrations, and cloud albedo, and a decrease in the amount C 1 or albedo . CCN are atmospheric particles that are sufficiently soluble of solar radiation reaching Earth’s surface.
    [Show full text]
  • Enhancing the Natural Sulfur Cycle to Slow Global Warming$
    ARTICLE IN PRESS Atmospheric Environment 41 (2007) 7373–7375 www.elsevier.com/locate/atmosenv New Directions: Enhancing the natural sulfur cycle to slow global warming$ Full scale ocean iron fertilization of the Southern The CLAW hypothesis further states that greater Ocean (SO) has been proposed previously as a DMS production would result in additional flux to means to help mitigate rising CO2 in the atmosphere the atmosphere, more cloud condensation nuclei (Martin et al., 1990, Nature 345, 156–158). Here we (CCN) and greater cloud reflectivity by decreasing describe a different, more leveraged approach to cloud droplet size. Thus, increased DMS would partially regulate climate using limited iron en- contribute to the homeostasis of the planet by hancement to stimulate the natural sulfur cycle, countering warming from increasing CO2. A cor- resulting in increased cloud reflectivity that could ollary to the CLAW hypothesis is that elevated CO2 cool large regions of our planet. Some regions of the itself increases DMS production which has been Earth’s oceans are high in nutrients but low in observed during a mesocosm scale CO2 enrichment primary productivity. The largest such region is the experiment (Wingenter et al., 2007, Geophysical SO followed by the equatorial Pacific. Several Research Letters 34, L05710). The CLAW hypoth- mesoscale (102 km2) experiments have shown that esis relies on the assumption that DMS sea-to-air the limiting nutrient to productivity is iron. Yet, the flux leads to new particles and not just the growth of effectiveness of iron fertilization for sequestering existing particles. If the CLAW hypothesis is significant amounts of atmospheric CO2 is still in correct, the danger is that enormous anthropogenic question.
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Ecology Progress Series 601:77
    Vol. 601: 77–95, 2018 MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES Published August 9 https://doi.org/10.3354/meps12685 Mar Ecol Prog Ser OPENPEN ACCESSCCESS Remarkable structural resistance of a nanoflagellate- dominated plankton community to iron fertilization during the Southern Ocean experiment LOHAFEX Isabelle Schulz1,2,3, Marina Montresor4, Christine Klaas1, Philipp Assmy1,2,5, Sina Wolzenburg1, Mangesh Gauns6, Amit Sarkar6,7, Stefan Thiele8,9, Dieter Wolf-Gladrow1, Wajih Naqvi6, Victor Smetacek1,6,* 1Alfred-Wegener-Institut Helmholtz-Zentrum für Polar- und Meeresforschung, 27570 Bremerhaven, Germany 2MARUM − Center for Marine Environmental Sciences, University of Bremen, 28359 Bremen, Germany 3Biological and Environmental Science and Engineering Division, Red Sea Research Center, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, 23955-6900 Thuwal, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 4Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn, 80121 Naples, Italy 5Norwegian Polar Institute, Fram Centre, 9296 Tromsø, Norway 6CSIR National Institute of Oceanography, 403 004 Goa, India 7National Centre for Antarctic and Ocean Research, 403 804 Goa, India 8Max Planck Institute for Marine Microbiology, 28359 Bremen, Germany 9Institute for Inorganic and Analytical Chemistry, Friedrich Schiller University, 07743 Jena, Germany ABSTRACT: The genesis of phytoplankton blooms and the fate of their biomass in iron-limited, high-nutrient−low-chlorophyll regions can be studied under natural conditions with ocean iron fertilization (OIF) experiments. The Indo-German OIF experiment LOHAFEX was carried out over 40 d in late summer 2009 within the cold core of a mesoscale eddy in the productive south- west Atlantic sector of the Southern Ocean. Silicate concentrations were very low, and phyto- plankton biomass was dominated by autotrophic nanoflagellates (ANF) in the size range 3−10 µm.
    [Show full text]
  • Ocean Iron Fertilization Experiments – Past, Present, and Future Looking to a Future Korean Iron Fertilization Experiment in the Southern Ocean (KIFES) Project
    Biogeosciences, 15, 5847–5889, 2018 https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-5847-2018 © Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Reviews and syntheses: Ocean iron fertilization experiments – past, present, and future looking to a future Korean Iron Fertilization Experiment in the Southern Ocean (KIFES) project Joo-Eun Yoon1, Kyu-Cheul Yoo2, Alison M. Macdonald3, Ho-Il Yoon2, Ki-Tae Park2, Eun Jin Yang2, Hyun-Cheol Kim2, Jae Il Lee2, Min Kyung Lee2, Jinyoung Jung2, Jisoo Park2, Jiyoung Lee1, Soyeon Kim1, Seong-Su Kim1, Kitae Kim2, and Il-Nam Kim1 1Department of Marine Science, Incheon National University, Incheon 22012, Republic of Korea 2Korea Polar Research Institute, Incheon 21990, Republic of Korea 3Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, MS 21, 266 Woods Hold Rd., Woods Hole, MA 02543, USA Correspondence: Il-Nam Kim ([email protected]) Received: 2 November 2016 – Discussion started: 15 November 2016 Revised: 16 August 2018 – Accepted: 18 August 2018 – Published: 5 October 2018 Abstract. Since the start of the industrial revolution, hu- providing insight into mechanisms operating in real time and man activities have caused a rapid increase in atmospheric under in situ conditions. To maximize the effectiveness of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations, which have, in turn, aOIF experiments under international aOIF regulations in the had an impact on climate leading to global warming and future, we therefore suggest a design that incorporates sev- ocean acidification. Various approaches have been proposed eral components. (1) Experiments conducted in the center of to reduce atmospheric CO2. The Martin (or iron) hypothesis an eddy structure when grazing pressure is low and silicate suggests that ocean iron fertilization (OIF) could be an ef- levels are high (e.g., in the SO south of the polar front during fective method for stimulating oceanic carbon sequestration early summer).
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Increased Pco2 and Temperature on the North Atlantic Spring Bloom. III. Dimethylsulfoniopropionate
    Vol. 388: 41–49, 2009 MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES Published August 19 doi: 10.3354/meps08135 Mar Ecol Prog Ser Effects of increased pCO2 and temperature on the North Atlantic spring bloom. III. Dimethylsulfoniopropionate Peter A. Lee1,*, Jamie R. Rudisill1, Aimee R. Neeley1, 7, Jennifer M. Maucher2, David A. Hutchins3, 8, Yuanyuan Feng3, 8, Clinton E. Hare3, Karine Leblanc3, 9,10, Julie M. Rose3,11, Steven W. Wilhelm4, Janet M. Rowe4, 5, Giacomo R. DiTullio1, 6 1Hollings Marine Laboratory, College of Charleston, 331 Fort Johnson Road, Charleston, South Carolina 29412, USA 2Center for Coastal Environmental Health and Biomolecular Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 219 Fort Johnson Road, Charleston, South Carolina 29412, USA 3College of Marine and Earth Studies, University of Delaware, 700 Pilottown Road, Lewes, Delaware 19958, USA 4Department of Microbiology, University of Tennessee, 1414 West Cumberland Ave, Knoxville, Tennessee 37996, USA 5Department of Plant Pathology, The University of Nebraska, 205 Morrison Center, Lincoln, Nebraska 68583, USA 6Grice Marine Laboratory, College of Charleston, 205 Fort Johnson Road, Charleston, South Carolina 29412, USA 7Present address: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Calibration and Validation Office, 1450 S. Rolling Road, Suite 4.111, Halethorpe, Maryland 21227, USA 8Present address: Department of Biological Sciences, University of Southern California, 3616 Trousdale Parkway, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA 9Present address: Aix-Marseille Université, CNRS,
    [Show full text]
  • Geoengineering Research Under U.S. Law
    Geoengineering Research Under U.S. Law Rob James Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP Geoengineering: The Legal Challenges of Climate Mitigation LACBA Environmental Law 34th Annual Spring Super Symposium March 18, 2021 2020-21 has been an (involuntary) geoengineering experiment .2020 tied 2016 as the warmest year on record .Less sulfate pollution, more warming (a “reverse volcano”) .CO2 emissions are down, but expected to bounce back with post- pandemic economic activity .“Clean air warms the planet a tiny bit, but it kills a lot fewer people with air pollution.” Legal precursors . Weather modification—permits, practices as well as litigation o 27 OKLA. L. REV. 409 (1973) o Friedrich et al. PNAS (2020) . Studies of hurricane diversion (and accompanying ethical dilemmas) . Geoengineering, adaptation, and climate change . Unspeakable for years? o “[Adaptation is] a kind of laziness, an arrogant faith in our ability to react in time to save our own skin.” Al Gore, EARTH IN THE BALANCE (1992) Legal precursors . Royal Society (2009) and other studies . Bipartisan Policy Center, 2011 (Dole, Daschle, Mitchell, Baker) . Individual experiments . Debates in international forums . But what is the legal framework? . And what are the legal exposures and benefits? Government activity . March 5, 2021 – DOE Secretary Granholm approves $24 million for direct air capture research . Appropriations Act of 2020—$4 million for NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) to investigate “Earth’s radiation budget” and “solar climate interventions” o NOAA is currently working with Arizona company to advance study of stratosphere . Carbon capture and sequestration tax credit (IRC, 26 U.S.C. § 45Q) . California Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) .
    [Show full text]
  • Iron Fertilization: a Scientific Review with International Policy Recommendations
    Iron Fertilization: A Scientific Review with International Policy Recommendations By Jennie Dean* TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................ ....... .322 I. CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE OCEAN ......................................... 322 A . D escribing the problem ................................................................ 322 B. Identifying a potential solution .................................................... 323 II. IRON FERTILIZATION EXAMINED ............................................... 326 A . Potential benefits .......................................................................... 326 B . Potential problem s ........................................................................ 328 C. Synthesis and suggested action .................................................... 333 III. IRON FERTILIZATION AND INTERNATIONAL LAW ................. 334 A . Introduction .................................................................................. 334 B. Coverage under pollution and dumping regulations ..................... 334 C. Coverage under biological conservation regulations .................... 336 D. Coverage under global climate change mitigation regulations ..... 338 IV. RECOM M ENDATION S ..................................................................... 339 A . Suggested modifications ............................................................. 339 B . F easibility ..................................................................................... 340 C O N C L U SIO N ...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Thick-Shelled, Grazer-Protected Diatoms Decouple Ocean Carbon
    Thick-shelled, grazer-protected diatoms decouple SEE COMMENTARY ocean carbon and silicon cycles in the iron-limited Antarctic Circumpolar Current Philipp Assmya,b,1, Victor Smetacekb,c,1, Marina Montresord, Christine Klaasb, Joachim Henjesb, Volker H. Strassb, Jesús M. Arrietae,f, Ulrich Bathmannb,g, Gry M. Bergh, Eike Breitbarthi, Boris Cisewskib,j, Lars Friedrichsb, Nike Fuchsb, Gerhard J. Herndle,k, Sandra Jansenb, Sören Krägefskyb, Mikel Latasal,m, Ilka Peekenb,n, Rüdiger Röttgerso, Renate Scharekl,m, Susanne E. Schüllerp, Sebastian Steigenbergerb,q, Adrian Webbr, and Dieter Wolf-Gladrowb aNorwegian Polar Institute, 9296 Tromsø, Norway; bAlfred Wegener Institute Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research, 27570 Bremerhaven, Germany; cNational Institute of Oceanography, Dona Paula, Goa 403 004, India; dStazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn, 80121 Napoli, Italy; eDepartment of Biological Oceanography, Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, 1790AB, Den Burg, Texel, The Netherlands; fDepartment of Global Change Research, Instituto Mediterraneo de Estudios Avanzados, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas–Universidad de las Islas Baleares, 07190 Esporles, Mallorca, Spain; gLeibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Research Warnemünde, 18119 Rostock, Germany; hDepartment of Geophysics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305; iHelmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel, 24105 Kiel, Germany; jThünen Institute of Sea Fisheries, 22767 Hamburg, Germany; kDepartment of Marine Biology, Faculty Center of Ecology, University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna,
    [Show full text]