Project to Capture CO2 With Plankton Puts to Sea (Global Warming Problem)

Project to Capture CO2

With Plankton Puts to Sea

By Andrew C. Revkin

The WeatherBird II is part of a project aimed at encouraging plankton growth.

(Credit: Jay Paul for The New York Times)

The WeatherBird II, a 115-foot private research vessel, has put to sea from Florida as part of a novel and contentious effort to commercialize the removal of heat-trapping carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by triggering blooms of plankton.

The ship is operated by Planktos, one of a host of companies involved with the fast-growing global market in “carbon offsets,” credits bought by individuals or companies seeking to compensate for carbon dioxide emissions from flying, electricity use or other energy-intensive activities.

The WeatherBird II entered international waters on Sunday, said Russ George, the chief executive of Planktos, based in Foster City, Calif. Plankton blooms happen naturally when dust containing iron settles on ocean waters where a lack of iron otherwise prevents plankton from thriving. But efforts to replicate the process artificially have met with strong opposition from some environmental groups.

These include the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, which for years has confronted, and sometimes rammed, whaling and fishing vessels. It had also planned to try to block a fertilization effort by Planktos this summer near the Galapagos Islands, but the company delayed that project for a variety of reasons, officials said. Ocean fertilization is one strategy scientists are mulling to blunt the unrelenting growth in carbon dioxide emissions from smokestacks, tailpipes and deforestation.

A natural phytoplankton bloom in the Bering Sea. (Credit: NASA) Some scientists have estimated that hundreds of millions of tons of carbon dioxide might be absorbed by fertilized seas, particularly in regions low in iron.

But others say much more research should be conducted before commercial-scale operations begin. Among various questions, scientists have yet to determine how much of the carbon captured by plankton blooms through photosynthesis sinks to the seabed and how much is re-emitted to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases.

This year, the president of Friends of the Earth, Brent Blackwelder, issued a statement saying, “Planktos is selling the equivalent of global warming snake oil.” In an e-mail exchange Tuesday night, Mr. George declined to discuss the route of the WeatherBird II or whether a second ship will join it to distribute tons of iron-containing dust, because of what he said were continuing threats. Concerns about environmental impacts have no merit, he said, adding that the project was precisely the kind of work that could help answer lingering questions about the method.

“We have requests and offers from governments and scientists all over the world to send teams aboard to actively participate,” Mr. George said. “However, all those working with us who have been revealed in public have been ruthlessly attacked and threatened for helping Planktos do credible, transparent, verifiable science.”

[UPDATE: An Australian company with a different technique for boosting plankton growth — adding urea to the sea — has evidently gained permission from the Philippines to do a field test in the Sulu Sea, raising objections from some private groups and blogger.]

What kinds of private-sector experiments to limit the buildup of greenhouse gases do you feel are justified, given the limits of government-supported research?

To be continue in other article...

(Jakarta, Senin 19 February 2008, 10.32 pagi)

Re-publish by Jacob Paradox from link (www.nytimes.com)

How Should a Corporation Think of Global Warming? (Global Warming Problem)

How Should a Corporation Think of Global Warming?

By Stephen J. Dubner

With global warming having become Topic No. 1 of so many discussions, to me the big question is the degree to which behavioral changes are produced on three separate levels:

1. The individual level — where change seems well underway, but probably won’t amount to all that much without major institutional/structural changes.

2. The governmental level — where change will be talked and talked about, and even enacted, but if the past is any teacher, such changes will not necessarily be hugely efficient or even sensible.

3. The corporate level — where change will be produced as a result of both individual pressure (consumers clamoring for green products and procedures) and the governmental level (with new regulations).

The changes at level No. 3 will be a good indicator of just how well markets work. How will firms balance the extra costs of green behavior with the demands of consumers and government? Jack and Suzy Welch, writing in their BusinessWeek column, give a really interesting answer to a question on this subject. They were asked by a reader how they felt about the realities of global warming, and what firms should do about it. Here, in part, is their reply:

We believe that, whether the impact of global warming ends up being mild or severe, companies have to adopt a “here it comes” mind-set and mount a well-reasoned plan. Any other response would be bad business. Our reasoning is hardly original. It’s the same as Pascal’s Wager. Back in 1670, basically using game theory, the French philosopher argued that it was a better bet to believe in God because the expected value of believing is always greater than the expected value of not believing.

The same goes for global warming. If you accept it as reality, adapting your strategy and practices, your plants will use less energy and emit fewer effluents. Your packaging will be more biodegradable, and your new products will be able to capture any markets created by severe weather effects. Yes, global warming may not be as damaging as some predict, and you might have invested more than you needed, but it’s just as Pascal said: Given all the possible outcomes, the upside of being ready and prepared for a “fearsome event” surely beats the alternative. The perfect analogy is globalization. Thirty years ago, rumbling began about the coming world marketplace where costs would migrate to the lowest bidder. Some companies put on blinders and insisted that their quality would prevent competition from the likes of Mexican and Asian factories. Eventually, of course, many of these companies got religion and changed their practices. But years of progress, profits, and jobs were lost in their delay.

Only time will tell if global warming will be minor or catastrophic; if it can be mitigated or will destroy the planet. … But one thing is certain. Companies shouldn’t wait to find out.

To be continue in other article...

(Jakarta, Senin 18 February 2008, 15.44 siang)

Re-publish by Jacob Paradox from link (www.nytimes.com)

Shaking Up the Bali Climate Conference, Literally (Global Warming Problem)

Shaking Up the Bali Climate

Conference, Literally

By Patrick J. Lyons

Whatever their brains may tell them, human hearts are strongly prone to read meaning and intention into what happens around them, and not be satisfied with “coincidence” as an explanation. It’s just natural to anthropomorphise.

So The Lede will perhaps be forgiven by even the most Vulcan of readers for the first thing that came to mind about the news this morning of a moderately strong earthquake just off the island of Bali in Indonesia: Ah! Gaia’s calling card.

You see, the United Nations Climate Change Conference, with thousands of delegates from 180 countres, happens to have just gotten underway there (more on the conference on our sibling blog, Dot Earth). And the earthquake appears to have been just strong enough to give the conferees a good shake, without causing any significant injuries or damage or touching off a tsunami.

Yes, earthquakes are common in Indonesia whether thousands of climate-policy grandees happen to be hanging around there or not, and no plausible case could be made that their arrival or their weighty arguments or their expense-account spending could have somehow nudged the tectonic plates just enough to touch off a temblor. It’s got to be pure coincidence.

Still, one thinks with a smile, if the natural world did have a mind and personality of its own, isn’t it just the kind of thing an earth goddess might do?

To be continue in other article...

(Jakarta, Senin 18 February 2008, 15.44 siang)

Re-publish by Jacob Paradox from link (www.nytimes.com)