Laying waste to the deep: parallel narratives of marine carbon dioxide removal and deep-seabed mining

18 views
Skip to first unread message

Geoengineering News

unread,
Jul 31, 2024, 2:35:31 PMJul 31
to CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com
https://www.nature.com/articles/s44183-024-00075-5?error=cookies_not_supported&code=dd8777cb-9f48-4048-84df-890179f70af6&trk=feed-detail_main-feed-card_feed-article-content

Authors 
Susanna Lidström, Lisa A. Levin & Sarah Seabrook 

26 July 2024

Citations: Lidström, S., Levin, L.A. & Seabrook, S. Laying waste to the deep: parallel narratives of marine carbon dioxide removal and deep-seabed mining. npj Ocean Sustain 3, 36 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44183-024-00075-5

Authors 
The deep ocean is increasingly featured in climate solution discussions. An emerging narrative suggests that marine carbon dioxide removal (mCDR) is essential to meet global climate targets. The argument made is similar to claims that deep-seabed mining (DSM) is necessary to enable widespread electrification, in that both are framed as helping to address climate change. We compare the structure and history of these narratives, highlighting that while potential negative impacts on marine life have emerged as a central feature in debates about DSM, environmental and social risks associated with mCDR are yet to receive similar recognition. In light of this comparison, we argue that potential harm needs to be further emphasized in considerations of deploying mCDR.

Source: npj

Greg Rau

unread,
Aug 1, 2024, 6:48:21 PMAug 1
to Carbon Dioxide Removal
“… environmental and social risks associated with mCDR are yet to receive similar [to DSM] recognition. In light of this comparison, we argue that potential harm needs to be further emphasized in considerations of deploying mCDR.”

GR -
1) To the contrary, the real or imagined environmental and social risks and harms associated with mCDR seem to be rather well emphasized (a). In any case the more important issue is how do these risks, if real, compare to the harms to the ocean if land CDR proves insufficient and we kill mCDR now before proving it is unsafe and/or not cost effective? We need  to understand the benefit/harm ratio of mCDR, not just harms. Most people working in this space are doing so with the intent of benefiting and not harming the ocean and the planet.

2) Unlike DSM, mCDR is already saving our bacon - 10 Gts CO2/yr are naturally absorbed by the ocean and over the next millenia most of the carbon we've emitted will wind up in the ocean*. (Obviously, we do not want to mimic/enhance the bulk of this natural mCDR that (initially) involves passive air-sea gas exchange and storage of CO2 as carbonic acid.) Why is it a good idea to demonize mCDR by equating with DSM and before proving (not speculating) that  the harms of all forms of mCDR outweigh benefits. In any case, M Nature will use mCDR (geochemistry and biology) anyway to (eventually) convert and securely store most of our excess CO2 in non-acidic forms if we do nothing*. The issue then becomes can this be safely augmented/accelerated, withouut necessarily installing new mCDR that is totally foreign to existing ocean biogeochemistry.

3) DSM seems a poor analogy to mCDR; material extraction vs increasing/accelerating processes that are happening anyway and have the potential to benefit the ocean?  Implying up front that mCDR will "lay waste" to the deep ocean has the clear intent of impeding efforts to learn if this is true for all mCDR. Good luck to the deep ocean and the rest of the planet if we fail to effectively manage ocean and atmospheric CO2 because decisionmakers were led to believe that the environmental and societal cost/benefit of any/all mCDR was too high, without having actual evidence. How about we work together to see if there are ways to perform mCDR that are net beneficial/protective of the ocean, deep and otherwise? Not all mCDR will significantly involve the deep ocean - OAE.  

I'm no DSM expert, but with the advent of inteligent AUVs, robotics, AI, sensors, etc there have got to be less environmentally impactful and cheaper ways of harvesting nodules (e.g., picking individual nodules off the seaffoor) than vacuuming huge swaths of the seabed. How about addressing the question: Can nodules be harvested in a manner that has no or acceptable environmental impacts? 

*IPCC 2013 AR5 FAQ:
Inline image
and many more.

On Jul 31, 2024, at 11:35 AM, Geoengineering News <geoengine...@gmail.com> wrote:


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAHJsh9-9QC%3Dg8tUEzZi%3DnzrS9CF4w7uVmr2%3DQ1ovnVk1bkpLaw%40mail.gmail.com.

Michael Hayes

unread,
Aug 1, 2024, 10:01:51 PMAug 1
to Greg Rau, Carbon Dioxide Removal

I would like to point out a few possible direct technical links between DSM and reactor-based biotic mCDR.

1) Sediment disruption has been the primary environmental concern for DSM. Passing that sediment load over to a nearby floating reactor-based farming operation, as a form of soil, would likely help both operations. The DSM operation will no longer release sediments and the biotic mCDR gains useful bulk material(s).

2) Clay, which is the primary seabed surface material in the primary DSM area, can be used to disrupt microalgal cells. As such, the DSM 'waste', or clay, might provide a way of extractiing bio oil from microalgae within a nearby reactor-based agriculture mCDR operation.

the https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15134251/


To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/1311506556.2287034.1722552359640%40mail.yahoo.com.
1722493205563blob.jpg
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages