Oxygenating the Arctic

[Sam Carana]

A study by Berkeley Lab and Los Alamos National Laboratory shows that,
as global temperature increases and oceans warm, methane releases from
clathrates would over time cause depletion of oxygen, nutrients, and
trace metals needed by methane-eating microbes, resulting in ever more
methane escaping into the air unchanged, to further accelerate climate
change.

To avoid such scenarios, or even more worrying scenarios in the
Arctic, it may be helpful to artificially add oxygen to the water.
This has been done before, e.g. in lakes in Finland. On the one hand,
oxygenating Arctic waters seems beneficial, as this could enhance
oxidation of methane in the water. Also, oxygen bubbles could form an
insulating layer in between an ice-cap and warming water underneath
the cap. Thirdly, bubbles could brighten the water, changing albedo
and reflect more sunlight back into space. Where oxygen enters the
atmosphere, this may help with the formation of hydroxyl and
subsequent oxidation of atmospheric methane.

On the other hand, though, some processes could be counter-productive.
As an example, bubbles could disturb a hydrate and accelerate release
of methane. Rising bubbles could take more methane along upwards than
they help oxidize. Experience in Finland shows that adding oxygen
could also increase concentrations of nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas
with tremendous global warming potential. Also, producing oxygen
locally through electrolysis could result in the release of hydrogen
that could bind with oxygen or result in hydroxyl and ozone
depletion.

Tests are therefore recommended, to research what kind of impacts and
side-effects can be expected. As to the problems with hydrogen, these
could largely be avoided by producing the oxygen at lower latitudes.
Wind turbines on bases, floating offshore the Californian coast, could
supply electricity for use on land during the day, while at night
powering electrolysis of seawater (possibly preceded by distillation),
to produce oxygen and hydrogen.

The hydrogen can be used to power shipping, while the oxygen can be
transported by ship, either liquefied or as compressed gas, to the
Arctic. On arrival, a hose could be lowered from the ship into the
water to release oxygen, or a balloon could be launched, raising a
hose to the desired height, and oxygen could be pumped up the hose for
release into the atmosphere. If wanted, the same hose could also be
used to release aerosols into the atmosphere, in further efforts to
keep the Arctic from overheating. Finally, such hoses could carry
devices to monitor composition of water and atmosphere, temperatures,
currents and winds at various altitudes, etc.

Funding for the project could be provided in part by the electricity
sold by the offshore turbines. To further fund the project, fees could
be imposed on international shipping and aviation, e.g. on departures
from U.S. seaports or airports, or on bunker fuel and jet fuel taken
on board such ships or airplanes. The revenues of these fees could be
used partly to fund the Arctic oxygenation project, and partly to fund
rebates on hydrogen that is produced at the floating bases and sold to
ships anchoring there. Such feebates could also satisfy calls by the
European Union for airlines to join in with action on climate change.

Alternatively, such feebates could be imposed on international
shipping only. Other types of feebates could then be imposed on
international aviation, e.g. to fund air capture of carbon dioxide and
the production of biofuel either in algae bags or as a result of
pyrolysis of organic waste. More generally, feebates are the most
effective way to facilitate the shift towards a sustainable economy.

Cheers,
Sam Carana