Latest news with #JamesKerry
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Science
- Yahoo
A drop in the ocean: does experimental technology hold the key to saving the world's seas?
In October 2024, a US company called Ebb Carbon announced the world's largest marine carbon removal deal to date, signing a multimillion-dollar agreement with Microsoft to try to help fix a very real problem in the world's seas: ocean acidification. Ebb plans to use a method called electrochemical ocean alkalinity enhancement (OAE) to mimic the natural process of ocean alkalisation – in other words, it wants to add huge amounts of alkaline materials to ocean waters that scientists now know are acidifying at an alarming rate. Ebb is not alone. In September 2024, Canada's Planetary Technologies raised just over $11m (£8m) from companies including Evok Innovations and BDC Capital to enhance ocean alkalinity, while in 2025, another firm, Equatic, sold 60,000 carbon removal credits to Boeing, to enable it to do the same. The sector's growth – part of the larger carbon removal market – has been astronomic, and has started to ring alarm bells for many ocean scientists across the world. 'The jury's still out on the damage that OAE could do,' says Dr James Kerry, an expert on coral reefs and senior research fellow at James Cook University. He says if too much alkalinity is added to the water, an event called precipitation can occur: carbonates could create minerals in the water that act as pollutants. 'It might block light levels; it might be mistaken as food by marine creatures.' Around the world, ocean acidification is rising. As the ocean absorbs 30% of excess atmospheric carbon, it sets up a chain of chemical reactions that results in the ocean's pH becoming dangerously acidic, which in turn affects humans and marine life. Global seawater pH has decreased 40% since preindustrial times, with nearly half of that decrease occurring since the 1980s. On the west coast of the Americas, upwellings of deep-sea waters contributed to a mass acidification event in 2012 which contributed to kelp forests dying along more than 220 miles (350km) of coastline. These shifts in the ocean's acidity affect the smallest creatures most, in particular crustaceans such as shellfish or crabs, which are unable to build their skeletons in such conditions. While few doubt that ocean acidification is a real and growing problem, the concern is that the science behind geoengineering solutions, which manipulate the Earth's natural processes to try to solve a problem, is in its infancy. Yet hundreds of millions of dollars are being poured into enacting these solutions. Big companies buy credits in carbon dioxide (CO2) removal projects as a way to offset their own emissions, allowing them to meet their sustainability targets or comply with regulations. Total carbon removal purchases (not just those for marine projects) rose from £41m in 2022 to more than £1.9bn in 2024, according to the Wall Street Journal. Some experts say the industry could grow to £37bn by 2030, driven by industries that struggle to reduce their emissions, in particular aviation, cement and steel production. We'll be able to de-acidify the coastal ocean, which is where most of the life forms thrive Ben Tarbell, CEO, Ebb Carbon 'In all sorts of mitigation approaches, everything is about scale,' said Dr Christopher Gobler of Stony Brook University. 'If not scaled large enough, they'll have no effect. If over-scaled, they could push pH too high, which could create problems for certain organisms, such as sea grasses.' Ben Tarbell, CEO of Ebb, says that the question of scale is 'fundamental to any climate solution' and that the firm is conscious of doing this safely and responsibly. 'We precisely measure and meter alkalinity that is introduced to the ocean,' he says. 'We continuously track key water indicators like pH, and can shut down automatically if any thresholds are approached.' He also points to a study done with scientists and the local Lower Elwha Klallam tribe in Port Angeles, Washington, that the company undertook into testing the effects of alkaline enhancement on salmon in carefully controlled conditions. As the industry moves forward, many are looking to Ebb and its Microsoft deal to see what happens next. Now operating in Washington state in the US at less than 100 tons a year of carbon removal, this summer the company will move to a new plant in Port Angeles, just 30 miles (50km) away, which can remove 1,000 tons of carbon a year. 'This plant will enable us to have confidence to then build much, much bigger plants,' says Tarbell. The company builds its infrastructure on to existing desalination plants. 'Our approach to ocean alkalinity enhancement can achieve over 2bn tons of CO2 removal a year in the coming decades.' He adds: 'We will not fix the entire bulk of the ocean, but we'll be able to de-acidify the coastal ocean, which is where most of the life forms thrive.' Since the technologies these companies use are new, international and national legislative bodies are struggling to keep up. . While an international legal consensus on how to control ocean alkalinity enhancement is reached, some companies are forging ahead with field trials. In 2022, Canada's Planetary Technologies drew ire for its experiments in St Ives Bay in Cornwall, UK. Its ocean alkalinity enhancement techniques became the target of a months-long campaign by local people, surfers, wildlife organisations and business owners, who all felt that they were not given sufficient information about what damage these experiments might do. Some, such as Sue Sayer, founder of the Cornwall Seal Group Research Trust, worried about damage to the local ecosystem, in particular the grey seal population. 'In the best-case scenario, there are no impacts on the seals; in the worst-case scenario there's no fish, no seals, no surfers, no tourism, no economy,' she said at the time of the protests. Related: How the 'evil twin' of the climate crisis is threatening our oceans Planetary Technologies no longer operates in the UK, but by 2024 it had announced a new round of funding, including a carbon credit sale to Microsoft. It said in April this year that the Cornish trial 'demonstrated great potential' but that it had since decided not to pursue a full programme in Cornwall 'due to commercial infeasibility'. When asked about its new round of funding and the Cornwall protests, the company declined to comment. Many scientists are not opposed to exploring the possibilities of geoenginering, especially as the pressure to do something more than simply reduce emissions grows. 'The ultimate cause of global ocean acidification is rising CO2 to the atmosphere from rising emissions,' says Gobler. But, he says, as the 'toolbox' to fight emissions is being developed, 'being able to examine the net CO2 effect of each approach probably should be a consideration'. Brad Ack, CEO of Ocean Visions, a marine carbon removal nonprofit, underlines this. 'There's one driver line of pain that we're seeing on the planet, and that is the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. And there's only two ways to affect that. One is to stop putting the CO2 in, and the other is to take it out.' But many want to look at other solutions first and are worried about the speed of progress of this manmade approach. Kerry suggests looking to more nature-based solutions, such as marine habitat restoration and protection as a way to mitigate the problem. Other issues that firms face is accurately assessing how much carbon is removed by OAE. Factors as varied as water depth, temperature, tides and seafloor variability all affect how much atmospheric carbon is removed and how long it will be sequestered. Dr David Ho, of [C]Worthy, a marine carbon removal nonprofit that offers formulas for techniques such as ocean alkalinity enhancement, believes that carbon removal efforts should be driven at government level. 'It makes sense that these companies have to sell credits to survive,' he says. 'At the same time, they have no way to prove that what they're doing is effective – that's a big problem.' • This article was amended on 10 June 2025. Global seawater pH has decreased by 40% since preindustrial times, not increased by 40% as stated in an earlier version.
ABC News
08-05-2025
- Science
- ABC News
Can the oceans solve our carbon removal problems?
There's been growing research and investment in projects that use the oceans to artificially remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Such techniques involve both a biological and a chemical approach. To date, carbon removal technologies have been largely land-based, using giant air-purification machines, or planting trees to consume and store carbon. Those efforts have struggled to gain scale and acceptance. So, will a marine-based approach make any difference? It's a controversial idea and not without its difficulties. Guests Brad Ack — CEO, Ocean Visions James Kerry — Senior Marine and Climate Scientist, OceanCare Romany Webb — Deputy Director, Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Law School Rachel Rose Jackson — Climate Campaign Director, Corporate Accountability
Arab News
15-04-2025
- Science
- Arab News
Dumping biomass in the ocean is not a climate solution
a self-appointed 'carbon removal certifier,' is seeking to establish a new accredited means of carbon sequestration: dumping bundled biomass (wood or crop waste) into the ocean. At least two companies are already selling carbon credits based on plans to dump biomass in the Black Sea. But 'ocean storage of biomass,' known as OSB, lacks scientific verification and highlights the risks of commercializing unproven climate interventions. The idea is that 'degradation-resistant biomass' would be dumped into the Black Sea basin, where anoxic (oxygen-free) conditions would further slow, or even halt, degradation. As a result, the approach's proponents claim, the carbon would effectively be removed from the biological cycle for more than 1,000 years, with minimal environmental impact. But there is no scientific evidence that this is true. While anoxic zones might appear barren, they are by no means devoid of life. And the tiny organisms found there — such as the Synechococcus bacteria, which was recently discovered in the Black Sea's anoxic basin — break down organic matter and release trapped carbon. They simply use chemosynthesis, rather than photosynthesis, to do it. Since carbon can migrate across the 'chemocline' (chemical transition zone) that separates anoxic zones from oxygen-rich waters, whatever is released within the Black Sea's anoxic basin can return to the ocean's carbon cycle and, ultimately, the atmosphere. Two more processes could accelerate the release of carbon: dumping large quantities of baled biomass could — and likely would — induce turbulent chemical mixing in the chemocline, while the heat generated by decomposing biomass could further weaken the Black Sea's stratification. Moreover, as the ballast makes contact with the seafloor, it will likely resuspend sediment that currently acts as a reservoir not only of carbon, but also hydrogen sulfide (which is toxic) and methane (a highly potent greenhouse gas). Whatever is released within the Black Sea's anoxic basin can return to the ocean's carbon cycle and, ultimately, the atmosphere James Kerry and Lisa Levin The seabed disturbance, together with the erosion of the chemocline, could cause these gases, in addition to carbon dioxide, to penetrate the oxygen-rich areas of the Black Sea, which support a diverse array of marine life, including dolphins, porpoises and many species of fish, some of which can be found nowhere else. Any expansion of the anoxic zone or intrusion of toxic gases into this habitat could severely harm its ecosystem, which is already under intensifying pressure from overfishing, pollution (including chemical, plastic and noise pollution), habitat destruction and rising temperatures. But that is not all. The gases released as a result of OSB could ultimately make their way into the atmosphere, with potentially catastrophic consequences. This is not without precedent. When the stratification of Lake Nyos in Cameroon collapsed in 1986, large clouds of carbon dioxide gas were released, killing an estimated 1,700 people. insists that OSB is safe. But these claims are based on modeling and short-term laboratory experiments, which cannot possibly replicate the unique and complex conditions of the Black Sea's anoxic basin. For one thing, these experiments tend to underestimate rates of organic degradation by failing to account for the possibility that they will increase over time — for example, as microbial communities adapt or due to a breakdown in the structural integrity of the biomass. Moreover, while promises strict requirements for monitoring and environmental and social safeguards, it plans to observe the effects of its activities for only 15 years after the last biomass bundle is dumped — a far cry from the 1,000 years of carbon sequestration being claimed. Without long-term observational data, it cannot credibly claim that OSB is a legitimate — let alone benign — means of carbon removal, especially because the carbon permanency and ecological consequences of such activities are difficult to predict and even harder to monitor in such remote and poorly studied environments. Land considerations further challenge the logic of OSB. Terrestrial biomass has value in itself, both in terms of the nutrients it contains and because there may be better uses for it, such as in the synthesis of biofuels. A complete life-cycle analysis of the OSB process suggests it involves significant energy consumption in the harvesting, processing, transportation and monitoring of the biomass. rightly asserts that any biomass used in the process 'must be free from harmful impurities and compounds,' such as toxins and pesticides. Yet that requirement would necessitate chemical testing of entire batches, which would likely impose significant costs. Without long-term observational data, it cannot credibly be claimed that this is a legitimate — let alone benign — means of carbon removal James Kerry and Lisa Levin Even if OSB were safe and efficient, with dumped biomass remaining durably sequestered in anoxic waters, its promise as a climate intervention would be dubious. The problem is one of scale. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we should be removing 6 to 10 gigatons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere each year until 2050. Even assuming that only crop waste was used, locking up just one gigaton of carbon dioxide would require about 500 million tonnes of dry biomass, an amount comparable to the entire annual US corn harvest. This is not the only significant constraint on the proposed method; another is the paucity of anoxic zones on our planet to dispose of the biomass. Companies that stand to gain financially from such projects should not be the arbiters of carbon-crediting mechanisms, nor are they qualified to make objective judgments about environmental safety. Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the standard has been, and always should be, one of precaution. A genuinely careful and conservative approach would be to conduct smaller-scale, multiyear controlled experiments before any large-scale, commercialized deployment were even to be considered. The fact that OSB represents a low-tech approach to neutralizing carbon dioxide emissions does not exempt it from the precautionary principle and dumping regulations under the London Convention and London Protocol. The burden of proof is on the proponents of the intervention to demonstrate that their actions would not violate these standards. This should be reflected in any permitting decisions about OSB that countries bordering the Black Sea, such as Georgia and Turkiye, might have to make in the coming years. Copyright: Project Syndicate
