
Whales could help curb climate change - based2
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/11/whales-carbon-capture-climate-change/
======
anonsivalley652
Oh my. The cold numbers aren't good: whales just don't currently represent
enough biomass to make that much of a difference in the grand scheme of
Gigatonnes and Teratonnes of CO2.

If a rational team wanted to lock away as much carbon as possible using
biological processes (BeCCS), going far up the food-chain doesn't seem like
the most efficient way to do it.

Here a couple of the kind of options that seem to make more sense:

0\. When conditions are right, ferrous ocean seeding at scale to stimulate
phytoplankton blooms because relatively little iron is required to have a
massive effect. [a] It might make sense to have a floating system of self-
replicating drone factories that can send out floating fertilizer drones went
conditions are good.. easier said than done.

1\. Fertilizing and planting kelp wherever it seems to grow best. There is
currently a massive kelp forest in the Atlantic and Caribbean between the
Yucatan and Africa that is causing all sorts of havoc with tourist beaches.
That kelp should be expanded, harvested, concentrated and sequestered on an
enormous scale, either at the bottom of deep ocean trenches (cheaper) or below
ground ($$ but more permanent).

Drastic actions that are efficient at scale must be tried. Even if it costs
upwards of $50 trillion because survival is worth any treasure since there are
no U-hauls behind hearses. What doesn't help is fixation over any
comparatively-insignificant biomass like whales or planting a biomass-
insignificant number of trees; virtue signaling is a cognitive-dissonant
participation award, not solutions that move the needle enough to avoid a
climate catastrophe.

References:

a.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization)

~~~
zdragnar
Isn't plankton seeding potentially dangerous? I mean, the Mississippi River
has been "seeding" the Gulf of Mexico to the point that it has a persistent
dead zone from oxygen depletion- algae and what not grow, die and sink, and
the decay results in less than 2 ppm oxygen in the deep waters.

Can we actually meaningfully sequester enough carbon this way without
drastically altering the subsurface ecosystems of an ocean?

Edit: to be clear, I am not trying to be contrarian, just genuinely curious if
it would be any different.

------
a3n
It says when they die, they sink to the bottom, "locking the carbon" at the
bottom of the ocean.

But isn't a significant part of that carbon released into the water as they're
eaten and otherwise decomposed and dissolved?

~~~
Fireflite
Whale corpses tend to reach the bottom of the ocean largely intact actually!
It's hard for most creatures to eat them quickly enough, and they're typically
largely eaten by sharks and scavengers on the ocean floor.

------
vcdimension
This statement in the article is really dumb: "whales accumulate an average of
33 tonnes of CO2". Yes, but that's from eating other plants & animals that
would otherwise accumulate that same CO2 themselves. Furthermore, whales (like
all mammals) breathe in oxygen and breathe out CO2 so the net effect of
breathing and eating alone (ignoring the 'whale pump' phenomena) is an
increase in CO2.

~~~
llukas
Please be more polite. You didn't comment on this part of the article:

> When they die, they sink to the bottom of the ocean, locking that carbon
> away for hundreds of years.

~~~
aaron695
""The plankton absorb the carbon dioxide like a tree," Barton says, "and when
they die, they sink to the bottom of the ocean and that carbon is locked away
for thousands of years. "

[https://psmag.com/environment/global-warming-is-putting-
phyt...](https://psmag.com/environment/global-warming-is-putting-
phytoplankton-in-danger)

We are back to dumb again?

~~~
llukas
[https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0012444)

"The carbon stored in populations of marine vertebrates is only a small part
of the total carbon in marine ecosystems; however, the impact of rebuilding
stocks of fish and whales would be comparable to existing carbon sequestration
projects."

~~~
aaron695
I find it strange after 40+ years of Save the Whales we are discussing using
whales as a carbon sink.

But to me increasing animals that eat plants which are the actual cabon sinks
would decrease the ability of the ocean to sequester carbon.

But I'd have to see a mathematical model. Animals hasten death but also reduce
reproduction speed.

Edit - whales are carnivores so not applicable

------
_ph_
Why do I have to think of Star Trek IV?

In any case, one more reason to make sure that those great creatures have a
future.

------
brandelune
From the World Economic Forum at Davos...

"Over a lifespan of around 60 years, whales ... accumulate an average of 33
tonnes of CO2 ... By comparison, a tree absorbs up to 48 pounds of CO2 a
year."

The modern version of "apples and oranges" ? "whales and trees"

------
gpm
I'm surprised to see that whales are beneficial to phytoplankton, I would have
thought that they primarily eat them.

The article isn't too clear... is their primary use in promoting phytoplankton
growth just mixing of water?

~~~
bradyd
I believe whales primarily eat krill, which eat phytoplankton. Phytoplankton
eat whale poop. In the Netflix documentary Our Planet, the episode The High
Seas discusses how the whaling ban in the 80s has led to a resurgence of the
humpback whale population and how they help provide nutrients to promote
phytoplankton growth.

------
ericvanular
Admittedly this is low impact, but it is critical to maintain rational
optimism in regard to the challenge of climate change. Doomsday-ism doesn't
help anything. If you feel the same way, come be productive and join the
conversations going on at
[https://collective.energy](https://collective.energy)

------
droithomme
> If we helped whales return to their pre-whaling numbers of 4- to 5 million
> (up from 1.3 million today), researchers say they could capture 1.7 billion
> tonnes of CO2 annually - with the cost of protecting them at just $13 per
> person a year.

The cost per person in the world?

$13 per person year times global population is 13*7.8 = $101 billion a year.

------
s_Hogg
Click bait headline

~~~
dang
We've edited it now.

