The 2nd of two special issues of Carbon and Climate Law Review on climate engineering is now out. http://www.lexxion.de/zeitschriften/fachzeitschriften-englisch/cclr/current-issue.html with four articles + editorial, listed below.
This is behind a paywall for me. If anyone could share the articles, I would be appreciative. - Jesse Michael Mehling Editorial Carbon and Climate Law Review 3/2013: pp. 159-160 Tuomas Kuokkanen and Yulia Yamineva ´Regulating Geoengineering in International Environmental Law Carbon and Climate Law Review 3/2013: pp. 161-167 [Article] Tracy D. Hester A Matter of Scale: Regional Climate Engineering and the Shortfalls of Multinational Governance Carbon and Climate Law Review 3/2013: pp. 168-176 [Article] Jane C. S. Long A Prognosis, and Perhaps a Plan, for Geoengineering Governance Carbon and Climate Law Review 3/2013: pp. 177-186 [Article] Gareth Davies Privatisation and De-globalisation of the Climate Carbon and Climate Law Review 3/2013: pp. 187-193 [Article] ----------------------------------------- Jesse L. Reynolds, M.S. PhD Candidate European and International Public Law Tilburg Sustainability Center Tilburg University, The Netherlands Book review editor, Law, Innovation, and Technology email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl<mailto:j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl> http://www.tilburguniversity.edu/webwijs/show/?uid=j.l.reynolds From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley Sent: donderdag 19 december 2013 10:26 To: R. D. Schuiling, (Olaf) Cc: geoengineering; Bhaskar M V Subject: RE: [geo] Re: The fate of bioavailable iron in Antarctic coastal seas One of the most recent OIF experiments failed due to a lack of silicic acid in their particular patch of the southern ocean. So silicic acid is critical, and can't be assumed to be available where needed. The more iron you add, the more likely it is that other minerals become the limiting factor. A On Dec 19, 2013 8:52 AM, "Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf)" <r.d.schuil...@uu.nl<mailto:r.d.schuil...@uu.nl>> wrote: Well said, Bhaskar. I am not sure if your statement that silica is "abundantly available" is always true. Just as for iron, if you take out a lot of silica from the surface waters and transport it to the sediment on the seafloor, silica may become locally deficient. I plead for spreading olivine sand along the coast and in high energy shallow coastal waters to provide a regular and continuous source of BOTH silica and iron (normal olivines are usually close to (Mg0.92Fe0.08)2SiO4 so it adds iron and silica). If you prefer to have a cheap and abundant source with a higher Fe:Si ratio, I know at least one huge massif of olivine rocks (250 km2 immediately on an oceanic coast) where the iron content is twice as high. According to the ease of weathering, olivine weathers fastest of all the common silicates. Besides providing a steady source of iron and silica, the weathering of olivine will help to restore the pH of the ocean, which is threatened by ocean acidification. Best regards, Olaf Schuilng . From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>] On Behalf Of Bhaskar M V Sent: donderdag 19 december 2013 5:21 To: Andrew Lockley Cc: geoengineering Subject: [geo] Re: The fate of bioavailable iron in Antarctic coastal seas Andrew Diatoms consuming C, N, P, Si and Fe and sinking to the ocean bed is a solution not a problem. The fact that Fe depletes is a problem and this is precisely the reason why Iron Fertilization is being suggested. C, N, P are being fed to oceans due to human action. Si in bioavailable form ( Silicic Acid ) too is abundantly available. But Fe in bioavailable form is not available in adequate quantity, i.e., to match the availability of the other elements. The paper is right on facts and analysis but may have arrived at a wrong conclusion, if you have understood it to mean that Diatoms are a problem and not a solution. I would like to quote a few sentences and give my response to each. "Source found that iron was incorporated into biogenic silica in diatoms from the Southern Ocean and was then lost from the ecosystem." Precisely, the diatoms growing naturally are consuming the Fe available and taking it down to the ocean bed along with Carbon. That is why the surface water is deficient in Fe. What is new about this 'finding' . This fact is the foundation of the Iron Fertilization theory. "The loss of bioavailable iron could favor the growth of phytoplankton species that are less efficient at assimilating carbon, the opposite of the desired result of iron fertilization.Diatoms, single-celled algae that have a cell wall of silica, account for nearly half of the annual marine carbon fixation worldwide, and dominate many phytoplankton communities in Antarctic coastal seas." Precisely, the diatoms growing naturally are consuming the Fe available and taking it to the ocean bed along with Carbon. So the 'excees' C, N and P left is causing blooms of other algae, which are harmful. So it is necessary to grow more diatoms to prevent other phytoplankton from growing, the only way to do this is to replenish the missing element - Fe. This is known as the Iron Fertilization theory. In nature Diatoms account for 50% of annual marine carbon fixation worldwide. Is this a historical figure or the current figure ( say for 2012 ) ? What is the change over the past 200 years, has this increased or decreased ? Has anyone correlated the Diatoms share with Global Warming, Climate Change, Ocean Acidification, Dead Zones, HNLCs, etc. ? Is diatom domination of phytoplankton communities good or bad ? Has anyone correlated the diatom share with water quality - What is the water quality when Diatoms account for 25% of the phytoplankton ? What is the water quality when Diatoms account for 50% of the phytoplankton ? What is the water quality when Diatoms account for 75% of the phytoplankton ? "Understanding iron cycling in Antarctic phytoplankton is crucial for determining whether iron fertilization can be an effective strategy for reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide." Exactly what we have been saying, more Iron Fertilization experiments are required, in fact continuous experiment should be set up to fertilizer almost throughout the year in a few locations, instead of just a few short term fertilization experiments. "Phaeocystis antarctica, a non-siliceous prymnesiophyte, dominates some Southern Ocean phytoplankton communities, but loses out to diatoms when bioavailable iron is low." This contradicts the statements made earlier, that Diatoms lose out when Iron is low. "P. antarctica assimilates more carbon dioxide than diatoms, so a shift to a diatom-rich phytoplankton community may reduce carbon dioxide sequestration, the opposite of the desired effect." This contradicts the statement made earlier that Diatoms account for 'half of annual marine carbon fixation worldwide' . What is the share of P. antarctica in 'annual marine carbon fixation worldwide' ? Please don't keep shifting the goal posts. If Diatoms account for half, P. antactica CANNOT account for more than half, since there are may other phytoplankton too - Cyanobacteria, Green Algae, Coccolithophores, Dinoflagellates and also macro algae and other organisms too. This is simple mathematics - 0.5 + 0.5 = 1. The answer lies in the details - "Phaeocystis antarctica, a non-siliceous prymnesiophyte, dominates some Southern Ocean phytoplankton communities, .." If P antactica is ALSO useful in sequestering carbon, and it grows in some locations, avoid growing Diatoms in those locations by not dosing Fe in those locations. "When the siliceous diatoms sink to the sea floor, the iron is sequestered from the marine ecosystem. The loss of iron from the surface may reduce biological productivity in locations where iron is limiting." How can Iron Fertilization lead to 'loss of iron' ? We are adding iron since it is being lost due to natural processes. "This research leads to a greater understanding of the dynamics of iron cycling in the Southern Ocean with possible implications for improving carbon sequestration." Dear Andrew, if you have not understood what this paper says, it has not achieved the desired objective. Regards Bhaskar On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:18 AM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com<mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>> wrote: Poster's note : Interesting to see that diatoms (much trumpeted on this list) are in fact the problem, not the solution. http://m.phys.org/news/2013-12-fate-bioavailable-iron-antarctic-coastal.html Science is exploring many options for carbon dioxide sequestration in order to mitigate the climatological impact of CO2. One of these is geoengineering: deliberate, large-scale intervention in the Earth's natural systems to counteract climate change. Understanding all of the possible effects of geoengineering, such as the results of iron fertilization on marine ecosystems, is vital. In iron fertilization, which has been discussed as a way to sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, iron is introduced to the surface ocean to stimulate a phytoplankton bloom in locations where iron is the limiting nutrient. Carbon taken up by the phytoplankton is later sequestered in deep sea sediments.Researchers using the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science's Advanced Photon Source found that iron was incorporated into biogenic silica in diatoms from the Southern Ocean and was then lost from the ecosystem. The loss of bioavailable iron could favor the growth of phytoplankton species that are less efficient at assimilating carbon, the opposite of the desired result of iron fertilization.Diatoms, single-celled algae that have a cell wall of silica, account for nearly half of the annual marine carbon fixation worldwide, and dominate many phytoplankton communities in Antarctic coastal seas. After the organisms die, their dense siliceous shells descend into the deep ocean. The sequestration of carbon in deep sea sediments is a crucial sink for carbon dioxide, an important greenhouse gas. Iron is a limiting nutrient in phytoplankton communities in these seasonally ice-covered seas, which include some of the most biologically productive regions of the Southern Ocean, like the Ross Sea. Bioavailable iron limits biological production and also affects the composition of the phytoplankton community.The availability of iron, therefore, can limit uptake of atmospheric carbon dioxide, with important implications for the climate. Understanding iron cycling in Antarctic phytoplankton is crucial for determining whether iron fertilization can be an effective strategy for reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide. In the Ross Sea, bioavailable iron enters the area through snow melt and dust deposition. Iron removal is calculated to be about equal to iron input. Fertilizing the surface ocean with iron increases biological productivity, but the resulting carbon dioxide removal will be much less than expected due to the increased productivity of diatoms, which incorporate and remove the bioavailable iron.The resultant decrease in iron favors plankton communities with lower iron requirements. Phaeocystis antarctica, a non-siliceous prymnesiophyte, dominates some Southern Ocean phytoplankton communities, but loses out to diatoms when bioavailable iron is low. P. antarctica assimilates more carbon dioxide than diatoms, so a shift to a diatom-rich phytoplankton community may reduce carbon dioxide sequestration, the opposite of the desired effect.In this investigation, the researchers from the Georgia Institute of Technology, the University of Georgia, the Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences, the Skidaway Institute of Oceanography, and Argonne National Laboratory discovered an important sink for iron in some marine systems. Utilizing X-ray Science Division beamlines 2-ID-D and 2-ID-E at the Argonne Advanced Photon Source, the researchers performed x-ray fluorescence (XRF) microscopy and x-ray absorption near-edge structure spectroscopy on samples of the diatom genera Fragilariopsis and Corethron from the Ross Sea.Two morphologically distinct forms of iron were discovered: one reduced form was structurally incorporated into the biogenic silica; the second form was hot spots of iron that were more oxidized.The researchers conclude that the iron was incorporated into the biogenic silica because iron in contact with seawater would become at least partially oxidized. This incorporated organic iron has a better chance of surviving diagenesis (the conversion, as by compaction or chemical reaction, of sediment into rock) deep in a frustule (the 2-valved siliceous shell of a diatom) than it would in a surface coating or in the protoplasm. When the siliceous diatoms sink to the sea floor, the iron is sequestered from the marine ecosystem. The loss of iron from the surface may reduce biological productivity in locations where iron is limiting.This research leads to a greater understanding of the dynamics of iron cycling in the Southern Ocean with possible implications for improving carbon sequestration. More information: Ellery D. Ingall, Julia M. Diaz, Amelia F. Longo, et al. "Role of biogenic silica in the removal of iron from the Antarctic seas," Nat. Comm. 4, 1981 (2013). DOI: 10.1038/ncomms2981Provided by Argonne National Laboratory -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
