Comments on: Muddled Environmental Meddling

By: David Bradley

David Bradley — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 07:53:27 +0000

Yep, “waste not, want not”, that’s what my grandmother always used to say. I totally agree, these “tweaks” are just plain silly. When have we ever succeeded in tweaking the planet?

By: Sheryl Torr-Brown

Sheryl Torr-Brown — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 05:05:52 +0000

I agree with Bill K. Future efforts to secure energy should be renewable and involve minimal manipulation of the environment at the local or macro level. We must also check our tendencies towards conspicuous consumption. While it may seen to be all too human in this day and age to feel we have a right to our own vehicles for example, a healthy future for the planet may involve communal transport only, with the corresponding reduction in our freedom to roam.
Those that will continue to propose the extreme manipulations such as the lime idea above, will likely not be among those who are calling for responsibility on the side of the consumer. To think that man can tweak the global environment so easily is arrogant and scary. It will be up to us, the consumer, to question such ideas and create the conversations that show them for what they are.

By: David Bradley

David Bradley — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:22:19 +0000

Bert – many thanks for spelling that out. Like I said, it seems like a ludicrous notion and now that you’ve summarised the actual chemical equations, it’s plain for all to see.

By: Bert Ramsay

Bert Ramsay — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:57:56 +0000

CaCO3 –heat –> CaO + CO2
Dump Lime in water:CaO + H2O –> Ca(OH)2
Ca(OH)2 + CO2 – CaCO3 No net loss or gain of CO2.

Initally the Ca(OH)2 would neutralize the acidic ocean sections. Might help preserve the corals. But it would take an awful lot of CaO to increase the pH of the ocean.

By: David Bradley

David Bradley — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 09:43:54 +0000

Chemgeek – I’m really not sure, it looked like a bizarre idea from the off to me.

By: David Bradley

David Bradley — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 09:19:54 +0000

That’s exactly what I thought Bill, we might be able to tweak the local environment, but the world is just too large and complex a system for us to be able to predict the impact of this kind of engineering at the scale required. I think the idea and others like it should be halted in their tracks before someone gets the go ahead and makes an even worse mess of the environment.

By: Bill K.

Bill K. — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 00:51:18 +0000

It’s hard to imagine that any macro-scale solution would work as intended. Dumping lime in the ocean sounds like a terrible idea with many unintended consequences, similar to that of pumping sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere.

Just as our biosphere emerged as a self-organizing system from evolutionary changes at local scales, so has anthropogenic-driven climate change. Changing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere requires lowering CO2 emissions and increasing carbon sequestration at local scales.

Shifting to renewable energy sources is one obvious choice. I’m willing to bet that solutions implemented broadly at local scales would be far more effective and less expensive than Shell’s limestone proposal. The free market embraces innovation. The same can’t be said for massive engineering projects.

By: Chemgeek

Chemgeek — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:08:28 +0000

“it will apparently absorb twice as much dissolved CO2. ”
What kind of stoichiometry are they using?