I like FREE so much that we gave its name to the residual rentier of a forests-based carbon economy: Foundation for a Renewing Environment and Education (FREE).
Washoe Forests Carbon Bank, and analogous instruments of indigenous sovereignty in, say, Ecuador and Brazil, provide another solution to building Carbon valued balance sheets.
Because the forests carbon assets can be observed and audited, they provide a basis for credit and liquidity for the carbon economy.
A carbon banker, looking to turn Flaky Local Currency (e.g., USD) into the natural numeraire carbon terms, will look with interest on the phytoplankton approach. In the crisis, one reasonably relies upon the inputs (rusty nails!) and science to predict the sequestration (a net income) and look for verification methods to improve with time.
Forests Carbon Banks invest wherever gains in ENPV(Avoided CO2) is positive.
Free is good.
Thank you, Quico, both for your persistence on the phytoplankton phront, as well as for your recent explanations of carbon economics.
From my readings the process only allows for storage of very low quantities as most of the co2 is recirculated, I agree that redistribution of ocean nutrients is needed for healthy oceans and wrote a post on this. I have also been working on flat semi arid land spreader levee systems for the control of water across much of the flat, parched and carbon poor areas of the globe. Low, up to half meter high levees can stretch for many kms and retard irregular high flow events spreading water long enough to soak into these hydrophobic soils. I placed a couple of articles for comments . AI analysis states that carbon storage through rehydration could cost effectively stabilize our carbon budget and allow for tropical transfer of many agriculture methods including tire rubber and ethanol. I was surprised by the quantities involved and the cost should be minimal as it is incorporated in lower cost agricultural output. This method also lowers heat extremes and has beneficial down wind attributes for our whole agricultural system as well as flood and drought implications.
Please fell free to comment, I knew that our semi arid soils were some of the most carbon impoverished on the planet but even I was surprised by the AI analysis.
Ali wrote a piece on why even Pinatubo with deep ocean sequestration could not have been the main driver of the co2 blip but concluded that the process could offer a pathway for scientific study https://substack.com/@muhammadalibinshahid/note/c-236463057
I agree with you but many of our dead zones are created through the same process you are describing which makes people risk adverse.
There's a lot we don't know about the knock-on ecological impact of phytoplankton carbon approaches. There's downside risk there, but also upside risk (phytoplankton are fish food, in the end.)
Can you expand on this? My understanding is that when phytoplankton die as the limiting resource like iron depletes, bacteria decompose them and release CO2 in the process.
Ufff, I could go on for hours about this. The short version:
1-the original conclusion was not really properly supported, built on analysis of short (often 3-week) research cruises to the southern ocean. (Oceanographic vessel time is expensive!) We really need sustained observation over months to actually track the carbon signal, which is why we really need WHOI to repeat the research now that autonomous vessel technology is better and we can track the experiment much better.
2-the original research was all done in high nutrient low-chlorophyl conditions in cold waters where iron is limiting. the better idea is to try it in low-nutrient, low-chlorophyl conditions where fixed nitrogen is limiting. Natural analogs suggest this could sidestep the remineralization problem altogether (-> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq4654).
The reason I ask is mostly because I have a more radical position on the matter, namely being in favor of using synthetic biology to side step problems like this, however tenuous the evidence apparently is for the problem in this case. I also think you should go on for hours since your position and ideas (and mine even less) seem to be less popular among people that care about climate change and are in a position to implement policies and technologies. I'm sort of working in the direction of doing that myself.
Hey, maybe 15 years from now it turns out you did need some synthetic biology agent to get this done. But I can't for the life of me figure out why you'd think that *now*. The bugs you need to do this are in the water, it's just that they're starving. You just gotta feed 'em a bit.
Only caveat I and marine scientists have is the nature or species of the phytoplankton.. covers alot of life forms and weening out toxic blooms is a challenge hopefully resolved soon
Obviously this needs to be monitored, but the ocean regimes that appear to be prone to harmful algal blooms are very different to the types of places where phytoplankton carbon would be deployed: you get HABs in coastal ecosystems that have way too many nutrients. It's not impossible you'd get some form of HAB in a very different ocean regime, but it looks unlikely to the ecologists I've talked to.
It aways looked promising since it was called "iron fertilization" and the poor bloke actually boosted the marine life and salmon catch just spraying out rust.
Phytoplankton are oxygen supplying greats, marine ecosystem food greats, cdr greats, and srm greats with the dsm aerosols. We should definitely experiment with oif whether local or larger.
Kudos for bringing this up. Wish everyone restocked this post.
I like FREE so much that we gave its name to the residual rentier of a forests-based carbon economy: Foundation for a Renewing Environment and Education (FREE).
Washoe Forests Carbon Bank, and analogous instruments of indigenous sovereignty in, say, Ecuador and Brazil, provide another solution to building Carbon valued balance sheets.
Because the forests carbon assets can be observed and audited, they provide a basis for credit and liquidity for the carbon economy.
A carbon banker, looking to turn Flaky Local Currency (e.g., USD) into the natural numeraire carbon terms, will look with interest on the phytoplankton approach. In the crisis, one reasonably relies upon the inputs (rusty nails!) and science to predict the sequestration (a net income) and look for verification methods to improve with time.
Forests Carbon Banks invest wherever gains in ENPV(Avoided CO2) is positive.
Free is good.
Thank you, Quico, both for your persistence on the phytoplankton phront, as well as for your recent explanations of carbon economics.
We're making progress..
From my readings the process only allows for storage of very low quantities as most of the co2 is recirculated, I agree that redistribution of ocean nutrients is needed for healthy oceans and wrote a post on this. I have also been working on flat semi arid land spreader levee systems for the control of water across much of the flat, parched and carbon poor areas of the globe. Low, up to half meter high levees can stretch for many kms and retard irregular high flow events spreading water long enough to soak into these hydrophobic soils. I placed a couple of articles for comments . AI analysis states that carbon storage through rehydration could cost effectively stabilize our carbon budget and allow for tropical transfer of many agriculture methods including tire rubber and ethanol. I was surprised by the quantities involved and the cost should be minimal as it is incorporated in lower cost agricultural output. This method also lowers heat extremes and has beneficial down wind attributes for our whole agricultural system as well as flood and drought implications.
Please fell free to comment, I knew that our semi arid soils were some of the most carbon impoverished on the planet but even I was surprised by the AI analysis.
The conclusion that most CO2 from phytoplankton is remineralized is based on inadequate research and is now decades out of date.
I did find this recent article that gives some indication of issues with how long the carbon stays stored
https://www.uri.edu/news/2026/03/interaction-of-carbon-and-nutrient-cycles-overlooked-in-marine-carbon-dioxide-strategies/
Ali wrote a piece on why even Pinatubo with deep ocean sequestration could not have been the main driver of the co2 blip but concluded that the process could offer a pathway for scientific study https://substack.com/@muhammadalibinshahid/note/c-236463057
I agree with you but many of our dead zones are created through the same process you are describing which makes people risk adverse.
What are the downsides/risks to planting phytoplankton?
There's a lot we don't know about the knock-on ecological impact of phytoplankton carbon approaches. There's downside risk there, but also upside risk (phytoplankton are fish food, in the end.)
Can you expand on this? My understanding is that when phytoplankton die as the limiting resource like iron depletes, bacteria decompose them and release CO2 in the process.
Ufff, I could go on for hours about this. The short version:
1-the original conclusion was not really properly supported, built on analysis of short (often 3-week) research cruises to the southern ocean. (Oceanographic vessel time is expensive!) We really need sustained observation over months to actually track the carbon signal, which is why we really need WHOI to repeat the research now that autonomous vessel technology is better and we can track the experiment much better.
2-the original research was all done in high nutrient low-chlorophyl conditions in cold waters where iron is limiting. the better idea is to try it in low-nutrient, low-chlorophyl conditions where fixed nitrogen is limiting. Natural analogs suggest this could sidestep the remineralization problem altogether (-> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq4654).
The reason I ask is mostly because I have a more radical position on the matter, namely being in favor of using synthetic biology to side step problems like this, however tenuous the evidence apparently is for the problem in this case. I also think you should go on for hours since your position and ideas (and mine even less) seem to be less popular among people that care about climate change and are in a position to implement policies and technologies. I'm sort of working in the direction of doing that myself.
Hey, maybe 15 years from now it turns out you did need some synthetic biology agent to get this done. But I can't for the life of me figure out why you'd think that *now*. The bugs you need to do this are in the water, it's just that they're starving. You just gotta feed 'em a bit.
Only caveat I and marine scientists have is the nature or species of the phytoplankton.. covers alot of life forms and weening out toxic blooms is a challenge hopefully resolved soon
Obviously this needs to be monitored, but the ocean regimes that appear to be prone to harmful algal blooms are very different to the types of places where phytoplankton carbon would be deployed: you get HABs in coastal ecosystems that have way too many nutrients. It's not impossible you'd get some form of HAB in a very different ocean regime, but it looks unlikely to the ecologists I've talked to.
It aways looked promising since it was called "iron fertilization" and the poor bloke actually boosted the marine life and salmon catch just spraying out rust.
Phytoplankton are oxygen supplying greats, marine ecosystem food greats, cdr greats, and srm greats with the dsm aerosols. We should definitely experiment with oif whether local or larger.
Kudos for bringing this up. Wish everyone restocked this post.