Pump and Pollute

The following is a testinomial that was part of an environment impact assessment for a CO2 Ocean sequestration experiment off Big Hawaii. It took place about 2 years ago... 1. Ocean sequestration of CO2 experiments could lead to the large-scale pollution of the world's oceans, threatening not only Humpback whales but also other creatures that live in the world's oceans. COMMENT # 5 from Gérard Nihous: Point 1. above is speculative. Moreover, the proposed Hawaii CO2 Ocean Sequestration Field Experiment is a small-scale research project (40 to 60 tons released over two weeks in daytime experiments not exceeding two hours). Point 1. tries to blur the line between a) research on ocean sequestration and b) the large-scale implementation of ocean sequestration. To put Point 1. in perspective, SAC members should be aware that about 5 million tons of CO2 per year - i.e. a third of the State of Hawaii's atmospheric emissions from human activities - pollute our SURFACE ocean waters; that could perhaps threaten Humpback whales and might be worthy of a resolution. Reaction by Stefan Thiesen, independent env. Consultant, Westfalia, Europe: if there is such a clear line between the research on a) deep-sea CO2-dumping and b) its large scale application, I would please like to know the purpose of the research in this field, especially when the project rationale, scope and involved funding bodies (basically the Energy industry) are taken into consideration. The project design as far as I know it indicates that it is the first stage of a technology development program and not a feasibility study. It also does not qualify as an EIA. Dr. Nihous' Point 2 above looks a bit as if he actually is the one who tries to blur issues since he himself knows better than anyone that "5 million tons of CO2" naturally dissolved in the Ocean's surface in low concentrations over large areas is something totally different from an abyssal CO2 lake far beyond the saturation limit. A CO2-lake on the Ocean floor WILL strongly affect local benthos life forms. His comparison has no place here, especially considering his scientific expertise. So why does he use it? CO2 is of course a natural component. This alone does not mean that CO2-dumping is in any way harmless. Almost everything in biochemistry and bio-geochemistry depends on concentration and even small changes in concentration can have large effects. This is scientific common sense and needs no explanation. COMMENT # 7 from GÈrard Nihous: If field research at sea required to monitor ALL changesî, field research at sea would not exist, whether it involved adding CO2 to sea water or not. The ability to monitor something (not everything) ìin large expanses of the oceanî does exist in some cases, and certainly should be developed in the years to come (Autonomous Underwater Vehicles have been used very successfully already). This is a small-scale, short-term project. Measurement and monitoring protocols must be defined relatively to the time scale and space scale of a particular project. Details will be available in the final Environmental Assessment report when it is released. Reaction by Stefan Thiesen, independent env. Consultant, Westfalia, Europe: Field research at sea indeed does not require to monitor ALL CHANGES. This is not possible. The supposed CO2-dumping project however is not mere field research, it is an open field experiment that involves the dramatic alteration of a local part of the marine environmental conditions and that possibly has dramatic and not foreseable long term effects on the global environment if ever applied large scale. Although it could be argued that the immediate effects of this one local experiment would perhaps be tolerable for the purpose of pure science, it becomes completely pointless when it is seen in the larger framework of Earth Systems Science and global environmental change and policy. COMMENT #14 from GÈrard Nihous: I will address this with three questions. Is it ethical to deny future generations the benefits of scientific research that could help them cope with an environmental problem that we created? Is it ethical to drive motor vehicles with bumper stickers saying ìNO CO2 DUMPINGî, when 20 pounds of CO2 are emitted into the atmosphere for each gallon of gasoline burned in these vehiclesí engines? Is it ethical to believe that billions of people who emit four to five times less CO2 than we do should not use their vast reserves of fossil fuels to improve their standard of living? 11. There are numerous sequestration methods available that could be used without jeopardizing the world's oceans, including land based sequestration techniques such as injection into empty oil and natural gas wells, deep land-based saline aquifers, reforestation, etc. Reaction by Stefan Thiesen, independent env. Consultant, Westfalia, Europe: The above questions by Dr. Nihous imply the following: The proposed small scale CO2-sequestration experiment IS after all a cornerstone for the development of large scale technology. How else could it be able to "help them (i.e. future generations) cope with an environmental problem that we created?" Dr. Nihous apparently stands for an environmental attitude that favors "end of pipe" and "business as usual" practice. The real purpose of the search for artificial CO2-sinks is to support the global fossil-fuel industry. Continued and even increasing use of fossil fuels is in their - and ONLY in their interest (see project sponsors and DOE lobbyists). The Car argument is polemic - it is after all the fossil-fuel and car industry that for decades has been running a psychologically intricate mind-numbing lifestyle campaign to make people believe that owning a nice car equals freedom and happiness. In addition the car industry and its fossil fuel allies have systematically destroyed or degraded public transportation all over the United States and elsewhere around the world. If a representant of the fossil fuel industry blames environmentalists for car driving, he actually blames his own industry fellows for vastly successful lobbying and marketing. Regarding the standard of living: Dr. Nihous implies that "standard of living" and "energy consumption" - especially of course consumption of energy from fossil fuels - are directly connected. He does not apparently realize that this is a very American definition of "standard of living". I by the way happen to live in a country with about half the per capita energy consumption of the United States and my living standard is at least as high as it would be in the US. I will also be happy to suggest literature by renown American and European Scientists and Economists who prove that there is no direct connection between energy consumption and standard of living and that standard of living is not directly connected to economic growth either (the US itself is the best example). So I should ask a question also: Is it ethical to let developing countries repeat our grave mistakes although much better technology is available? Is it ethical to let them use half a century old unsafe technology (e.g. in the Case of PETROBRAS) instead of helping them to preserve what in fact is the Heritage of all of Mankind? Is it ethical to devise a totally unnecessary and costly technology with completely unknown long-term risks, in order to preserve another costly and outdated technology? All this IS ethical only, if the ethics applied is that of maximizing corporate profit and shareholder value under all circumstances. The United States did not participate in the EXPO 2000, which ran under the title "Man, Environment, Future". An incredible number of ingenious renewable de-centralized small-scale energy solutions from Europe, Africa, Asia and Latin America were presented on this exhibition along with local culture and architecture from around the world. From talking to people there and from my many visits to dozens of countries around the world I can assure anyone who wants to hear it that a) Many people in developing countries neither need nor desire a consumer and plastic culture and b) where they got it, it often had devastating effects on local culture and environment. Very often for the majority of population economic growth and higher energy consumption lead to pollution, noise, disease, social degradation, increased poverty and even more starvation instead of less. Connecting higher fuel consumption to higher living standard in third world countries is either complete ignorance or painful cynicism, especially considering long term developments of rising oil prices and degrading oil reserves. Finally: Dr. Nihous probably is right about the technical details of this particular meso-scale project. It is also clear that his opponents cannot usually "carry out credible calculations" - let alone significant field research - since they are doing volunteer work in their spare time and do not have the financial and technical resources of the global corporations that stand behind Dr. Nihous and his colleagues who work full-time on these topics. The significant flaw of the arguments favoring the experiment is that - I repeat it - it is entirely pointless if it is not seen in the context of global corporations, the Kyoto protocol, global warming, global CO2-dumping / creation of artificial CO2-sinks (e.g. also via ocean fertilization - yet another form of large scale marine pollution and ecosystem alteration proposed by United States corporations). The seemingly altruistic argument that all these efforts are for the good of the people of the world does not hold. What is at stake is not the well-being of the poor but the profits of super-rich countries (US, Japan, Switzerland, Norway) and corporations that control them or at least have immense influence in and on these countries. The large-scale CO2-dumping concept is a grave mistake since its macro-scale and long-term effects simply cannot be predicted. The dumped CO2 will also remain at least partly in the global carbon cycle and therefore it will not be removed but instead only masked for a certain period of time. Considering the facts that I know so far about the entire background I believe that the goal is not so much to find a solution for a pressing environmental problem but instead to create a new market plus an excuse to carry on with a business as usual energy policy, that is "pump-and-pollute". Taken the very far reaching global and long-term implications an EIA-commission should be set up by the state - something similar perhaps to a "bio-ethics commission" with interdisciplinary experts. It should be taken care though that not too many members of such a commission directly or indirectly receive pay-checks from industrial stakeholders with multi-billion profit interests. And once more: People like Dr. Nihous want to make the public believe that there is no connection between such meso scale projects and macro scale applications and in the next sentence they try to justify their proposals by claiming that they want to save the world, which, of course, implies a macro scale application. And last but not least: IS IT ETHICAL TO SOLVE A POLLUTION PROBLEM BY MORE POLLUTION?