Do CDM's work?

Finding an optimal path to reduce atmospheric carbon requires analysis of the homeostasis of a complex system.

In human health, white blood cells and the liver, kidneys and brain sustain the system. At planetary scale, emergence of optimal climate security paths has a similar function in the removal of pathogens that destroy homeostasis.

Algae production at sea is likely to be the best way to achieve planetary homeostasis.

Nuclear power, and many of the methods applied under the clean development mechanism, do not actually reduce the amount of carbon in the air, and so are inferior to algae production at sea as a measure to stabilise the global climate.

Raising rich water from the ocean deep using tidal, wave and geothermal energy and mixing it with anthropogenic emissions in polymer bags can produce algae on abundant scale, serving as a replacement energy feedstock for coal-fired power stations and also supplying diesel substitute, soil fertiliser and a source of nutrient for fish in the ocean, while fixing atmospheric CO2 on a global scale.

Tax based incentive measures are not enough to stabilise the global climate.

The focus is on anthropogenic emissions but the real overall issue is GHG amounts of which emissions are just a tiny fraction. I have yet to see how carbon tax and CDM proposals could actually reduce the CO2 amount, as opposed to slowing its increase. The ‘market signals’ approach focussed on emissions targets looks like a lot of fuss for unlikely result. If we find it too hard to reduce human emissions then we should look at direct action to reduce the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Achieving this goal requires large scale planetary engineering, for example by covering up to 0.1% of the world ocean with polymer waterbags to produce algae for fuel, food and fertilizer. With such economies of scale the world could rapidly and profitably solve the security problems for climate, food and fuel.

Ocean based algae production will pay for itself through global economic transformation of energy and food markets. Algae production in the ocean is the only realistic scalable way to remove carbon from the air in the volumes needed to stabilise the world climate.

As Tim Flannery comments in the November 19, 2009 New York Review of Books, “that the pursuit of biofuels will lead to more land clearance and a diminution of our food supply….is certainly not true of more advanced techniques that derive biofuels from algae.”

As I understand it from the recent McKinsey Climate Report, a full Copenhagen agreement would result in the world achieving dangerous CO2 levels of 500 parts per million about five years later than under business as usual, ie in 2030 with a fully effective Copenhagen Treaty rather than in 2025 if we just ignore the problem and hope it will go away. This five year estimate of how much time a full Copenhagen agreement could buy for the planet is just my calculation from data as I couldn't find an authoritative figure. I would appreciate if others could let me know if this gap is known.

Robert Tulip
rtulip.net