Commentary |
 |
1 Comment |
A carbon sink with fins
Giles Parkinson
Published 6:52 AM, 16 Jun 2010 Last update 9:55 AM, 16 Jun 2010
Australian scientists have found another very good reason to protect the sperm whale, but please finish your breakfast or lunch before reading on.
Research led by Trish Lavery at the School of Biological Sciences at Adelaide’s Flinders University, suggests the poo of the sperm whale is particularly in rich in iron, and because it comes in liquid form and is excreted near the surface, it doesn’t sink rapidly to the ocean floor.
Instead, it inspires the growth of phytoplankton which in turn absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. It means that even after taking into account the considerable amount of carbon dioxide emitted when these giants of the sea respire, sperm whales are a highly effective, and highly mobile, carbon sink.
And more so than other whales, because as a deep diving feeder, the nutrients it defecates are additional to the total count – other sea animals tend to feed at the surface and simply recycle said nutrients.
Each sperm whale is estimated to absorb at least 35 tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere each year. From the estimated population of 12,000 Southern Ocean sperm whales that remain after decades of hunting, that amounts to around 400,000 tonnes of CO2 per year.
According to the research, this carbon saved from the current numbers of Southern Ocean sperm whales amounts to just 0.05 per cent of the carbon emitted globally each year by fossil fuel burning, but the numbers of Southern Ocean sperm whales were once ten-fold the current population, and the paper estimates that two million tonnes of CO2 have been left in the atmosphere each year as a result of decimating the sperm whale population.
“This is a previously overlooked impact of industrial whaling,” the report says. Southern Ocean sperm whales, it notes, account for just 3 per cent of the world’s population of sperm whales, which means that the global sperm whale population may be a significant contributor to carbon drawdown. Whales had once been considered to be a net carbon emitter because of their respiration.
The latest paper suggests that other mammals and organisms that consume prey at depth and defecate nutrient rich waste near the surface could be performing a similar function – these include, pygmy whales, baleen whales and fin whales, and possibly also seals and sea-lions, though more research needs to be conducted to ascertain the liquidity and the buoyancy of their poo. A previous Australian-led study suggested that baleen whale faeces once accounted for more than 12 per cent of the iron in the Southern Ocean.
And the point of all this? Well, as nations meet and continue negotiations on how to remove the other 99.95 per cent of fossil fuel emissions under the UN-sponsored climate change talks, such biological solutions will become crucial, and become the basis for new market mechanisms and ascribe a value to hitherto unrecognised assets that will turn the business models of many industries on their head. And companies and their investors need to be aware of this.
It will happen in forestry, for that is what the REDD mechanism that is nearing agreement is designed to do – make the trees that stand in the world’s remaining rainforests more valuable alive than dead. It will likely occur in land use and farming, because these will form a fundamental part of the abatement proposals of the likes of Australia and some other industrialised nations.
And, as mentioned in my piece last week on BP’s short-sighted and costly dismissal of environmental benefits and basic risk management, it underlines the fact that simply exploiting a resource and selling it for coins does not mean that the practice is economically sound. This is a concept that will be underlined by the release of the UN’s Green Economy initiative later this year.
Take the whaling industry. After taking in the various costs and even after government subsidies, it is thought that Japanese whalers operate at a significant loss. Perhaps there is a more attractive proposition – at $100 per tonne of carbon, which is surely where the price is heading by 2020, that’s nearly $4000 a year per whale in avoided emissions. Anyone care to invest in whale poo futures?
Related Industry Sectors
View the latest stories on Climate Change
View the latest stories on Politics & IR
1 Comment
Roger Clifton wrote:
Would 0.05 per cent of offset forgive us for the remaining 99.95 per cent of emissions?
(See A carbon sink with fins, June 16.)
Giles Parkinson has just given us a marvellously derisive term for hopelessly naive schemes.
16 Jun 2010 1:20 PM
Contribute to the Conversation
To contribute your comments for possible publication, please Login or Register.
Preference will be given to succinct contributions. We may contact you via email prior to publication.
