New research puts Australia at forefront of blue carbon economy

In world-first research, Edith Cowan University researchers and an international team of collaborators have accurately quantified the amount of greenhouse gasses — or ‘blue carbon’ — being absorbed and emitted by Australian marine ecosystems

Edith Cowan University

In world-first research, Edith Cowan University researchers and an international team of collaborators have accurately quantified the amount of greenhouse gasses — or ‘blue carbon’ — being absorbed and emitted by Australian marine ecosystems.

Published today in Nature Communications, the paper shows Australian seagrass, mangrove and salt marshes absorb 20 million tonnes of carbon dioxide each year, which remains locked up in their soils for millennia.

That’s about the same as the annual emissions of more than 4 million cars.

Worryingly, the research shows damage to the same ecosystems is causing 3 million tonnes of carbon dioxide to be released back into the atmosphere each year as a result of human development, severe weather and the effects of climate change.

This quantification of Australia’s blue carbon is the most accurate of any country and paves the way for conservation and restoration of these ecosystems to be counted toward the country’s commitments to emissions reductions such as the Paris Agreement.

The research also provides a financial baseline for investors looking at blue carbon projects to offset emissions.

Major impact on climate change

The research paper’s lead author was Dr Oscar Serrano from the Centre for Marine Ecosystems Research in ECU’s School of Science, who said blue carbon ecosystems play an enormously important role in climate change mitigation and adaptation.

“When these ecosystems are damaged by storms, heatwaves, dredging or other human development, the carbon dioxide stored in their biomass and soils beneath them can make its way back into the environment, contributing to climate change.

“Globally, vegetated coastal ecosystems are being lost twice as fast as tropical rainforests despite covering a fraction of the area.

“These ecosystems are also important as habitats and nurseries for fish and other marine life, helping prevent coastal erosion and improving water clarity.”

Making a splash for cash

The research shows there is money to be made in the restoration and protection of blue carbon ecosystems in Australia.

Based on a carbon trading price of $12 per tonne, the authors see potential for blue carbon projects worth tens of millions of dollars per year in payments from the Australian Emission Reduction Fund and voluntary carbon markets.

“Those projects could take the form of replanting seagrass meadows, restoring mangroves by reflooding or by preventing expected losses through environmental management,” Dr Serrano said.

“These more accurate measurements of blue carbon provide more certainty on expected returns for financiers looking at investing in blue carbon projects.”

Australia a world leader in blue carbon

Dr Serrano said this new research positioned Australia as a world leader in the protection and management of blue carbon ecosystems.

“Australia is home to around 10 per cent of the world’s blue carbon ecosystems, so there’s enormous potential for us to take a lead role in this space,” he said.

“This research points to hotspots for the implementation of blue carbon projects at a national level.”

“Australia is in a position to take a leading role in developing policies to offset greenhouse gas emissions which can then be implemented around the world.

“It’s also internationally significant because other countries can take the work we’ve done here and use it to create their own baselines for blue carbon assessments.”

The process of measuring blue carbon

To accurately quantify Australia’s blue carbon stocks, the research divided Australia into five different climate zones.

That’s because ecosystems in a tropical climate like North Queensland store carbon dioxide at a different rate to those in temperate climates such as in South West WA and South Eastern Australia.

The researchers then created estimates for carbon dioxide stored in the vegetation above ground and soils below for each climate area.

They measured the size and distribution of vegetation and took soil core samples to create the most accurate measurements possible of sequestered blue carbon.

###

The paper, ‘Australian vegetated coastal ecosystems as global hotspots for climate change mitigation’ was published in Nature Communications and can be viewed on the journal’s webpage.

The project was part of a collaboration formed through the CSIRO Marine and Coastal Carbon Biogeochemistry Cluster project and included a team of 44 researchers from 33 research institutions from around the world.

Background: The role of blue carbon

  • Vegetated coastal ecosystems absorb carbon dioxide at rates up to 40 times faster than terrestrial forests mainly due to their enormous capacity to store carbon in soils.
  • In Australia it’s estimated there is four times more carbon sequestered in soil beneath marine ecosystems over a given area than in terrestrial environments.
  • Vegetated coastal ecosystems account for 50 per cent of carbon dioxide sequestered by the oceans, despite covering just 0.2 per cent of its total area.
  • Restoring just 10 per cent of blue carbon ecosystems lost in Australia since European settlement could generate more than $US 11 million per year in carbon credits.
  • Conserving blue carbon ecosystems under threat could be worth $US 22-31 million per year in carbon credits.

More facts and figures are available in the original research publication.

From EurekAlert!

Advertisements

58 thoughts on “New research puts Australia at forefront of blue carbon economy

  1. With a bit more funding of research into seagrass, mangrove, peat bogs, tundra and salt marshes around the rest of the World we could well discover that the whole CO2 system was nicely balanced and under Nature’s control (as usual) and that we could just forget about the whole CO2 Climate Alarm Menace. Now that would be money well spent for a change.

    • Yes. Imagine if this formula was applied to the waters around Papua New Guinea, Micronesia, etc.
      There’d be no need for Paris type agreements to reduce CO2.
      Mind you, the UN would quickly find another reason for a cash cow with which to “save the planet”

  2. Restoring just 10 per cent of blue carbon ecosystems lost in Australia since European settlement could generate more than $US 11 million per year in carbon credits.

    $US 11 million would probably cover about half the cost of the eco-bureaucratic overhead of adminstering such and effort.

    The first $US 11 million would go into setting up a pilot committee and paying rent and salaries of a dozen people to drink coffee and generate press releases. 11 mil does not even tie your shoelaces in bureaucracy.

    • Any CO2 sequestration resulting from the $US 11 million carbon credits for blue carbon ecosystems would likely be counteracted by the “dark carbon” emitted by the managing eco-burearocrats. Someone needs to run the numbers.

  3. Restoring seagrass meadows, mangroves etc. is good regardless of CO2 sequestration.
    Otherwise, papers like this contain so many unwarranted assumptions regarding CO2 and climate that it’s difficult to know where to start.

    • A famous seagrass meadow, complete with unique fauna (seahorses) in South Africa’s Knysna estuary, is under threat. The reason? Pollution from the input rivers, due to the Socialist ANC government’s failure to force (ANC) municipalities to keep their sewage treatment plants going. In many cases, the failure to maintain these plants (not just Knysna area) has led to raw sewage being dumped untreated into SA’s rivers. Ah yes – but the ANC has introduced a ‘carbon tax’!

  4. “Blue carbon” is a bad joke played on the scientifically illiterate… that is, the folks who love Greta and similar poseurs. It’s a new oxymoron intended to misdirect the naive into continuing to believe in magical pixie-dust and unicorn “CO2 solutions” and part with their money. The latest faddish marketing campaign-like “branding” for the climate scam.

    “Blue” of course they are using as it relates to our beautiful blue oceans.
    Anyone who has studied Global climate acknowledges that the Earth’s oceans are the key to any long-term climate change. Continental land areas and the atmosphere above them can (and do) get hotter or colder, but if the oceans don’t follow, then they’ll provide energy-buffer back into the system to break an unsustainable climate state. And there is vastly more dissolved CO2 in solution (both as CO2 and as carbonate ion) in the oceans than there is CO2(g) in the atmosphere, even at 410 ppm. So CO2 lags temps at all time scales because of the oceans and the terrestrial biomes that store and release carbon.

    But if there was ever a “Show me the money or the climate gets it” statement it is this: “Conserving blue carbon ecosystems under threat could be worth $US 22-31 million per year in carbon credits.”

    Who doesn’t love free money for doing nothing? Sort of like going to a company or rich friend’s party where there is Free Beer. That’s the best kind of beer. So ~$25 million USD per annum for doing nothing … I’ll take that. That’s like winning a $800million dollar PowerBall drawing.

    Seriously! Who thinks up these schemes? Free money? UN bureaucrats of course.
    There is no such thing. (There is no free lunch). But when did the UN ever turn down a free lunch?

    Somewhere along the way you WILL pay for that. And it may be far more costly than you realize in the immediate bargain. Someone is just looking to cash in on the Climate Aide fund for doing nothing. Sort of like the Vatican supporting the Climate Change scam. The Catholic Church charities as intermediaries stands to reap Billion$ of “Climate Aid funds” to 3rd World countries under the Paris Agreement, with of course a “cut of the action (a %-age)” going to Rome.

    And if you really want to get hoot-laugh-side gut buster ROFL, read this latest joke of a Science Mag piece on Oceans and Climate Change:

    “The ocean is key to achieving climate and societal goals”
    https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6460/1372

    Yes, you read that correctly. Now Science Magazine is wrapping Climate Change, the oceans, and societal “goals” into one package. You’ll love it. It’s a hoot. One of the several “solutions the author promotes is feeding cows toxic red algae in their feedstock (red algae which is loaded with “natural” dichloro-methane as an bacterial enzyme inhibitor) to stop their ruminant bacteria from producing methane.

    Really!! It’s a bad, sad joke that this appeared in Science Mag. Somehow, Science Mag and the AAAS has really lowered its science standards to allow such garbage nonsense to be printed under its name.

    • Yes it’s right up there with Mao’s plan to have the proles catch all the flies with their chopsticks.

    • feeding cows toxic red algae in their feedstock (red algae which is loaded with “natural” dichloro-methane as an bacterial enzyme inhibitor) to stop their ruminant bacteria from producing methane.

      Eeekkkk!
      Yup, I guess that would inhibit your enzymes. For sure. Wait a minute, they propose to use dichloromethane to prevent methane production??????
      (Are they really proposing to poison the cows?)
      If you are going to feed this red algae to cows, that means you have to cultivate it, and in large quantities. Which means you are going to generate a lot of dichloromethane. Wait a minute, again. Dichloromethane is one of the class of compounds banned by the Montreal Protocol because it was purportedly destroying the ozone layer. This is a case of one environmental scare crashing into another one.
      Pick one:
      A) This dichloromethane is OK because it is produced by algae, and so All-Natural.
      B) The researchers know that the Ozone Hole scare was false, and never considered it further.
      C) We will save you from Global Warming by killing you with the Ozone Hole.

      • DCM is not an ozone-depleting substance under the Montreal Protocol.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichloromethane#Ozone

        It has only been tested in laboratory flasks containing ruminant macrobiotic extracts, nutrients mixtures, and with increasing amounts of the red algal up to 2%. The active ingredient in the red algae was found to be DCM that suppressed the production of methane by the methanogenic bacteria. It has not to my knowledge been actually tested in vivo, that is, in live cattle. It would probably make them very sick.
        Still it was just one study by one group that found this. Now the Green idiots think it is some magical way to red algae to make cows “greener.” It would probably just make them dead.

        • “DCM is not an ozone-depleting substance under the Montreal Protocol.”
          You know better than that. I know you do. I said:
          ” Dichloromethane is one of the class of compounds banned”
          One of the class. I know, picky, picky, picky.
          carbon tetrachloride: banned
          dichlorofluoromethane: banned
          chlorofluoromethane: banned
          bromofluoromethane: banned
          dichloromethane: Perfectly Fine!!!!!!! No Problem! WTF???

          You know why it is not on the Montreal Protocol list? Because it was not commercially important to the financial interests pushing the Protocol. In particular, it had no big use as a refrigerant. So they left it off the list.

        • Joel O’Bryan
          October 2, 2019 at 1:53 pm

          Don’t you understand…you’ve obviously missed the message:

          “It would probably just make them dead.” The cows, that is. That’s what they really want.

    • Tim flimflam flannery is raving up the green blue carbon schemes especially to grow kelp etc down south and develop farms. and you CAN bet hes got dibs on shares or stock as usual.
      abc radio ran an item this week on some american chap whos set up a mass of small seafarms along one of your coastlines and says he has 4k people on a list to join in, using small disadvantaged towns onshore to provide labout etc

      yes mangroves etc are important especially for migratory birds as well, but china and asian islands clearing theire sorta stuffs up the rest stops before they even GET to Aus shores.
      of course mozzies in mangroves prob also are vectors for many nasties too..oops. thats why they cleared swamps and drained mangroves before;-)
      just about all the top end of qld across to darwin is stinky mangroves from what Ive seen in pics anyway.
      seagrass ie seaweeds been killed BY effluent from our sewage for decades and until they totally stop pumping it out to sea that wont change much.
      this enitre Bleu Carbon meme is just another Carbon Tax money for the greentards and Block all coastal development scam!!

    • I walked by a book in the library with “Blue Carbon” in the title, but haven’t looked at it yet. Salt marshes and mangroves ain’t blue and don’t think it was in any of my chemistry books. New Orleans environmentalists had a slogan of “Keep Lake Pontchartrain Blue” trying to keep Mississippi River water out which it historically received. Have been in the lake many times, brown more often than blue even without the river.

      “….remains locked up in their soils for millennia.” Makes hydrocarbons, that is what part doesn’t immediately move elsewhere, something about mass balance equations. Restorers know that?

    • Joel, ainor grammar note – the percentage word you are looking for is “vigorish”:
      https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vigorish
      vigorish noun
      vig·​o·​rish | \ ˈvi-gə-rish\
      Definition of vigorish
      1 : a charge taken (as by a bookie or a gambling house) on bets also : the degree of such a charge, a vigorish of five percent
      2 : interest paid to a moneylender

  5. So money is the key to saving the planet from co2 😐 Tax payers money, used to fund carbon projects.

    The research shows there is money to be made in the restoration and protection of blue carbon ecosystems in Australia.

    Based on a carbon trading price of $12 per tonne, the authors see potential for blue carbon projects worth tens of millions of dollars per year in payments from the Australian Emission Reduction Fund and voluntary carbon markets.

    • I think it might be the other way around, the CO2 is key to the money. The money is key to power.

      “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”
      H L Mencken

    • Was that a “light bulb turning on” moment for you Sunny?

      The Climate Hustle has been, is, and always will be about separating the common people from their money. No climate effects required. Just a sovereign with taxing and police powers to take your money in the name of climate piety and give to those as they want to secure their power.

      • For many, it’s about money. For others, power and control (they already have money). For the more strident ones, it’s a psychological need to justify their existence, in this case, saving the planet. No doubt there are other reasons.

        This whole shebang has been a massive convergence of interests reinforcing one another. That’s what makes it so difficult to defeat.

  6. Well said Nicholas of 1st October. Its been known for quite a while that counting the whole vast economic sea zone of Australia we are one giant Carbon sink, which far exceeds the tiny bit of CO2 that we produce.

    So lets stop subsidising the windmills and solar panels, as we no longer need them. As they the owners keep on claiming that renewable are now cheaper than coal, then let them prove it. And no back up from the existing fossil fuel power stations.

    No we do not need a Carbon tax, instead all of the money presently spent on the windmills and solar panels can be re-directed to the coastal areas for some reclamation of the foreshore.

    Why we should be able to claim some money from those countries who wish to buy some carbon credits. Perhaps even China when they become a 1st World nation.

    MJE VK5ELL

  7. “In world-first research, Edith Cowan University researchers and an international team of collaborators have accurately quantified the amount of greenhouse gasses — or ‘blue carbon’ — being absorbed and emitted by Australian marine ecosystems.”
    JUST HOW DID THEY PREPARE THESE ESTIMATES?
    “The researchers then created estimates for carbon dioxide stored in the vegetation above ground and soils below for each climate area.” The robustness of the global assessments presented here relies on a number of estimates, including the extent of Australian VCE, annual loss rates, degree and fate of soil C loss after disturbance, differences in the impact of different types of disturbances or management activities, and the type of C trading methodology used.”
    https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41467-019-12176-8/MediaObjects/41467_2019_12176_MOESM2_ESM.pdf

    There are no error bars in the study. Climate science has perfect estimates not to mention perfect measurements. Climate science is as perfect as the power of the magic molecule CO2 that it studies.

    • How could they know that their estimates are “accurate”?

      What a load of stinking EurekAlert!

    • Thanks for breaching this frame of reference, Alan.

      My take:
      Sigh! Another alleged estimate of estimates based on some samples and an immense amount of extrapolation.
      My bolding for highlights, and I separated the sentences to isolate framing.

      Data on C stocks and sequestration rates in Australian tidal marshes, mangrove forests and seagrass meadows were compiled from published data.

      In addition, unpublished studies from the CSIRO Marine and Coastal Carbon Biogeochemistry Cluster project and other studies by the co-authors were included.
      The study sites included mono-specific and/or mixed tidal marsh, mangrove and seagrass ecosystems within a variety of depositional environments (from estuarine to exposed coastal areas, and supra-tidal to sub-tidal habitats) across five climate regions (arid, semi-arid, temperate, subtropical and tropical) in Australia.

      Data from 1553 study sites (593 from tidal marshes, 323 from mangrove forests and 637 from seagrass meadows) on soil C stocks (1103 cores in total), soil C sequestration rates (352 cores in total) and standing C stocks in aboveground biomass (141 measurements in total) were used in this study.

      Soil cores were sampled using different coring mechanisms,
      such as manual percussion and rotation of PVC pipes,
      vibracoring or using a Russian corer.
      The cores were sliced at regular intervals, each slice/sample was weighed before and after oven drying to constant weight at 60–70 °C (i.e., dry weight, DW).

      The organic C content of the soil organic matter was measured in milled subsamples from multiple slices along cores.

      The ‘Champagne test’ was used to determine whether soil samples contained inorganic carbon. The soil core sub-samples containing carbonates were acidified with 1 M HCl, centrifuged (3500 RPM; 5 min) and the supernatant with acid residues was removed using a pipette, then washed in deionized water, centrifuged again and the supernatant removed.
      These residual samples were re-dried (60–70 °C) before C elemental analyses.

      The method used to remove inorganic C prior to organic C analyses may lead to the loss of part of the organic C (soluble fraction), thereby potentially leading to an underestimation of sediment C content.
      Where carbonates were absent (all living plant samples and most tidal marsh and mangrove soil samples), bulk soil samples were milled and encapsulated without acid pre-treatment before C analyses. The C content was obtained using a dry combustion elemental analyzer or mass spectrometer.
      Percentage soil C on a mass basis was calculated for the bulk (pre-acidified) samples.

      Notes:
      A) the researchers used published data from other researchers. I did not count how many other data samples were pulled from published data.

      B) Yes, the researcher’s spreadsheet included the data from other researchers. Combining data from different sources regardless of source, method, sample.

      C) The author blithely assumes a great deal while quantifying their tallies. Nowhere does the author identify how they determined exact area for each of their alleged measurements.
      e.g.

      “Subtropical seagrasses within Australia hold 2-fold to 6-fold higher C stocks than seagrasses from other Australian climate regions.
      However, knowledge of Australian seagrass extent is incomplete due to challenges in mapping this ecosystem, as recently illustrated by the recent discovery of 35,000 km2 of tropical seagrass in the intensively studied Great Barrier Reef.
      Similarly, the spatial extent of tropical tidal marshes (including high intertidal saltflats) is likely large, but poorly mapped.

      How sweet…

      D) As Alan points out, error bars are not included.
      From my experience building work hours, work performed, and revenue/expense financial morels I will affirm that any calculation that uses estimates of relationships, estimated content ratios, gross assumptions of coverage, are building their estimates on unreliable numbers.
      While the error bars or calculations are not shown, the authors do include references that they were tracking error rates.
      e.g.

      Tropical mangroves contain up to 2-fold higher C stocks in aboveground biomass per unit area compared to temperate mangroves (P < 0.001), and soil C stocks and sequestration rates are up to 2-fold higher in subtropical mangroves compared to other climate regions (P < 0.05;”

      Though how one calculates a ‘p’ relationship without first verifying the base ‘p’ values is puzzling to me. On the face it appears to be calculating the ‘p’ relationship while assuming published data, ratios, plant diversity and calculations are already perfect.

      E) The researchers use a number of puzzling area/volume metrics in their spreadsheet:
      Aboveground biomass organic carbon stocks (g C m-2)“: (grams Carbon per square meter)

      Soil organic carbon stock (Mg C ha-1 in 1 m-thick soil)“: (Megagrams (metric ton) per 10,000 square meters (hectare)
      At first I was confused by the area measurements when they were positing carbon per volume.
      The author’s test methods is that of using varied core samples to “estimate” carbon contents.
      That is; the researchers did not map out a square meter then dig down 1 meter. They took a quick core sample and extrapolated.

      All of the volume measurements in this paper are based on this miniscule slice then extrapolate process.

      Summarizing:
      &bull Unknown area – extrapolated.
      &bull Unknown species densities and varieties – all assumed to be constant to visited sites and published data.
      &bull Unknown actual carbon content per square meter. Each test sample was exactly that, a small slice then content was extrapolated.
      &bull Unverified assumptions.

      But, it is all good according to the authors; this is only a “conservative estimate”. Actual numbers may be much greater…
      Please send more grants so the authors can visit Australia shorelines.

      The authors should have stopped at a statement that they revisited carbon sequestration for Australia’s intertidal zones; and produced a new likely conservative, estimate.

      • And then you get to the part where the claim to known how damage to the ecosystem would degrade the sequestration rate: “Potential C stock losses (mass C) and CO2 emissions (mass CO2-e year−1) were estimated based on 0.03% annual ecosystem area loss for tidal marshes and mangroves, and 0.1% year−1 for seagrass, and accounted for the sum of C stocks in aboveground biomass and the top meter of soils, assuming that 50% of total C stocks are lost and remineralized to CO2 after disturbance” That’s all I could find in the paper or the supplementary information. This was good enough to survive peer review? With that sort of peer review, ‘Nature’ should never need to issue a ‘rejected after peer review’ notice ever again. Anything should be good enough.

  8. the paper shows Australian seagrass, mangrove and salt marshes absorb 20 million tonnes of carbon dioxide each year, which remains locked up in their soils for millennia.

    Anybody else get the idea that they just made up a “carbon sequestration” project out of nothing?
    Everybody here picked up fast on the money aspect, true enough. But before you get the money, you need a sequestration activity. Look at what they did:
    Yesterday they had an crocodile infested mangrove swamp. Today, they have a carbon sequestration operation with the potential of $110 million/yr. Not bad, not bad at all.

    Anybody here with specific knowledge? Do mangrove swamps really do long term carbon sequestration at anything like the claimed rate? If they do, a core sample should look a lot like peat. It would be so carbon rich you could dry it out and burn it. After all, the pristine swamps have been there for at least a few thousand years. that gives the potential for a lot of carbon buildup. Personally, I am suspicious of claims of any ecosystem that stores, long term, any compound that some organism would consider “food”.

  9. Now, I did read 20 million tons near the top of this article, didn’t I?
    A few years ago I did a calculation of how much carbon dioxide an ‘average’ human breathes out each year during respiration which worked out at 475 kgs.
    Therefore 7.7 billion people pruduce about 3 billion+ tonnes of CO2 each year just by breathing – makes 20 million look a bit “tiddly” me thinks!

  10. “comprehensive estimates of blue carbon storage at national and continental scales are lacking, particularly for tidal marshes and seagrass. Uncertainties on the extent of these ecosystems, their C stocks and sequestration rates, as well as limited availability of data on the loss and fate of C after disturbance, hinder adoption of VCE into carbon trading and national inventories”

    Translation

    We have a pretty good story about VCE but we can’t really back it up with data.
    If we had the data we could have been in the carbon credit market.
    But it still makes a good story, no?

    https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/09/30/cer/

    • Isn’t carbon sequestration and longtime storage the biggest problem for life on Earth?

      Hasn’t it been proven that Earth is greening because of rising CO2 level indicating that it is much too low for a healthy happy plant?

  11. I have read a good many articles about climate change strategies and the merit of doing things to counter the evil molecule CO2 (evil to the Green socialists that is). Sadly the principle reason for doing something supposedly Green, like reducing the release of CO2 back into the atmosphere where it is badly needed, is flawed logic.
    1. More CO2 not less, would be good for the planet’s environment. In order for the regime of planting marine grass in order to increase sea grass thus locking in CO2 to work, you have to have plenty of CO2 available.
    2. The project glibly claims, by reducing CO2 the climate change crisis will be mitigated. There is no study anywhere that shows CO2 drives climate change, there are plenty of studies that show climate change drives CO2.
    3. The income stream measured in A$ billions comes exclusively from state funding. not from economic activity/wealth creation. This whole project is founded on the continued support of the tax payers of Australia. Interestingly here in the UK with its barmy Zero CO2 target by 2050, the carbon tax so convenient to fund the “work” in the wild places, will not provide any tax revenue post 2050! Where do these tax absorbing projects imagine the money is going to come from? When wealth creation has ceased, there will be no money for any of these make work projects….someone should tell them some economic facts.

  12. BUT all that dangerous buried carbon is a ticking time bomb waiting to be released and threaten the climate for future generations! (Sarc)

  13. I am starting a research project to test the hypothesis that Australia will become a world leader in having red faces.

    • You forgot to put ‘because of CO2’ or ‘because of climate change’. Maybe you could but some gender and anti capitalism as well.

  14. The scientific basis for this work is horribly wrong.
    It is wrong to claim that “Australian seagrass, mangrove and salt marshes absorb 20 million tonnes of carbon dioxide each year, which remains locked up in their soils for millennia”. These coastal environments have been around for millennia, yet they do not show chemical signs of that accumulation, such as lumps of calcium carbonate weighing 30 billion tonnes per millennium.
    It is more credible to postulate an equilibrium, where incoming abut equals outgoing and no solid residues. So much for an investment opportunity, snake oil of the worst kind. Shame.

    Geoff S.

    • agree, last time i was in mangroves all there was was lotsa bugs and reeking slimy mud, the odd tiny crab and that was about it not a rock or anything to be seen

  15. Whoa! this is the “thin edge of the wedge” to justify levying a tax on every Internal Combustion fossil fuelled motor vehicle to “enhance carbon sink environments and save the planet” watch and wait for the crusade.

  16. Now if they would “accurately” estimate how much the polar oceans with phytoplankton blooms suck up “blue carbon” each year, they would find that nature does not allow atmospheric accumulation. The rise in concentration is the result of natural emission rates being greater than natural sink rates within each year. When the sink rates exceed natural emission rates, atmospheric concentrations will fall. An ice free Arctic would produce such a situation.

  17. Nigeria has a large volume of mangrove swamps. I pray they don’t find this article less it becomes the next Nigerian internet scam- please send us billions of dollars to support the mangrove swamps so we can save the planet.

  18. Blue carbon and black carbon. Red electrons and green electrons. This isn’t your grandad’s physics.

  19. Nature (the real one) is already doing this! With 20% (by now) increase in ‘leafing out’ around the world, nature is doing its thing by accelerating sequestration. Edith dear, re- measure it in 15yrs. Nature will have planted another 20 % while you guys are thinking about how to go about it. Relax, given sunshine, nutrients and water, carbon dioxide is nature’s limiting resource – she loves it, lives it and she knows what to do with it!

    There are 3 trillion trees on the planet and according to NASA (2015), forest areas expanded 15% during the 30yrs previous. That is ~ 400,000,000,000 new trees. Humans feeling good about planting millions is nature’s favorite joke. BTW, the growth is exponential and time linear, so before too long, catbon growth will attenuate all by itself. This is the basis for my prediction that “Garden of Eden Earth^тм”, will be upon us by 2050, coincident with peak population of ~9.5B, and concomittent plenty and prosperity for all.

  20. From the article: ““When these ecosystems are damaged by storms, heatwaves, dredging or other human development, the carbon dioxide stored in their biomass and soils beneath them can make its way back into the environment, contributing to climate change.”

    This is unsubstantiated speculation. There is no evidence that CO2 is causing the Earth’s climate to change in any way, shape, manner, or form.

    Alarmist Climate Science = One unsubstantiated claim after another.

    This is one more example.

  21. Blue Carbon
    Where on the periodic table?
    But I can see ephemeral colleges sprouting up–all granting certificates in Blue Carbon Studies.

  22. Bass ackward!
    Bad news: Valuable, pure and rare CO2 being buried in the mud out of reach of living things.
    Good News: Some of it is leaking out again to feed the biosphere and all who live in it.

  23. “The research also provides a financial baseline for investors looking at blue carbon projects to offset emissions.”

    lol. While it might have some potential value as a tax avoidance scam, they’ll find most venture capitalists are not quite so gullible as government bureaucrats looking to spend public funds forcibly extracted from unwilling taxpayers.

  24. According to the alarmists, water vapor increase depends only on temperature increase of the liquid surface water and has increased 0.88% per decade. Actual measurements show it to be 1.54% per decade. This proves WV, not CO2, drives temperature. WV increase is self-limited.

  25. “the paper shows Australian seagrass, mangrove and salt marshes absorb 20 million tonnes of carbon dioxide each year” – can someone convert that tonnage into a number of celebrity jet flights per year?

Comments are closed.