Experiments on geo-scale? No! No! NO!

For solution to world's problems, I generally take two fair fairly conservative views:
no long term unknown impact and no large scale changes.

Throwing iron into the ocean in the hope of causing phytoplankton growth in order to sequester carbon is one of them. Treehugger reported on a failed experiment. The phytoplankton biomass doubled after the iron source being added. However, the kind of phytoplankton was not what the scientists have predicted.

A failed experiment on a small scale is OK. That's part of the spirit of science. Wholesale adoption of an untested idea is a No No.

The other two ideas I have strong reservations are carbon sequestration in 1. deep sea and 2. deep old mine. Both are untested and long term effects unknown.

Dumping carbon at sea

TreeHugger is running a story on the debate Is ocean storage a viable option or merely a "dangerous distraction"?

Personally, I will oppose any solution which leaves a problem for the next generation. I also support diversity - multiple solutions to a problem.

In terms of global warming, we need to act fast to remove CO₂ from the atmosphere before it is too late. This urgency obviously gives support to experiments for possible/potential solutions. By experiment, we mean small scale tests which if run into problem will not produce devastating consequences. Deep water injection of CO₂ belongs to the same category of carbon Sequestration at deep geological holes. Once we go down that path, any mishap will have globally devastating effect. It is too high a risk to take.

Carbon Sequestration:Forest

Yes, we need to remove carbon from atmosphere. We have already pumped too much already. The question is of course HOW.

Fritz Scholz and Ulrich Hasse from the University of Greifswald introduce a possible approach to a solution: deliberately planted forests bind the CO2 through photosynthesis and are then removed from the global CO2 cycle by burial.

Here is some numbers:
1. Current world carbon emission is 32 gigatons of CO₂.
2. Fritz and Ulrich estimated that the world needs about 1 sq km of forest [my notes: world's Irrigated land in 2003 is 2,770,980 sq km]
3. "This project could be financed by an additional tax of 0.11 € per liter of gasoline or 0.003 € per kilowatt-hour of electricity." I don't know how this figure is arrived. From Wikipedia, the 2004 worldwidth energy consumption is 5x10²⁰ Joules or 1.4x10¹⁴kilowatt-hour. That would represent a value of US$644B.

"The forests should be planted in countries that are suitable for growing forest and also have the necessary sites for burial of the wood," stresses Scholz. "Other countries, the primary consumers of fossil fuels, can pay them for it. This would produce a global trade that would benefit everyone involved."

This is a market a lot of big companies will be interested in.