Free Article - AQ 88.1 Jan-Mar 2017 - Blue Carbon by AQ: Australian Quarterly

Yo ar ur tic FR le E ins E ide

How to subscribe

Subscribe and pay online at www.aips.net.au/aq-magazine/subscribe The subscription period is based on the calendar year: January to December – 4 issues per annum. Back copies will be forwarded.

Subscription Rates

Rates include GST. *GST does not apply on overseas subscriptions. Postage included in rate. Airmail used for overseas distribution.

AQ Individual and schools subscription AQ Individuals (Overseas) Individual Digital Subscription (through www.pocketmags.com.au)

$26 $35* $14.99

AIPS Membership includes AQ subscription

$88

Organisations (Australia) Organisations (Overseas – Asia & Oceania) Organisations (Overseas – Other than Asia)

$132 $145* $165*

AIPS Membership Overseas includes AQ subscription

$110*

CONTENTS

VOL 88 ISSUE 1 JAN–MAR 2017

Damage and Responsibility

Oceans fight back against climate change

Speculative fiction and the future of seafaring

DR PETER MACREADIE

ISABELLE GUARAN

Prof Brian Greene

Trust Me, I’m a Scientist

JESSE JORGENSEN-PRICE

DR EMMA BECKETT

Great Expectations and the Art of Whinging

Extreme Climate Change: DR SOPHIE LEWIS

AQ|Q&A

Australia’s Blue Carbon Future

IMAGE CREDITS: Please see article placements

20,000 Leagues Under the Sea

Between the Cracks DR ANDREW STAPLETON

References

COVER IMAGE: © www.joannabeckettdesign.com

JAN–MAR 2017

AUSTRALIAN QUARTERLY

Australia’s Blue Carbon Future

Oceans fight back against climate change Australia’s marine industries are expected to contribute $100 billion pa to our economy by 2025, but there is uncertainty how our oceans will cope with increased exploitation and climate change. At risk are important ecosystem services that are also vital to our economy and society – such as carbon sequestration, coastal protection, and nutrient cycling – which are not commoditised or adequately valued, yet they underpin Australia’s marine economy. ARTICLE BY: DR PETER MACREADIE

AUSTRALIAN QUARTERLY

JAN–MAR 2017

here is a growing movement to recognise the vital link between our marine economy and the natural ecosystems from which they derive, to support decision-making and better resource management. The poster child for the movement is ‘blue carbon’ – which refers to carbon that is stored and sequestered by the oceans, and represents a powerful new opportunity for offsetting Australia’s carbon emissions while creating an innovative mechanism for coastal restoration and protection. I’m normally pretty quick to hang up on phone sales people, but as someone deeply concerned about climate change, it was hard to ignore this: “Hi I’m from your energy supplier and I’d like to know if you want to switch to green energy and reduce your impact on the environment?” My response: “Of course, who wouldn’t?! Sign me up!” After some pleasant banter about how wonderful it is that our world is increasingly switching to green energy, I was ready to end the conversation and get back to my family dinner. But then came something I wasn’t expecting, as the salesman said: “So can I go ahead and authorise the extra

AUSTRALIA’S BLUE CARBON FUTURE

payment of $X per week for going green?” I don’t quite remember what the amount was, but I do remember thinking: (1) I couldn’t afford it – already I was living off a PhD scholarship and supporting two dependents; and (2) why don’t the energy companies absorb the extra costs of the green technology and only supply their consumers with green energy? After all, the fossil fuel industry is the wealthiest and most influential industry in the world, so surely they can afford it? To me it seemed quite cheeky that the fossil fuel industry would be charging ‘mum and dad’ consumers for their transition to green technology. It also bothered me having to make the choice. Perhaps the energy companies are thinking ‘Hey, why should we flip the bill for green technology? We’re not even the one’s using it; we just supply it!’ This is sometimes referred to as the heroine dealers’ defence. What if there was a carbon tax? Now I know that some of you will be groaning as you read this; some will be giving a thumbs up, and yet others will have never really given it much thought. In theory, it’s quite simple: polluters pay for the privilege to pollute. And we know from basic economics, that when you tax something, people tend to consume less of it. A good example is the high taxation of cigarettes in Australia. We taxed the heck out of cigarettes and consumption dropped. Taxation is a neat way of reducing activities that have negative impacts on our people and planet. What I also love about taxes is that it

Blue carbon refers to carbon that is stored and sequestered by the oceans.

takes away our need to make the choice. The big polluters were left with greater It’s compulsory. Of course there will always incentives to switch to green technologies, be those who try to evade taxes, but for which is something that must inevitably the most part everyone is on board, which happen given the finite nature of fossil fuels. means that we benefit from knowing that A portion of the funds raised through a everyone is contributing, rather than just a carbon tax could also go towards offsets. small handful of citizens. Working in the So in the case of environmental switching to green sector, the ‘Hey, why should we energy, you have the word offset pleasure of knowing can be a dirty flip the bill for green that you’re not the only word; a word technology? We’re not one in the street that’s that’s associpulling your weight. ated with even the one’s using it; But does a carbon ‘blood money’ we just supply it!’ tax mean that our living – a system for costs will rise and that paying to wilThis is sometimes referred to as our economy will suffer? fully damage the heroine dealers’ defence. With the introduction of the environthe Labor Government’s ment. But in carbon tax, there were the context concerns that mum’s Sunday roast would of dealing with climate change, the word have skyrocketed to $100. It didn’t. And offset has helped draw attention to an about half of the funds raised through the aspect of dealing with climate change that carbon tax went to households. has gone under the radar: Biosequestration.

JAN–MAR 2017

AUSTRALIAN QUARTERLY

AUSTRALIA’S BLUE CARBON FUTURE

Early estimates of the power of blue carbon were staggering. They indicated that blue carbon ecosystems – seagrass meadows, tidal marshes, and mangrove forests – ranked among the most efficient and permanent sinks for carbon on the planet, far exceeding that of key terrestrial sinks. A two-pronged approach We hear so much about the need to switch to green technologies and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels – to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide that we release into the atmosphere. But there’s another aspect of dealing with climate change that doesn’t get much attention: ‘What do we do with all the carbon that we’ve already released into the atmosphere? Carbon that will be floating around up there for hundreds of years, trapping in heat from the sun.’ An answer is ‘biosequestration’.

AUSTRALIAN QUARTERLY

JAN–MAR 2017

Biosequestration is the capture and storage of carbon currently existing in the form of carbon dioxide (CO2) within the atmosphere, by biological processes (e.g. photosynthesis). The trapped carbon can be found within living organic matter, soil, and aquatic ecosystems. Biosequestration provides a way of both removing previously emitted CO2 from the atmosphere and mitigating the impact of current, and potential future, emissions associated with anthropogenic activities. Ironically, it is the same process that created fossil fuels in the first place. Biosequestration is not a silver bullet

IMAGE: © Gabe Cunnett

for dealing with climate change. Rather, it is part of a two-pronged approach – the first prong being emission reduction, the second being biosequestration. Thus, to reset the planet’s temperature, we must reduce the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases that we release into the atmosphere, as well as remove alreadyreleased CO2. Australian Governments regard biosequestration as “the single largest opportunity for C emission reduction in Australia” (Liberal’s Direct Action Plan), that must be “central to any ambitious global effort to meet targets for limiting temperature

AUSTRALIA’S BLUE CARBON FUTURE

Removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere: We’ve done it before, why can’t we do it again? The global carbon budget is concerned with the exchange of carbon among the earth’s five spheres: the atmosphere, lithosphere, biosphere, cryosphere and hydrosphere.

increase” (Labor’s Garnaut Climate Change Review).

Blue Is The New Green

During the 1980’s, it was recognised that CFCs – another form of greenhouse gas – in the atmosphere had caused a hole in the ozone layer, with serious health ramifications for earth’s citizens, namely risk of skin cancer. Leading nations developed a plan to remove CFCs from our manufacturing. Following the international ban of CFCs by the Montreal Protocol in 1987, CFCs emissions have been reduced to negligible amounts, and in 2016 scientists have reported that the hole in the ozone layer is now 10 million square kilometres smaller in 2014 than it was in 2000, showing that the atmosphere can repair itself when greenhouse gases are removed. If we managed to successfully remove CFCs from our modern lifestyles, why can’t we do it with again with CO2? In principal, the removal of both greenhouse gases is much the same; perhaps the main difference is that removal of CFCs had only minor impact on our lifestyles and economy relative to our reliance on fossil fuels, and was much less political.

The capacity of the terrestrial biosphere to remove carbon from the atmosphere through biosequestration has now been Even if fossil fuels are eliminated, biosequestration will provide an opportunity to recapture well-studied (e.g. forest carbon farming previous emissions. initiatives), but it is now emerging that the greatest opportunities for carbon offsetting may be in the oceans. Seven years ago, marine science gave birth to a new term: ‘blue carbon’, which was created to describe the enormous and newly-recognised potential of the oceans microbial respiration); and their position at which is equivalent to 73 billion tonnes to sequester carbon and help slow climate the land-sea interface, where they trap and of CO2. To put this into perspective, the change. filter planktonic carbon as well as carbon average Australian produces 17 tonnes of Early estimates of the power of blue that runs off the land. CO2 each year. carbon were staggering. They indicated Despite occupying <1% of the seafloor, that blue carbon ecosystems – seagrass blue carbon ecosystems contribute half Australia: a Global Hotspot for meadows, tidal marshes, and mangrove of all carbon burial in the oceans. They forests – ranked among the most efficient Blue Carbon capture and store carbon in soils 40-times and permanent sinks for carbon on the faster than tropical rainforests and can Since blue carbon was first recognised planet, far exceeding that of key terrestrial retain captured carbon for millennia. in 2009, there has been a flurry of research sinks (e.g. rainforests). Consequently, blue carbon ecosystems into it, with Australia at the forefront. The high sequestration rates of blue hold enormous quantities of carbon that Programs such as the CSIRO Coastal Carbon carbon ecosystems arise from their high has been removed from the atmosphere; Cluster program have generated significant primary unless, of course understanding of the mechanisms, magproductivity it becomes nitudes, and uncertainties associated with (capture of disturbed. blue carbon sequestration. carbon); their A synthesis of Meanwhile, the Intergovernmental Panel high carbon The hole in the ozone global literature on Climate Change (IPCC) prepared guidburial efficiency estimated that layer is now 10 million ance on inclusions of the role of coastal and retention seagrasses curwetlands – including mangroves and tidal (low oxygen square kilometres smaller rently hold up to marshes (but not seagrasses) – towards environments 19.9 billion tonnes in 2014 than it was in national greenhouse gas inventories (2013 that are not of organic carbon, conducive to Wetlands Supplement). 2000, showing that the

atmosphere can repair itself when greenhouse gases are removed.

JAN–MAR 2017

AUSTRALIAN QUARTERLY

AUSTRALIA’S BLUE CARBON FUTURE

MORE THAN CARBON SINKS In addition to sequestering carbon, blue carbon ecosystems provide other important benefits. They support an estimated 50% of the world’s fisheries by providing fish with a nursery ground during their juvenile stages of development, offering them food, shelter, and protection from predators. By supporting fisheries, seagrasses indirectly provide vital nutrition for close to 3 billion people. Blue carbon habitats mop up nutrients and pollutants that run off the land. They stabilise shorelines and prevent coastal erosion. They help buffer

The first steps involved developing an inventory of blue carbon, by determining: 1. Sources: Where does blue carbon come from? 2. Stocks: How much blue carbon do we have and where is it? 3. Flows: How do sources and stocks change? From this research we’ve learnt that Australia is the nation that holds the largest area of blue carbon habitat – 12% of the global area (135,000 km2), made up of 13,765 km2 of tidal marsh, 10,500 km2 of mangrove and 125,500 km2 of seagrass. Perhaps not surprisingly, this large area of blue carbon habitat translates into enormous quantities of stored blue carbon (1,722,310,494 tonnes of Corg) – around 7-12% of worldwide blue carbon storage.

against ocean acidification and protect our coasts from extreme weather events, while providing critical habitat for birds, fish, dugongs and turtles. IMAGE: © Peter Macreadie

AUSTRALIAN QUARTERLY

JAN–MAR 2017

However, with recognition of the magnitude of carbon storage within blue carbon sinks comes the concern that, if disturbed, these stores of carbon could leak vast amounts of carbon back into the atmosphere, thereby shifting them from carbon sinks into carbon sources, as has occurred in some forests, peatlands, and permafrost. Loss and degradation of natural ecosystems is estimated to be responsible for approximately 12-20% of all CO2 emissions. Effectively, blue carbon ecosystems could become a ‘carbon bomb’. Indeed, it is estimated that annual losses of blue carbon habitats – seagrasses, saltmarshes and mangroves – create emissions of 1 billion tonnes of CO2 annually. This amount of CO2 release is equivalent

AUSTRALIA’S BLUE CARBON FUTURE

Annual losses of blue carbon habitats – seagrasses, saltmarshes and mangroves – create emissions of 1 billion tonnes of CO2 annually. This amount of CO2 release is equivalent to 17-times the annual emissions of Australia.

management levers can be pulled to to 17-times the annual emissions of maximise blue carbon gains and minimise Australia. losses along our coasts. Among the greatest threats to Australian One such example of an influencblue carbon ecosystems are coastal develing factor is hydrology. Australia has a opment and climate change, which are long history estimated to be causing of modifying losses of 1-3% per year. coastal waterways Research shows that stores through drainof blue carbon that accuAustralia is the age of wetlands, mulated over thousands of artificial opening years can disappear in a few nation that holds or closing of decades. intermittent Among the highest the largest area estuary entrances, priorities in management of blue carbon and the construcof blue carbon ecosystion of levees, tems is therefore to halt habitat – 12% of flood gates, dams, the destruction and disand sea walls. turbance of blue carbon the global area. In southeast ecosystems. Australia alone, there are 4,300 Managing coasts for barriers that alter blue carbon benefits natural tidal exchange to estuaries. At COP21 in Paris, Minister Greg Hunt These alterations to natural hydrology announced that Australia “will increase generally have negative impacts on blue understanding and accelerate action on carbon sequestration capacity, such as the important role of coastal blue carbon ecosystems in climate change action”. In addition, Australia will be among the first nations to include blue carbon in its national greenhouse gas inventory. To capitalise on blue carbon (i.e. offsets – maximise blue carbon gains and minimise losses), we must first understand factors that impact upon the accumulation, preservation and loss of blue carbon – known as ‘influencing factors’. Understanding the influencing factors allows us to determine what

the ability of blue carbon ecosystems to migrate up the shoreline in response to rising sea levels. Recent modelling of estuaries in southeastern Australia shows that opening of floodgates would increase blue carbon gains by hundreds of thousands of tonnes. During 2016, the Department of Environment and Energy, in partnership with leading Australian blue carbon scientists, have been preparing a ‘Technical review of opportunities for coastal blue carbon ecosystem enhancement through the Australian Government’s Emission Reduction Fund’. The report – which includes a list of recommendations – is expected to be released in early 2017. It is anticipated that the report will form the basis for the development of an Australian legislated methodology for blue carbon offsetting, which would allow carbon offset providers and businesses to collect carbon credits for actions that lead to emission reduction (preventing blue carbon losses) or blue carbon gains (e.g. via habitat restoration).

JAN–MAR 2017

AUSTRALIAN QUARTERLY

AUSTRALIA’S BLUE CARBON FUTURE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

The author thanks Grant Mills (AQ) and Dr Jeff Baldock (CSIRO) for feedback.

By investing in nature we can help mitigate climate change and improve natural capital, while contributing to jobs, economic growth, and community wellbeing. What’s holding blue carbon back? After 7 years of blue carbon research and campaigning, we see that blue carbon is now accepted as an important tool for climate change mitigation (e.g. MP Greg Hunt’s announcements in Paris), but still we struggle to engage stakeholders in a meaningful way. Blue carbon is a great product, yet we still lack real demand for it. Indeed, many Australian carbon offset providers have taken a keen interest in blue carbon, but none have taken real action. There are three main barriers towards widespread update and implementation of blue carbon: (1) lack of a carbon tax; (2) the price on carbon being low and failing to incorporate the social costs of carbon; and (3) the absence of a market for many of

the co-benefits that are offered from blue carbon ecosystems, particularly the social aspects. Australia’s large area of blue carbon habitat places us among the nations with the greatest potential to benefit from developing blue carbon-focused climate change mitigation schemes. By investing in nature we can help mitigate climate change and improve natural capital, while contributing to jobs, economic growth, and community wellbeing. It is my hope that some day I will get another call from my energy provider, but this time I will hear them say: “Good news! We’ve now switched you onto our green energy plan at no extra cost, and your emissions are being offset by a blue carbon farm”. #OceanOptimism AQ

AUTHOR: Dr Peter Macreadie is a Senior Lecturer and Head of the Blue Carbon Lab (www.bluecarbonlab. org) at Deakin University. Follow him on Twitter @PeterMacreadie

AUSTRALIAN QUARTERLY

JAN–MAR 2017

Australia’s Blue Carbon Future Blue is becoming the new green. ‘Blue carbon’ is the ocean’s capacity to capture and store vast amounts of CO2. Despite occupying <1% of the seafloor, blue carbon ecosystems contribute to half of all carbon burial in the oceans. In addition, the efficiency of these aquatic ecosystems in eliminating carbon is staggering; far outstripping the capacity of our rainforests. Yet through habitat destruction and bad management, we risk turning this global sequestration system into a carbon bomb that would sink our chances of meeting our global emissions targets. Peter Macreadie

Trust Me, I’m a Scientist Science is haunted by a persistent and confounding catch-22. Why, when scientists are ranked as some of the most-trustworthy people in society, do people not necessarily trust what scientists tell them? Echo chambers, vested interests, the fickle nature of human beings...if scientists are the experts, why don’t we defer to them on scientific matters? Yet as inexpert voices become louder and louder (Trump!) bridging this trust gap is of greater and greater importance. eMMa Beckett

Extreme Climate Change: Damage and Responsibility Climate scientists use the same statistical techniques to determine global warming’s influence in extreme climate events as public health researchers use to investigate the health impacts of smoking and asbestos exposure. These public health issues have positively attributed blame for causation, so similarly it raises the question of who should be held liable for run-away climate change? Should we rephrase our climate action in a way that is ‘far closer to many of our hearts than global sustainability or planetary survival – who to sue when the house price falls?’ SoPhie LewiS

IMAGE CREDITS: Please see article placements

20,000 Leagues Under the Sea: SF & Seafaring The role of science fiction is to predict major technological or environmental changes in the world, and to explore how humanity responds to these. To date, SF has done a reasonable job of predicting changes in maritime technology. Yet looking forward, is there anything that SciFi can tell us about the role of the maritime industry in modern issues such as the refugee crisis in Europe and North Africa; the unceasing race for shipping companies to build ever-larger ships; international biosecurity; and the need to innovate? iSaBeLLe Guaran

https://aq.magazine.com.au/ www.zinio.com