Olivine Geoengeneering

Thanks Pro. I. Preface As promised I will directly deal with Pro’s arguments in this round. II. Global Warming I will not contest Pro’s points that rising CO2 levels has lead to increased global warming. It doesn’t automatically qualify olivine geoengineering as a solution to the problem, however. Note there are multiple avenues by which current CO2 and future CO2 levels may be reduced, geoengineering of any sort is just 1 of many of these. There are 2 avenues to address global warming. 1. Address the CO2 emissions 2. Address the CO2 already in the atmosphere Pro has demonstrated herself in the last round that CO2 levels are rising rapidly as a result of industrial activity from the burning of fossil fuels. Fossil fuel technologies are themselves unsustainable due to limited resources available, and the source of energy is one of the principle drivers of economy. It clearly follows we need to primarily address and invest in zero carbon energy technologies before considering these ‘band-aid’ type solutions to the problem. It’s like opening a savings account to earn money on interest when you already have outstanding debts. The debts are going to completely nullify anything you earn from savings accounts, as such money is best invested in paying down your existing debts first. Pro raises the point that rising CO2 levels will result in ‘catastropic climate change’ yet her own quote mentions: “The amount of damage associated with that warming remains uncertain, but there is some risk that it could be large and perhaps even catastrophic.” Which her next quote seems to affirm “Climate change is unlikely to be catastrophic in the near term, but it has the potential for serious damages in the long run.” Here I can only conclude 2 things: 1. We have time to implement a more effective solution 2. Pro’s points regarding climate damage in no way qualifies Enhanced Weathering tehcnologies (such as olivine engineering) III. Olivine Engineering Alternative Alkalination In a review by Paquay, he compared the consequences of various ocean liming techniques on grounds of cost, CO2 sequestering and on effect on ocean pH. Olivine dispersal costs ~$50 USD per metric tonne of CO2 sequestered, the use of limestone/quicklime dispersal is estimated at $38 USD per metric tonne, a significant improvement. Air capture while more expensive (100-1000 USD/tonne CO2) would be significantly less problematic ecologically, for instance.[1] Side-Effects A review by Scheffran highlighted changes in soil and surface pH affecting both terrewstial and aquatic ecosystems, effects if increased dissolved silicon levels (a byproduct of olivine neutralization) as well as the effect of trace metals (which become significant on the scales olivine dispersal is proposed) such as Nickel, Zinc and Chromium, all of which are toxic metals.[1] Moreover the study affirms the effects of dust (which I previously argued needs to be ground to an extremely fine grade, much finer than would be required to make it airborne) which both have a terrestrial impact (from inhalation) and from photosynthetis inhibition via. light absorption.[2] Moreover the effect of the large scale mining of olivine, which needs to be comparable to our existing coal/oil industry given that the amount of material required to sequester each kilo of fossil fuels is comparable (1g olivine for ever 0.28g CO2 sequestered in the best studies. We literally need an industry the side of out existing coal minding industry to produce the required material.[3] IV. Counter-Rebuttals Carbon Expensive Solution: Pro’s rebuttal is completely off the mark. What is the point in researching something that you will not use? Arguments against the use of nuclear weapons are effective in arguing against research into building nuclear weapons. Similarly, arguments against the implementation of olivine is an argument against continuing to research olivine. Moreover the debate topic is on olivine engineering itself, which would obviously include its implementation. This rebuttal seems completely off the mark. Moreover the practical limitations of olivine have additional side-effects, as I have metioned in this round. Yes there is research into overcoming the solubility issues of olivine, however these solutions are themselves very realistically causing ecological harm (effect of massive amounts of airbourne dust dust, for example) Economics: Again, I don’t see how this rebuttal is at all relevant to my arguments, making money for research of the process doesn’t make the process itself economical, it only gives you money topersure it for that time period. Olivine engineering is proposed as a large scale long term solution to CO2 sequestering. As such we need to assess it’s manifestationV. ConclusionI cite a lack of direct responses by Pro, as such back to her for her closing! VI. References 1. http://www.soest.hawaii.edu... 2. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...