Environmental (Coastal – Mitigation – Natural)

 

• Healthy coastal ecosystems and coastal wetlands theoretically may have the ability to capture and store vast quantities of carbon – called blue carbon – through various completely natural processes, thus removing such blue carbon from the atmosphere. The advantage for the environment is that if such blue carbon were not captured and stored, that blue carbon would release vast quantities of carbon dioxide – CO2 – a major greenhouse gas (GHG), and perhaps other types of GHGs into the atmosphere. Thus, healthy coastline ecosystems and coastal wetlands could provide natural environmental benefits to the global efforts to slow and perhaps even eventually neutralize climate change, to the point that the world might never exceed the 1.5C increase in temperature above pre-industrial levels identified in the COP21 2015 Paris Agreement (Agreement) as being the aspirational maximum average point of climate increase by 2050.

 

• Coastal estuaries (those areas along coastlines where the freshwater currents of rivers mingle with ocean tides, that may then cover certain areas of the estuaries with water only during high ocean tides) may act as carbon sinks – any area that may have some natural ability to capture and store any carbon-containing material, such as blue carbon, for an indefinite period of time, thus preventing such carbon-containing material from releasing any carbon dioxide (CO2) that such carbon-containing material may contain into the environment. Such coastal estuaries are thus vital components of coastal ecosystems in the effort to mitigate or abate climate change.

 

• Depending on their locations around the globe, if such coastal estuaries are naturally healthy, they may contain ecosystems such as mangrove trees (there are actually 2 types of mangrove trees that can capture and store blue carbon – estuarine mangroves – those that live more in the less-salty and more freshwater areas of a coastal estuary close to shore – and oceanic mangroves – those that live in the more-salty and less-freshwater areas of a coastal estuary, further out from shore; the oceanic mangroves are actually more-numerous, and may be more efficient at processing blue carbon than the estuarine mangroves, although the estuarine mangroves are themselves very-efficient blue carbon processors), tidal marshes, underwater seagrass meadows and certain sediments (naturally-occurring materials in waterbeds, such as detritus – grass and wood debris – mineral particles, sand, silt and the like, that are decomposed into minute particles due to the constant movements of the water – called fluvial processes – which particles are then naturally-transported by such fluvial processes to some areas of decreased water action in the estuaries, where the particles eventually descend to the waterbed) which may be able to capture and store blue carbon.

 

• One well-respected nature conservation group claims that coastal estuaries may be able to capture and store blue carbon at a rate of 150 acres capturing at least 9 tonnes (one tonne = 1,000 kilograms or 2,204.6 pounds or 1,102 short – US – tons or 0.984 long tons) of carbon, which might be the equivalent to the carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted by up to 7,000 vehicles burning fossil/nonrenewable fuels in one year.

 

• Scientists have estimated that since 1900, about half of the world’s naturally-occurring coastal estuaries have been lost to airports, amusement parks, farming, housing developments and the like.However, the remaining coastal estuaries with mangrove trees may be particularly efficient carbon sinks, since such mangrove trees are both above and below the estuary water levels simultaneously.Through photosynthesis (the natural process by which the leaves of a tree extract both carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O) from the air, and convert them into glucose – the nourishment for the plant – by oxidizing the water – meaning removing electrons from the water – and simultaneously reducing the carbon dioxide – meaning adding the electrons removed from the water to the carbon dioxide – thus transforming the water into oxygen (O2) – which is then exhaled from the leaves for us to inhale –and transforming the carbon dioxide into glucose for the plant to consume) the leaves of the mangrove tree remove carbon from the atmosphere, much of which travels down inside the mangrove tree trunk into the roots of the mangrove tree, which are already embedded in the sediment of the coastal estuary. Such carbon then migrates from such mangrove tree roots into such coastal estuary sediment, where such carbon is stored for an indefinite period of time.

 

• Scientists have estimated that restoring an estuary the size of the Mekong Delta – about 174 square miles – in the former South Vietnam, which was all but obliterated during the Vietnam War, would result in the yearly capture and storage of about 152 megatonnes (about 167,551,320 US tons) of blue carbon, which would put a serious dent in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam’s current 253 megatonnes (about 278,884,762 US tons) of total annual carbon emissions. Scientists currently estimate that just the currently-remaining coastal estuaries (assuming that there would be no reclamation of former coastal estuary sites), if restored to full health, might be able to collectively capture and store more than 30 gigatonnes (about 33,069,339,328 US tons) of blue carbon annually, which is 3x the annual carbon emissions from the People’s Republic of China.

 

• Some seagrass meadows (which are completely underwater) can capture and store carbon 35x faster than a tropical rainforest (which, except for the tree roots) is completely above-ground. 

 

• Scientists have estimated that as much as 83% of the global carbon cycle is circulated through the ocean, so coastal ecosystems and ocean-based ecosystems are vital for capturing and storing blue carbon. For example, it has been estimated that coastal seagrass meadows may cover only about 2% of the total ocean area, but they account for 50% of the total blue carbon captured and stored in ocean sediments. 

 

• One danger of storing blue carbon may be that if healthy, functioning coastal ecosystems (whether existing or restored) are then disturbed through dredging, land filling or people interference, such coastal estuaries might then release much of any blue carbon they have stored, causing massive amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) to be released into the atmosphere, and thus defeating the intent for relying on such coastal ecosystems to capture and store blue carbon.

 

• Another potential natural tool for blue carbon capture and storage is macroalgae (a/k/a seaweed). However, scientists have yet to include the vast seaweed beds and floating seaweed colonies in their carbon calculations, due to the difficulties of tracking all the fixed and floating seaweed throughout the world, and measuring whatever blue carbon intake all the various forms of seaweed may contribute to the global reduction of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

 

• Here in the US, states are finding new and creative legislative ways to protect coastal ecosystems and coastal estuaries through “living shorelines” programs, promoting coastal resilience through plantings of native underwater plants, and the introduction of native underwater species. Such living shorelines have the benefits that they are relatively inexpensive to create, stabilize the seabed during hurricanes (since there is more dense growth on the seabed than before, thus mitigating erosion caused by violent water activities), require hardly any maintenance from humans, and increase blue carbon capture and storage because of the increase in the underwater species population. For example, oysters absorb carbon into their shells as calcium carbonate (CaCO3), which increases the strength of the shells.Further, scientists estimate that each kilogram (2.2 pounds) of oysters removes about 114 grams (about one-third of a pound) of carbon from the water.

 

• Alongside tropical forests and common wetlands, coastal ecosystems and coastal estuaries demonstrate how and therefore offer opportunities for countries to achieve their emissions reduction targets and Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Agreement.

 

• As might be expected, there is no universal consensus regarding the credibility of concentrating on blue carbon mitigation as a reliable climate change methodology. The opponents of blue carbon reliance currently apparently refuse to credit any blue carbon GHG reduction contributions in the calculations for their own nationally-determined contributions (NDCs) – a concept first articulated in Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Agreement, which requires each signatory to the Agreement requires each signatory to prepare, disseminate to all other signatories (every 5 years, beginning in 2020) and then make all good faith attempts to achieve such successive nationally-determined contributions – nor do such opponents wish any other signatory to credit any blue carbon GHG reduction contributions in the calculations for their NDCs. The opponents seem to have three (3) basic arguments against the inclusion of blue-carbon-related data in any NDC calculations.

 

• First, at the present time the science is not fully-developed enough to anticipate what impacts climate change may have on blue carbon. If the temperature may rise above 1.5C by 2050, perhaps the stored blue carbon may begin to deteriorate, thus releasing massive amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. Mangroves may dry up.Coastal estuaries may flood permanently due to rising sea levels, or may also dry up altogether, thus killing the coastal ecosystems such as mangrove trees, tidal marshes, underwater seagrass meadows and certain sediments.Increases in water temperature may also destroy such ecosystems.

 

• Second, relying upon blue carbon to offset anticipated climate change conditions that may never materialize, or may materialize in areas of the globe that may have little or no blue carbon may prove ineffective, and certainly cannot be relied upon to result in accurate GHG emissions reductions calculations.

 

• At the present time, the study of blue carbon is in its infancy, so it is not credible science, because there is not yet a pool of historical data from which to determine trends and performance, so blue carbon cannot yet be used as an industry standard indicator to verify climate change mitigation or remediation results.

 

• Of course, proponents of blue carbon analysis respond with the truism that everything is unknown until it is known, and nothing can be known until it has been studied and documented over a reasonable period of time.If climate change is truly an existential threat, then it is vital that all possible aspects of any potential methodology to mitigate or eliminate climate change must be explored and understood until it can be proven to be a viable methodology, or it must be abandoned because it just does not work.

 

• Currently, domestic and international conservation activists and groups are increasingly working together in attempts to raise awareness about the value of the coastal ecosystems and estuaries for reducing GHG emissions. Such groups are increasing their lobbying efforts to their respective governments, advocating for ne nature conservation policies that will promote the increasing use of natural methods to combat climate change.

 

• Thus, conservation activists and groups are increasingly pushing for a combination of mechanisms – such as for example: the use of financial mechanisms to fund carbon-related coastal studies and conservation projects; the modification of existing domestic laws to remove regulatory barriers to preserving and enhancing the abilities of coastal areas to leverage blue carbon solutions; the enactment of new laws to increase governmental funding for and participation in blue carbon solutions; increased international inter-governmental cooperation for blue-carbon initiatives through treaties; domestic and international private conservation agreements – to serve as pathways for potential substantive actions – such as for example: more accurate domestic and international accounting regarding GHG emissions; domestic and international financing (such as debt swaps, bonds, venture capital and the like) and funding (perhaps through performance-based governmental programs) for coastal conservation; inclusion of blue carbon issues and solutions in domestic and international climate change strategies; negotiations with coastal landowners, municipalities, states and governments regarding their use of coastal assets – that may result in tangible benefits to people and to the planet – such as for example: actual mitigation or elimination of climate change; sustainable jobs for people in coastal and supporting communities; improved coastal ecosystems and estuaries; and, increased use of efficient and effective blue carbon strategies.

 

• Some countries have provided very progressive responses to the lobbying efforts of their blue carbon conservation activists and groups.For example, Australia – which claims to have about 12% of all the world’s blue carbon ecosystems within its borders – has apparently created an entire blue-carbon-related economy by: funding numerous blue-carbon-related governmental, academic and scientific programs; funding numerous blue-carbon-related governmental, academic and private incentive programs; providing numerous blue-carbon-related academic, administrative, conservation and construction jobs; joining numerous blue-carbon-related international committees and conventions; and even providing funds to numerous other countries to support their own domestic blue-carbon-related efforts and programs.

 

• Drafting and negotiating any agreements, contracts and documents related to natural-related coastal mitigation projects, as well as all related compliance functions and regulatory tasks.

​

    Progress_Page_Last_Udated_230108_2339