For readers in the northern hemisphere, the Autumn Goddess Pages is now live online.
It’s a good read for southern hemisphere readers too though!
Click to read
I read an interesting article last month about a microscopic plant that seems to love gobbling up CO2 – over and above trees I guess!
According to the article, cyanobacteria are prehistoric organisms, no bigger than a pinhead and look like black slime. Despite their size these organisms changed the earth’s atmosphere by converting CO2 into oxygen until it was able to sustain other lifeforms. Interesting.
Many cyanobacteria are able to reduce nitrogen and carbon dioxide under aerobic conditions, a fact that may be responsible for their evolutionary and ecological success.(1)
What’s even more interesting is that it has been found in Queensland’s dry soils and apparently each hectare of it can mop up up to one tonne of CO2. Research by Dr Wendy Williams, head of an ongoing study at the University of Queensland, found on a tropical north Queensland savannah about one-third of carbon absorbed would be through cyanobacteria. In a survey of 1.6 million square kilometres of Queensland Dr Williams found the microscopic plants everywhere.
Small pond full of green colored cyanobacteria. (Credit: iStockphoto)
Some species of cyanobacteria produce toxins and are most commonly known as the blue-green algal blooms seen from time to time in Australian waterways. Controlling cyanobacteria in waterways is a topic of constant debate as it seems no one single option has been entirely successful in eradicating the potentially harmful bacteria from waterways.
Other species are sold as food: notably Aphanizomenon flos-aquae and Arthrospira platensis (Spirulina).
However, the species studied by Dr Williams that occurs in soil may, according to Dr Williams, be of potential benefit to land owners in a carbon-trading economy. Many Queensland properties already have cyanobacteria on them which can be farmed and used to rehabilitate soils.
“Currently, soil respiration and carbon is measured without taking into account the surface crusts that photosynthesise and therefore sequester carbon. Over 70% of Australia is arid or semi-arid and it is probable that microbiotic crusts represent at least 300 million tonnes in biomass. These crusts are an important yet often underestimated component of the natural ecosystem.” (2)
An abstract of Dr Williams’ thesis can be found at the UQ Library site and a discussion on the carbon uptake of cyanobacteria crusts can be found here (opens as PDF).
Perhaps this is an area of research the Australian government can look more into as part of its carbon abatement programs. There are many more alternatives to a carbon tax it seems than was first thought.
Resources:
(1) Wikipedia
(2) Cyanobacteria highly active during wet season: A long-term study at Boodjamulla National Park, north-west Queensland, Williams et al (2010)
Regular readers will recall my post on the 2012 “end of days” prophecies.
I avoided going to the cinema to watch the movie when it came out but it appeared on free-to-air TV last night so I gave it a watch. Interesting mix of astrology, science, Mayan “prediction”, conspiracy theory and fear-mongering … with some awesome special effects!
It was a typical “disaster movie” and quite an entertaining watch actually – just for the special effects alone!
But it did get me wondering – why is it that we are so obsessed with our own destruction? Our energies surely would be much better spent focused on living our lives, protecting what we have, and respecting all life. We are after all, custodians of the planet … not owners.
We are at the end of the day, at the mercy of the Mother, no matter how much we try to fight it, and in the words of character Dr Adrian Helmsley:
“Nature will choose of itself for itself.”
Blessings!
© Earth Goddess Wisdom – www.earthgoddesswisdom.com
Could anything be so abhorrent? Mining the Moon?? It’s not bad enough that we continue to rape and pillage our Mother for as many resources as we can drag from Her womb, but the Moon?
The Moon belongs to all
Indeed, I read in a recent newspaper article that a camera abord the US Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has created a map of the Moon which has revealed an abundance of titanium ore that is up to 10 times richer than on earth.
Astronomers have said this find could lead to lunar mining.
Titanium is a metal as strong as steel but nearly half as light. On earth it is found in 1% of similar ores, a tenth of the concentration on the Moon.
Is this sheer lunacy – or are we seriously so chock full of our own importance that we believe the Moon is ours to do with what we like? The fact that one country may seek ‘mining rights’ over other countries may be next on the cards – and will there then be a race to see which country can control the resources of the Moon? Do the people of the world get a say?
And what potential detrimental effects can we expect from mining the Moon? They abound when mining the earth so they are sure to exist when mining the Moon. What about any potential impact on earth happenings controlled by the Moon – like tides? Will mining it lead to changes in events right here on earth?
“Oh the cleverness of me”.
-Peter Pan
Our ‘cleverness’ continues to lead us down a path of self-destruction. Seriously, who do we think we are?
What do you think about Mining the Moon?
© Earth Goddess Wisdom – www.earthgoddesswisdom.com
Well it’s in – a carbon tax is through the Australian Parliament and come mid-2012 emitters will be hit with a $23/tonne carbon price. To start.
Once the dust has settled and the back-slapping and self-congratulation has died down what does this actually MEAN at the end of the day for the planet? We were told by the spin doctors that it will mean everything, but will it?
We were told a tax on carbon will mean a reduction in emissions. How? How does one directly lead to the other?
When I phoned the office of the Minister for Climate Change even THEY couldn’t tell me.
If this is the primary purpose of the carbon tax – a tax leading to the reduction in emissions – won’t taxing the big emitters, who then pass the additional cost onto end-users, then the government excludes some industries and provides offsets to others, and then pays households $10.10/week to cover the increased costs to them, lead to a net zero effect on emissions? Isn’t it just shifting money around?
Again, the Minister’s office couldn’t tell me. But they’re the ones who wrote the legislation!!
If the government intends to use the revenue generated from the carbon 
tax on research and development of cleaner energy technologies that’s great! How do they then get the emitters to use the new technology? Why aren’t they providing the big emitters with more incentive to research cleaner energy technologies themselves? There’s no incentive when you tax them with one hand, but provide keys to the back door with the other.
We’re told that the carbon tax is a stick approach on heavy emitters, but the emitters are being told they can purchase carbon credits from here or overseas. What does this mean?
Carbon credits will become a tradeable commodity. Let’s say I’m a farmer. I can get carbon credits for any carbon offset activities I undertake. This could mean planting trees or methane gas capture. I can then sell those carbon credits to emitters and have an extra source of revenue.
Now let’s say I’m a power station – a big emitter. Keeping the numbers simple, let’s say I’m allowed to emit 1000 tonne of CO2 a year. But I emit 2000 tonne. Under the carbon tax I would pay tax on the additional 1000 tonne. At the starting price of $23/T I’d be paying $23,000 in tax. So what do I do? First up I pass on the additional cost of production to end users. Next, I purchase carbon credits (the price of which has yet to be determined) to offset say 500T of CO2. Now I only have to pay tax on 500T – or $11,500. But this can be at least partially offset by the increase in revenue I’m getting from the end-users – fully offset if I pass on the full effect of the tax.
This is an oversimplification of course but is the scenario I presented to the Minister’s office. And they still couldn’t tell me how this carbon tax will reduce emissions.
If you’re going to use a stick to incentivise big emitters to reduce their CO2, why not tell them they can’t pass the increased costs on? Clearly there are other economics at play here – naturally Australian businesses need to remain competitive in a global marketplace – one in which a carbon price is equal across the board … which unfortunately, right now, it isn’t.
Australia’s emissions account for less than 1% of total global emissions. Yet we now have a carbon tax more than double what is charged in Europe. And the biggest emitters have no carbon tax at all.
Does that mean we do nothing? Of course not! Does it mean the Government rushed this through while they still had the chance, with the socialist Greens controlling the Senate? Probably. Does it mean there will be a measurable reduction in emissions in Australia? No one can tell us.
I’d like to see, once this is in place, within say 5 years some research showing measurable, quantifiable differences in emissions before I decide if this is a good thing or just political spin.
Climate change is real – of course it’s real. The climate has been changing for millennia. If the Government is all about leading the way on climate change then why aren’t they doing something about the continued large scale clearing of the earth’s lungs – trees – which are the planet’s carbon ‘scrubbers’? Why isn’t more being done for reforestation? Land-clearing prevention?
If this government is all about climate change prevention why are they cutting the rebate on solar panel installation – a sustainable, alternative energy source? Why are they not doing more about investigating alternative energy sources like in-flow generators, wind farms etc?
Perhaps some of the revenue raised from the carbon tax will go to these endeavours – it was the intention of the Opposition’s proposed carbon plan to do just this. But one wonders whether this is merely a neat way to generate enough revenue to meet the Government’s promise of budget surplus by 2013.
So the question remains: HOW will taxing CO2 directly lead to a reduction in emissions? If anyone can tell me, please share your comments below!
Add to Google