Fishing is a historical practice, humans have been harvesting food from the oceans since they realised it was there. It is the hunting of aquatic wildlife, similar to that of hunting rabbits, bison or deer on land, which has occurred since the invention of tools. However since the end of the Second World War, the scale of fishing has increased dramatically. We are harvesting aquatic wildlife on an industrial scale. This practice has become unsustainable. Unfortunately, as fishing is a historical practice the general view from the public is that the sea will always provide enough to support us. Hence the phrase: ‘there are plenty more fish in the sea’. This article looks at how long the industrial scale fishing can continue, the effects global fisheries are having on our oceans and potential solutions to this upcoming crisis.

The international Food and Agricultural Organisation [FAO] began analysing global fishing catches in the 1950s. Fishing catches increased throughout the decades to follow, and according to all the scientific models were expected to plateau in the 1990s. However this did not happen, catches kept on increasing. Upon further investigation, it was reported by Watson and Pauley (2001) that every country, bar China, all reported declines in their fishing catches. China’s catches, however, were increasing. None of the reported catches for China matched the scientific models, yet the catches for the rest for the rest of the world did. It turned out that the people in China responsible for reporting the catch figures were altering the figures to increase the market output, as this was the task they were given by the government of China. The discrepancies of their catches were so large that the continuing increase in global fisheries changed to a global decrease in fishing catches. We are now looking at a decline of around 0.66 million tonnes of fish per year (Watson and Pauley, 2001).

The decline in global fisheries has been likened to the decline in whaling (Schneider and Pearce, 2004). A cyclical pattern has been observed, where the most financially attractive species falls first, this is then replaced by a substitute species. The substitute species is then exploited. The collapse of the cod fishery in Newfoundland is a very good example of this. In 1992 cod stocks in Newfoundland collapsed, a moratorium was placed on cod fishing, as the fish had been completely exploited until there was no fish left (The End of the Line, 2009). However there was a subsequent boom in lobster numbers and it was quickly picked up on by the fishermen in the area. They stopped catching cod, to catch lobster instead. This activity is known as fishing down the trophic level. It is a non-sustainable practice, as the exploited species is not given the chance to recover. The scary part of this is, is that if this type of fishing was to occur throughout the world’s oceans, and then we could very well end up with a sea full of non-edible creatures, such as plankton and jellyfish. Leading to the a very low biodiversity with our seas.

Yet it is very difficult to monitor fish numbers, fish constantly move and live in hard to track locations. Heavily depleted species of fish could see extinctions in even closely monitored areas of the oceans. Myers and Worm (2003) suggest that there is a possibility that 90% of oceanic predators have already been lost through over fishing. Low levels of fish can only support low fishing catches and therefore low economical yields for the fishermen. Industrial fishing reduces the total amount of biomass within a fish community by 80% within just 15 years.

Currently 1 billion people in the world depend of seafood as a major source of their protein (MSC, 2012) and 200 million livelihoods directly and indirectly depend on fisheries. Seafood has also become increasingly fashionable in rich countries, meaning more people want to eat it. With the ever increasing global population and increasing affluence, which in turn increases the demand placed on seafood, current fisheries are predicted to collapse in around 2050, if no action is taken.

This issue is slowly reaching the public and there is a growing public awareness of over fishing and its consequences. The Marine Stewardship Council [MSC] awards sustainably sourced fish, by labelling them as sustainable on the packaging. This provides knowledge to the public that they are buying sustainable fish. Celebrity chef Hugh Furnley-Whittingsall is a particular help towards this cause, with his television program, fish fight, and support of local sustainable produce. Supermarkets including Marks and Spencers and Waitrose now only stock sustainably caught fish. So progress is being made to promote only sustainable fisheries.

Yet more can still be done. More Marine Protected Areas [MPA] should be set up around the world to protect important habitats including spawning and reproductive areas or areas with high biodiversity. MPAs have been known to be beneficial to fisheries as it provides fish with both time and places to recover from the continuing fishing efforts. These MPAs will need to strictly enforced for them to work as protected areas. We also need to reduce the size of the global fishing fleet. As one of the main problems is that we are just too efficient catching fish, we are not giving the fish any chance to recover. Quotas or time limits could be used to reduce the amount of fishermen catch so they do not fish above the sustainable yield, and again strictly enforced.

Global fisheries are in decline and scientists have predicted that if there is no change in our fishing behaviour, global fisheries will collapse by 2050. We also run the risk of leaving only non-edible species with low biodiversity within our oceans, for our future generations. However we are taking measures to counteract this pending crisis, by eating only sustainably caught fish, both home cooked and out in restaurants, we can make sure the fish is sustainable. We can encourage politicians to create more Marine Protected Areas, currently there are 37 potential sites being set up in English and Welsh Waters. More are needed to ensure the fish have enough space to recover. We can also put pressure on the government to reduce the fishing fleet, either by reducing the number of boats , the amount they can catch or the time frame given to the to catch it. All of these solutions combined, give us the power to potentially save on of the world’s greatest natural resources – fish.

Whilst declining fish stocks are a concern for the world’s ecosystems and environment, you may feel there is not much you can directly do about this issue, except buying from more sustainable sources. If you are looking for more ways to help the environment take a look at the range of products and services Energy Saving Warehouse offer.

References

Marine Stewardship council (2012) Changing Seas. Available: www.msc.org [Accessed 11.05.2012]

Myers and Worm (2003) Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities. Nature. 423: 280-283

Schneider and Pearce (2004) What saved the wales? And economic analysis of 20^th century whaling. Biodiversity and Conservation. 13: 543-562.

The End of the Line (2009) The End of the Line: Film Documentary. Based up the book: Charles Clover (2005) The End of the Line: How overfishing is changing the world and what we eat.

Watson and Pauley (2001) Systematic distortions in world fisheries catch trends. Nature. 414: 534-536

Air pollution is not a recent problem, it has occurred throughout history through the burning of coal, wood and vegetation. However over the twentieth and twenty first centuries extreme forms of urban pollution take place during short periods of time, these occurrences are known as pollution episodes (Jacobson, 2002). Stable atmospheric conditions, along with low wind speeds and high pressure systems, can lead to the build-up of various pollutants.

Winter pollution episodes are associated urban coal burning and vehicle emissions. The infamous London smog of 1952 was caused by smoke and sulphur dioxide from domestic heating and industrial emissions. However now in the UK they are more closely linked to gases from vehicle emissions. This type of air pollution occurs in urban areas where there is a large input of pollutants. The formation of winter smog’s occur during particular weather conditions, anti-cyclonic pressure systems, along with low wind speeds give calm and stable atmosphere (DEFRA, 2010). The winter weather brings cold surface temperatures that lead to the formation of a temperature inversion. This phenomenon occurs when a warm air mass causes a lid effect preventing mass of cold air from rising and dispersing (Environment Canada, 2011). Put this with the low wind speeds and cold calm conditions, the air can become stagnant and the pollutants accumulate. Water vapour in the atmosphere can condense onto the particles in the air, leading to fog like conditions, and therefore a loss of visibility. This is where the term smog originated. Pollutants particularly at ground level can cause many health problems. Smog particles can cause respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO) the particles can be so small that they are inhaled into the lungs. The deeper into the lungs the particles go the more severe the health problems (WHO, 2008). High levels of Nitrogen oxides can lead to the inflammation of the airways, any long term exposure can affect lung functions and the respiratory systems. People that are particularly susceptible to the health problems are the elderly, very young and people that suffer with asthma and other respiratory diseases. The environment also suffers during pollution episodes. They can lead to leaf and needle damage as well as reduced growth. Sulphur dioxide can reduce photosynthesis and degrade chlorophyll in the leaves.

Summer episodes are associated with hot weather, with an abundance of sunshine. These smogs are caused by nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds and unburnt hyrdocarbons from road veicles and large combustion engines, these are called primary pollutants. Unlike winter pollution episodes no fog actually occurs here, this type of smog forms a brown-red-yellow haze. The colour comes from the primary pollutants as as they  absorb blue and green light, leaving the coloured haze behind. Jacobson (2002) states that the sun plays a key role in summer pollution episodes, photochemical reactions take place in the atmosphere forming secondary pollutants. Ozone is a secondary pollutant, it is not emitted by any source but is formed by photoylsis (reactions between chemicals and sunlight) of other chemicals that have been emitted into the atmoshpere. The UV rays that form ground level O₃ can also deplete it; the reaction can go both ways. Throughout the day primary pollutants are released into the atmosphere. These pollutants peak twice daily, during rush hour times, as this is when the majority of chemicals are emitted through vehicle emissions. Secondary pollutants peak around midday, this is the time when the Earth receives the strongest of the sun’s rays causing the photochemical reactions to occur. Furthermore it has been noted that ozone can accumulate in areas downwind from where it was formed. The moving air mass carries the ozone out of the cities to other urban and rural areas.  Ground level ozone can be high in both urban and rural zones during pollution episodes. Ozone is hazardous at ground level; it causes irritation to both the eyes and nose. Very high levels can damage airways, reduce lung functions and increase respiratory illnesses (WHO, 2008). Furthermore ozone damages many plant species. This leads to a loss of yield, damage to forests and a reduction in biodiversity (WHO, 2008).

Pollution episodes usually last for a few days, however severe episodes can last for over a week, until the weather conditions change. The pollutants can be swept away by winds into the background, be washed out of the air by rainfall or diffuse upwards.

If this information has got you wondering about the amount and types of pollutants your lifestyle creates and how you could reduce these concentrations, consider tracking and reducing your carbon footprint with Energy Saving Warehouse.

References

Anon. (last modified 2011). Winter smog, Environment Canada Available: http://www.ec.gc.ca/Air/default.asp?lang=En&n=AFF4D58F-1 [accessed 23/02/2011].

Anon. (last modified 2011). Sources and impacts of air pollution, Department of food and rural affairs. Available: http://ww2.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/air/air-quality/impacts/ [accessed 23/02/2011].

Jacobson, Mark Z. (2002). Atmospheric Pollution: History, science and regulation. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

World Health Organisation (Last modified 2008). . AAir Quality and Health Fact Sheet number 313. Available: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheet/fs313/en/ [accessed: 25/02/2011].

The World’s Oceans are a sink for CO₂, with various factors affecting carbon uptake including wind, sea surface temperature, and biota. Since the industrial revolution anthropogenic emissions of CO₂ have increased, this has led to an increase in CO₂ in the oceans. So far around 500 billion tons, approximately one third of CO₂ emitted, has been absorbed by the oceans (NRDC, 2009). Have you ever considered how much CO2 your lifestyle creates or thought about trying to reduce it? The rise in CO₂ in seawater has already increased the acidity of the by 0.1 pH units since the industrial revolution, and pH could by the end of this century decrease by a further 0.3-0.4 pH units. Increased CO₂ in seawater leads to the formation of carbonic acid which causes ocean acidification. The oceans act as a buffering system taking up excess amounts of CO₂ which control the pH of seawater by a series of reactions (IPCC, 2007):

                        CO₂ + H₂O —>  H₂CO₃ —> H⁺ + HCO₃^- —> 2H⁺ + CO₃^2-                               

Carbon dioxide + Water —> Carbonic acid —> Bicarbonate —> carbonate

Over the time the amount of CO₂ in the oceans with increase the chemical reactions taking place with the ocean. Just looking at the reaction above would imply that the amount of carbonate within the ocean would increase however this will not be the case. In fact the carbonate reacts with the seawater to produce more bicarbonate, as is shown in the equation below:

               CO₂ + H₂O + CO₃^{2- —>} HCO₃^- + H⁺ +CO₃^{2- —>} 2HCO₃^-

Carbon dioxide + Water + Carbonate —> Bicarbonate + Carbonate —> Bicarbonate

The amount of carbonate is in oceans will decrease but the amount of bicarbonate found will increase. The reduction in carbonate affects key calcifying organisms, such as coral and plankton which use calcium carbonate to form their hard shells and skeletons (Iglesias-Rodriguez et al. 2008).  These key organisms form the base of marine food webs, any change in the species has the potential to impact entire ecosystems (NOAA, 2008). This study examines the socio-economic effects that ocean acidification could bring.

The impact of reduced carbonate and pH will travel through the marine environment. Some types of plankton may be unable to maintain their hard exterior, meaning a decrease in the numbers within their species group. The expected loss of plankton will impact the commercial and local fisheries that rely on plankton as a food source for the majority of marine life. Commercial fisheries are a multi-billion dollar business; in excess of $60 billion per year is spent of fish and shellfish (NOAA, 2008). Fishing provides the livelihoods for over 500 million people, with 90% of these living in developing countries and supporting entire communities (UN, 2009). Global fisheries are generally located in zones of upwelling water. Here nutrients are brought to the surface, bringing large concentrations of plankton, and therefore attracting schools of fish feeding. These areas are particularly vulnerable to ocean acidification, as lower pH water will be brought to the surface from upwelling deep water (Turley and Williamson, 2011). Fish is an important source of protein for around 1 billion people. As the population of the world increases, if the fisheries fail it could greatly affect global food security (UN, 2009).

The reduction of calcium carbonate and increase in oceanic acidity will lead to a decrease in coral reef formation and diminished resiliency to coral bleaching, a term which describes the death of a the symbiotic bacteria that live within the coral themselves. Many ecosystem services are provided to us through coral reefs. Corals are an important ground for fisheries, they provide shellfish, reef fish, and act as a nursery for commercial fish (European Science Foundation, 2009). Furthermore coral reefs protect coastal communities from events such as storm surges and hurricanes, if natural shoreline protection was compensated more expensive man made sea defences would be needed to replace the natural protection (NERC, 2009).

In some countries corals bring an important source of income, through tourism and cultural heritage, corals in the Great Barrier Reef are showing a recent decline in calcification (UN, 2009).  The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (2009) estimated that the reef contributed to 8.6% of Australia’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for 2006-07, this is a highly significant portion for one tourism attraction.

Acidification could also lead to more rapid climate change, as it slows down the oceanic carbon pump, reducing the oceans ability to absorb additional CO₂. This will lead to an increase in costs to cap the CO₂ in the atmosphere (European Science Foundation, 2009).  Hood et al. (2009) have attempted to quantify the ecosystems service of carbon uptake by the oceans using the current price of carbon credits. They claimed that the oceanic uptake of CO₂ was equal to an annual subsidy of 0.1-1% of the Gross World Product or $40-400 US billion.

Areas most affected by ocean acidification will be small island developing states, developing countries and coastal regions as they rely on services provided by marine ecosystems the most for their livelihoods (UN, 2009). The reduction in CO₃^2- brought about by increased anthropogenic CO₂ in the atmosphere will affect marine life, but to what extent is largely unknown as there is a scarcity of relevant data which inhibits the assessment of the possible impacts. Future research should focus on the possible reductions of ocean acidification and areas where the impacts are likely to be the greatest both for the human population and environment. Moreover the cumulative impacts of various environmental problems need to be predicted and mitigation options explored, such as rising sea levels, temperature combined with the possible effects of ocean acidification.

If this issue has got you thinking about what you could change about your lifestyle to become a little more environmentally friendly, why not take a look at Energy Saving Warehouse’s range of products to help you do just that?

References

European Science Foundation (2009) Impacts of Ocean Acidification. Science Briefing Policy. No: 37. France.

GBRMPA (2009). Research Publication No. 98: Economic Contribution of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, 2006-07. G.B.R.M.P. Authority. Queensland, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority: 19-21

Hood M. et al. (2009) Ocean Acidification: A summery for policy makers from the second symposium on the ocean in a high- CO₂ world. The Second Symposium.

Iglesias-Rodriguez, D. M. (2008) Phytoplankton calcification in a high-CO₂ world. Science. Vol: 320, 336-340.

IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: Working group I: The Physical Science Basis. Chapter 10.4 Changes Associated with Biogeochemical Feedbacks and Ocean Acidification.

NOAA (2008) Ocean Acidification. State of the Science Fact Sheet. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. US Department of Commerce.

NRDC (2009) Ocean Acidification: The other CO₂ problem. Natural Resources Defense Council.

Turley and Williamson (2011) Socio-Economic Aspects of Ocean Acidification. Report for UNFCCC Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice. Bonn, Germany.

UN (2009) Ocean Acidification: A hidden risk for Sustainable Development. UN-DESA Division for Sustainable Development. Copenhagen Policy Brief No 1.

Introduction

Over the past decade concern has grown over the environmental consequences of fossil fuels, this has influenced the recent interest in biofuels (Hill et al. 2006).  Ambitious  policies that promote biofuel use and production have not only been set by the EU, but by the USA and China as well (Soimakallio and Koponen, 2011). Biofuels are produced from processed food crops, other plants or animal products and agricultural or organic wastes. Crops grown specifically for energy uses rather than food or feedstock’s, are known as second generation biofuels, these are in development and not currently available for commercial use (Rowe et al. 2009). First generations biofuels are produced from processed food or feed crops, these are used today. Have brought conflict over growing crops for food, growing crops for fuel and protecting the environment.

What advantages are there to using biofuels?

Europe has few crude oil reserves and is highly reliant on imports to obtain fuel, 98% of transport in the EU is entirely dependent on fossil fuels (IPCC, 2011). Rising oil prices improve the cost competitiveness of biofuels helping them enter the market, providing a viable alternative for oil (Hill et al. 2006). European leaders see domestic biofuels as a more secure and sustainable option, providing incentives for more biofuel usage.

The aim of biofuel usage is to help combat climate change by reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that are currently released with the burning of fossil fuels by increasing its share of renewable energy (Banse et al. 2011). The majority of biofuels reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than 30% when compared to fossil fuels combustion (Scharlemann and Laurence, 2008). When biofuels are blended with petroleum fuel or diesel they can improve air quality, especially in urban regions, as they generally bring a reduction in sulphur, particulates and carbon monoxide (Worldwatch Institute, 2006).

Liquid biofuels are important as they can be substituted immediately into the majority of transport vehicles. Meaning greenhouse gas savings can be achieved with little monetary investment or time developing new transportation infrastructure, making them a popular choice for governments.

Biofuels have the potential to provide environmental benefits, if they are planted on barren land where the soil has low carbon content, they can sequester carbon into the soil, effectively becoming a carbon sink. Moreover, if planted on this type of land they could increase biodiversity and protect watersheds, as they offer a more diverse and natural environment than other agricultural systems (Karta, 2006).

This is great: So what are the disadvantages?

The burning of biofuels can emit less CO₂ than combustion of fossil fuel, the growth and production stage of biofuels needs to be taken into account. Have you considered your personal carbon footprint? Low yielding energy crops, such as corn ethanol, can have heavy inputs of fossil fuel energy during intensive farming and manufacture and can in some cases increase the environmental impact. CO₂ is not the only greenhouse gas emitted during this process, N₂O is also released, affecting the net greenhouse gas balance (UNEP, 2009).

Increase biofuel usage will subsequently lead to the demand for land needed to cultivate biofuel crops (Harvey, 2011). Clearing native ecosystems is sometimes the most profitable method of obtaining land, causing detrimental effects to water, soils and the regional climate (Tilman et al. 2009).  An increase in ecosystem destruction rates will lead to a rise in biodiversity lost.

If biofuel production continues using the same intense methods of farming as have been used over the past century, it will increase the use of chemicals such as nitrogen, phosphorus and pesticides (Hill et al. 2006). These can enter habitats and aquifers, affecting the surrounding ecosystem, causing issues such as eutrophication. Current farming methods use a lot of water in the irrigation and processing of the crops. Biofuels compete with food crops for land space, this competition drives the prices of food up making it difficult to feed the world poor.

Conclusions

Global population has recently exceeded 7 billion (BBC, 2011), and is still increasing. Demand for energy is rising, and sources suggest that we are reaching our level of peak oil, implying that our reliance on fossil fuels cannot continue (IPCC, 2007). I believe biofuels can be used as a short term substitute. However they should not be considered as a long term alternative to fossil fuels, as it is not sustainable. The development of second generation biofuels, if produced sustainably could provide part of an alternative to fossil fuels, as they produce biofuels from waste products and energy grown crops. Yet they should not be completely relied on, as the impacts of growing the amount of biomass needed to replace fossil fuels would be too harmful to the environment.

If you are interested in finding out about the part other alternative energy sources, such as solar power, have to play in the future of energy supply have a look around the website.

References

Banse et al. (2011) Impact of  EU biofuel policies on world agricultural production and land use. Biomass and Bioenergy (35) 2385-2390.

BBC (2011) Population seven billion: UN sets out challeneges, (Online). Avaliable: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15459643 . [Accessed: 24/11/2011]

Harvey, M. and Pilgrim, S. (2011) The new competition for land: Food, energy and climate change. Food Policy (32) S40-S51.

Hill, Jason, et al. (2006), ‘Environmental, economic and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103 (30), 11206-10.

IPCC (2011) Special Report on Renewable Energy Soureces and Climaate Change Mitigation: Bioenergy. International Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.

IPCC (2007) Mitigation of Climate Change. Chapter 4.3.1.3. Petroleum Fuels. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change.

Karta, S. (2006) Environmental effects of Bioenergy. Bioenergy and Agriculture: Promises and Challenages, brief 4 of 12.

Rowe, Rebecca, Street, Nathaniel, and Taylor, Gail (2009), ‘Identifing potential environmental impacts of large-scale deployment of dedicated bioenergy crops in the UK’, Renewable and sustainable Energy Reviews, 13, 271-90.

Scharlemann, J. and Laurence, W. (2008) How green are biofuels? Science, 319, 43-44.

Soimakallio, Sampo and Koponen, Kati (2011), ‘How to ensure greenhouse gas emission reductions by increasing the use of biofuels? – suitability of the European Union sustainability criteria’, Biomass and Bioenergy, 35, 3504-13.

Tilman, David, et al. (2009), ‘Benefical Biofuels – The Food, Energy and Environment Trilemma’, Science, 325, 270-71.

UNEP (2009) Assessing biofuels, United Nations Environmental Programme.

Worldwatch Institute (2006) Biofuels for transportation

Peat lands are areas of land with a naturally accumulated layer of peat. These are formed under waterlogged conditions from carbon rich, dead decaying plant life (IUNC, 2011). They are found in 175 around the world and cover 3% of the global land surface. The UK is globally important in peat land conservation with 15% of UK land covered by peat lands. There are 3 main types of peat lands: blanket bogs, raised bogs and fens. These areas are rich in biodiversity and store carbon as a sink.

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment is used to establish the benefits that people gain from different types of ecosystems (MEA, 2005). The benefits are classified into four sections: supporting services, regulating services, provisioning services, and cultural services. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment is the most well-known and widely applied classification of ecosystem services.

The supporting services provided to us by peat lands, include primary production, soil formation and nutrient cycling. The sphagnum and mosses photosynthesise; produce soil and both absorb and produce nutrients which are cycled by bacteria in the soil. Peat lands are rich in biodiversity, much of which is unique and specialised. This enhances the need for conservation, as specialised biodiversity find it harder to adapt in the face of change, and are often more sensitive to threats. Furthermore peat lands offer areas of food and fresh water; these are known as the provisioning services. Many of the UKs peat land areas are used for both arable and livestock production. Around 70% of our drinking water comes from upland peat catchment areas. Healthy peat land ecosystems regulate our climate by absorbing CO₂ from the atmosphere, in addition to this they also provide flood regulation and purify our water. The world’s peat lands store twice as much carbon than global forest biomass. Lastly the cultural services we can derive from peat land ecosystems include education and areas of sport and leisure. In addition to this it can be argued that peat land ecosystems are aesthetically pleasing and could potentially be a spiritual place.

These services provide a social and economic connection with the ecological wellbeing of peat lands and help us understand the implications of change on the human population. Ecosystem services can be used as a trigger for management and restoration of the UKs peat lands, as we are able to relate the ecosystem to our own human needs. This is seen as an effective method of conservation. A particular interest is currently focused on carbon storage, biodiversity conservation, water quality and supply, and flood water attenuation.

The UK is currently the world largest emitter of CO₂ from damaged peat lands with around 80% of blanket bogs and raised bogs damaged. Therefore we have a large need to restore and converse the peat land we do have. The degradation is due to continuous damage from a number of sources. Over intensive agriculture and grazing strips back the natural flora, without providing enough time for regeneration to occur. This is unsustainable in the long-term. It will not allow the peat and sphagnum mosses to regrow and the peat land will be irreversibly damaged. Drainage is a big problem in the damaging peat, taking away the water, takes away the basis on the ecosystem. 4500 km of ditches have been cut in the Pennines, mainly for water to use in livestock production. Much of the highland peat is being transformed into forestry areas. While some may argue that this not a damaging as some of the other source of degradation, this is still a large area for concern. Much of the forestry plantations are used for timber production and are monoculture, meaning a loss in biodiversity. As already stated peat lands absorb more CO₂ than forested areas, therefore there will be a loss of carbon storage. Moreover peat burning for grouse management is damaging problem for peat ecosystems in the highlands. Managed fires, or muir burns, take place between October and April as part of grouse management. They change the peat to heathland.

Restoration projects are being undertaken to restore the UKs peat land. Blocking the drainage ditches and re-flooding the peat, this encourages the development of peat land flora. This process becomes evident fairly quickly, and causes gains in biodiversity in both flora and fauna, and a reduction in carbon loss. A second method of restoration is by the diversification on vegetation (Lunt et al. 2010). A surface layer of spagna and cotton grasses must be established. In order to achieve this all livestock grazing must be removed, managed burning must be stopped, any tree or shrubs must be removed and the moss and spagna layer must be allowed to go. Both of these methods have seen positive results.

Areas of conversation are another way to protect these ecosystems. Large areas of peat land are designated as Special Areas of Protection under the EU Bird Directive and Special Area of Conservation under the EU Habitats Directive. These Directives provides conversation by law. Furthermore the Scottish Parliament stated that they are committed to include peat lands in their carbon capture work, implying that peat lands will be protected under this commitment.

Ecosystem services provide a strong case for the restoration of peat lands, as they offer a social and economic connection to the ecological wellbeing of some of our most natural habitats, and can help us understand the effects of human activities on these environments. To investigate your personal carbon footprint have at our tool.

References

Bain et al. (2011) IUCN UK Commission of Inquiry on Peat lands. IUCN UK. ISBN 977-0-9570572-1-0.

Lunt et al. (2010) Peat land Restoration, IUCN UK. Online: www.iucn-uk-peatlandprogramme.org

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Ecosystem and Human Well-Being – Synthesis. Island Press. Washington DC.

The implications and impacts from ever increasing greenhouse gases emitted into our atmosphere are profound.  It is the responsibility of scientists and policy makers to find methods of reducing these emissions and increasing the worlds carbon sinks. The oceans are one of the largest natural carbon sinks in the world, absorbing around 30-50% of anthropogenic emissions per year. With this in mind, scientists have come up with a way of potentially enhancing the amount of carbon that can be sequestered by the ocean by using iron to increase the amount of photosynthesis that occurs in surface waters. This method is known as iron fertilisation.

What is the Iron Fertilisation hypothesis?

Some areas of the world oceans are known to be rich in nutrients but have very little growth. In the late 1980’s Scientist John Martin claimed that iron was a limiting factor in growth in these areas and by adding iron he could stimulate phytoplankton growth in surface oceanic layers (Buesseler et al. 2003). Phytoplankton use carbon dioxide during the process of photosynthesis, therefore, by adding iron to oceanic waters and increasing the phytoplankton growth, this would also increase the amount of CO₂ absorbed through the oceans.

What evidence supports the hypothesis?

John Martin needed to prove that iron was a limiting factor in phytoplankton growth. He studied the depth profile of iron throughout the oceans and found that iron acted in the same way as nitrogen and phosphorus, both micronutrients. It has a high surface depletion, indicating that something is taking it out of the surface waters; furthermore iron is regenerated at depth due to bacterial decomposition. This signifies that iron is a micronutrient and can be a limiting factor from growth.

Twelve oceanic iron experiments were carried out to test whether iron enrichment would increase primary productivity in areas of high nutrients but low productivity (Boyd et al. 2007). Buesseler and Boyd (2003) studied three experiments all with locations in the southern ocean. They stated that all of the experiments produced noticeable increases in biomass and associated decreases in dissolved inorganic carbon and macronutrients. Powell (2008) also reported that all 12 experiments reported up to a 15 fold increase in chlorophyll content in the surface of the oceans.

The 12 experiments verify that iron enrichment does enhance primary productivity in high nutrient but low chlorophyll areas of the oceans and therefore iron has a fundamental role in photosynthesis.

However, very little work has been carried out to test whether the amount of carbon taken up in the surface waters during these experiments has been transported down throughout the water column, and sequestered into the seafloor or deep layers of the ocean. If this process is not completed then the carbon will re-emerge later in a different location.

What are the impacts of iron fertilisation?

Iron fertilisation is a popular notion in carbon sequestration as it has been portrayed as a cheap, fast and easy way to mitigate climate change. However uncertainties and doubts regarding this method of geo-engineering have increased dramatically since John Martin first came up with concept.

So far only 12 small scale experiments and computer models have been used to predict the impacts and benefits of large scale long term iron fertilisation. While this is a fairly risk free process of assessing the costs and benefits of this method of carbon sequestration, it by no means can replicate the effects of a large scale experiment.

Creating large scale phytoplankton blooms could change the balance of the oceans food chains and could increase the number of large predators including fish, jellyfish and algae concentrations. The increase in fish and commercially available food could lead to an increase in the world’s fisheries. However some phytoplankton blooms are toxic and could therefore be harmful to the whole food chain, including human consumption.

The fertilisation of the oceans could cause deficits in oxygen or nutrient in far removed areas of the ocean, due to the oceanic circuits. Areas that have been enriched with iron months or even years previously will be lacking in nutrients as they will have already been consumed.

The UN Convention on Biodiversity states that precautionary action must always apply in the face of uncertain consequences. This applies to iron fertilisation experiments in the oceans, and it is now forbidden for any iron enrichment to take place within a countries coastal waters. Furthermore the London Protocol against marine pollution could also apply to the input of dissolved iron as the consequences of this are still mostly unknown.

According to Boyd (2008) the costs of iron fertilisation have been severally underestimated. The amount of carbon that can be absorbed by iron fertilisation in the long run has greatly decreased over the past 20 years by 5-20%. Especially when compared to the amount of fossil fuel emissions that are emitted into our atmosphere, iron fertilisation alone, can be considered to make little difference to the greenhouse gas effect.

Conclusion

Iron fertilisation is an interesting concept of geo-engineering and is successful at drawing carbon out of the atmosphere in short periods of time. However the impacts of large scale experiments, or even the commercialisation of iron enrichment to reduce the effects of climate change, are largely unknown and high in risks. It is unlikely that iron fertilisation will ever occur to the scale that will achieve significant impacts in aiding the efforts to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. However, every little does help in terms of reducing these gases, especially carbon dioxide so why not have a look at our tool to help you consider your footprint?

References

Buesseler, K. et al. (2008) Ocean Iron Fertilisation –Moving Forward in a Sea of Uncertainty. Science Vol: 319. P: 162

Powell, H. (2008) Will Ocean Fertilisation Work? Oceanus Magazine. Vol: 46. P: 10-13

Boyd, P. (2008) Implications of large scale Iron fertilisation of the Oceans. Marine Ecology Progress series. Vol: 364. P: 213-218.