'Let's Pour 60,000 Gallons of Sodium Hydroxide Into the Ocean and see what happens'
What could possibly go wrong?
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) looks like it will approve a plan to dump 60,000 gallons of sodium hydroxide into the ocean to see if it will remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. What could possibly go wrong?
After some protest, the EPA is permitting public comment on their website until 1st July, but it looks like this hubris will be given the go-ahead by the EPA, which is keen on insane geoengineering projects:
There is a growing interest from federal agencies, researchers, industry and non-governmental entities to research marine carbon dioxide removal techniques, such as ocean alkalinity enhancement, that have the potential to mitigate the adverse impacts of climate change.
This is the organization that wants to dump the sodium hydroxide:
Looking at their FAQs, they started last year by dumping a dye into the ocean:
But everything is absolutely fine because the EPA considers the dye ‘safe’.
Let me remind my readers that the EPA doesn’t have the greatest record on knowing what is ‘safe’, never mind the whole world (yes, the oceans don’t just belong to America, believe it or not):
DDT (Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane): Originally hailed as a miracle pesticide for its effectiveness in killing pests, DDT was widely used until the 1960s. The EPA eventually banned DDT in 1972 due to its long-lasting effects on the environment and potential harm to wildlife and human health, including being a likely human carcinogen, but initially, it was considered ‘safe’.
PCBs (Polychlorinated Biphenyls): Used in electrical equipment, PCBs were manufactured from the 1920s but only banned by the EPA in 1979. They cause cancer and immune system suppression, and they persist in the environment to this day.
Glyphosate: As a widely used herbicide, glyphosate was considered safe by the EPA for decades. However, its safety has been increasingly questioned in scientific studies and legal cases, with concerns about its potential to cause cancer.
PFAS (Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances): Known as "forever chemicals," PFAS have been used in various products for their resistance to heat, water, and oil. While the EPA has issued advisories, these substances are still permitted by the EPA and have been linked to a variety of health issues, including cancer and immune system effects, and they do not break down in the environment.
But “it takes years before we find out for sure that a chemical is dangerous” some will say in defending the EPA or other governmental agencies. I agree, that’s why it’s madness to do large-scale experiments on the ocean, our atmosphere, or any other ‘geoengineering’. Just as it was madness to jab billions of people with a new technology that did not have decades of testing (and even its inventors had doubts).
As for dumping 60,000 gallons of sodium hydroxide, well, I’m glad I’m not a fish or whale near those boats. That stuff burns. We’ve absolutely no way of knowing what it will do to the ecosystem over the long term, but here’s some guesses:
Alkalinity Spike: Sodium hydroxide will cause a significant increase in the alkalinity of water. This sudden shift could be detrimental to marine life, potentially leading to widespread die-offs in the affected area, particularly of species sensitive to pH changes.
Disruption of Food Chains: The introduction of such a caustic substance into the marine environment could lead to the death or migration of key species. This disruption could cascade through the food chain, affecting predators and prey alike, ultimately destabilizing entire marine ecosystems.
Long-term Environmental Impact: The effects of such chemicals on marine life can be insidious and long-lasting. Changes in reproductive rates, growth abnormalities, and increased mortality rates could manifest over time, making it difficult to link back to the initial geoengineering attempt without thorough, long-term studies.
Chemical Reactions and By-products: Sodium hydroxide might react with substances in the ocean, potentially forming harmful by-products. These secondary reactions could introduce new, unknown chemicals into the ecosystem, each with its own potential for harm.
Human Health Concerns: If these chemicals make their way into the seafood supply, they could pose direct health risks to humans, ranging from acute poisoning to long-term chronic health issues, depending on the nature and concentration of the contaminants.
The history of 'safe' chemicals later proven harmful should teach us extreme caution. Geoengineering our oceans with substances like sodium hydroxide, without a robust understanding of potential outcomes, may well go down in history as yet another grave environmental mistake. You may remember some of these examples:
Cane Toads in Australia: Introduced in 1935 to control beetle populations that were damaging sugarcane crops, cane toads became an ecological disaster. They lacked natural predators in Australia and quickly became an invasive species. Instead of controlling pests, they threatened many local species with their toxic secretions and voracious appetites.
Kudzu in the United States: Originally introduced to help control soil erosion, kudzu rapidly became an invasive vine that smothered native plants, trees, and even buildings with its fast-growing tendrils. It has overwhelmed large areas of the southeastern U.S., leading to significant losses in biodiversity and increasing management costs.
Biofuels and Food Prices: The push for biofuels like ethanol from corn as an alternative to fossil fuels was intended to reduce carbon emissions. However, it led to the diversion of vast tracts of farmland from food to biofuel production, contributing to increased food prices globally and in some cases, clearing of forests to accommodate new agricultural needs, thus offsetting the intended environmental benefits.
Bt Cotton: Genetically modified to produce a toxin that kills certain pests, Bt cotton initially reduced the need for chemical pesticides. However, over time, several pest species developed resistance to the Bt toxin, leading to renewed outbreaks and increased use of potentially more harmful pesticides.
Tree Planting in Non-Native Forests: Reforestation projects are generally positive, but when non-native species are planted, they can disrupt local ecosystems. For example, fast-growing eucalyptus trees have been planted in various countries to combat deforestation but often absorb much more water than native species, leading to reduced water availability for other plants and increased risk of fires.
In writing this article, I am reminded of the various geoengineering projects being planned for our atmosphere too (links below).
Why do we always have to mess with nature on such a grand scale? You don’t need to be a scientist to understand that nature is incredibly complex, and the long-term outcomes of our interference are unknowable. It's particularly infuriating when a single country assumes it has the right to alter our shared planet without global consent. This blend of political arrogance and scientific hubris is not only sickening—it's dangerous. How can we, as a global community, ensure that all voices are heard and respected in decisions that affect us all? The principle of precaution must guide our actions, advocating for restraint and thorough evaluation to avoid irreversible damage. But, as more and more people are realizing, our ‘leaders’ just don’t seem to want to learn from their past mistakes.
Further reading:
I am rendered almost speechless by the recklessness and more to the point sheer stupidity of the "experts".
Immediate Harm to Aquatic Ecosystems – A single exposure may result in severe biological harm or death to fish or other aquatic organisms.
Long-Term Harm to Aquatic Ecosystems – Long term exposure may result in irreversible harm to fish or other aquatic organisms.
https://www.chemhat.org/en/material/2010314#:~:text=Immediate%20Harm%20to%20Aquatic%20Ecosystems,fish%20or%20other%20aquatic%20organisms.