EPA Asked To Stop Plan To Dump Sodium Hydroxide Off Cape Cod
Biodiversity advocates on Wednesday called on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to reject a new geoengineering project spearheaded by researchers in Massachusetts that one critic said would do “nothing to solve the root causes of the climate crisis and instead puts at risk the oceans’ natural capacity to absorb carbon and their role in sustaining life on Earth.”
Friends of the Earth and other groups warned that an experiment called LOC-NESS by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution carries “potentially catastrophic risks” for the Atlantic Ocean, where researchers have proposed dumping more than 60,000 gallons of sodium hydroxide near Cape Cod to test a “carbon dioxide removal approach” called Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement.
The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution’s website states that the experiment would involve the release of “nontoxic, fluorescent Rhodamine WT dye into the ocean from a research ship,” with researchers tracking the dye’s movement over 72 hours in order to determine whether the ocean’s alkalinity could be enhanced.
If so, the scientists say, they could ultimately help to regulate atmospheric ‘carbon’.
The EPA’s notice about the proposed study from May, however, says that the project “would involve a controlled release of a sodium hydroxide solution” — which is “essentially lye, a substance known to cause chemical burns and one that must be handled with great care,” according to Tom Goldtooth, co-founder and member of the board of directors of the national Climate Justice Alliance.
“Altering the chemical composition of the ocean under the guise of increasing its capacity to absorb carbon dioxide is misleading and dangerous,” said Goldtooth.
“An experiment centered on introducing this caustic substance into the sea should not be permitted … The geoengineering approach puts Earth’s systems at risk in a faulty and false bid toward solving the climate crisis. It is what we call a false solution.”
FOE pointed out that the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution’s permit application to the EPA acknowledges that after changing the ocean’s alkalinity, the researchers “have no direct way of measuring how much carbon dioxide will be removed by the experiment.”
“The production of alkaline materials is extremely energy-intensive, releasing similar or even higher levels of greenhouse gasses than they remove upon being dumped into the ocean,” said the group.
“The researchers have declined to analyze how much carbon dioxide was released in the production, transportation, and dumping of the sodium hydroxide, making it impossible to know whether the technology even reduces greenhouse gas emissions.”
Despite these lingering questions, said Friends Of the Earth, the EPA has issued tentative approval for a permit for the experiment, with a public comment period which ends today.
The caustic sodium hydroxide solution the researchers plan to use, warns FOE, “causes chemical burns upon contact with skin or marine animals, setting the stage for potentially extreme damage to local ecosystems.”
Benjamin Day, FOE’s senior campaigner for its Climate and Energy Justice Program, said the group “unequivocally” opposes the LOC-NESS geoengineering experiment in the fragile ecosystem off the coast of Cape Cod.
“It’s astonishing that the EPA is even considering allowing dangerous, caustic chemicals to be dumped in ocean waters that are frequented by at least eight endangered species, including right whales and leatherback turtles,” said Day.
Mary Church, geoengineering campaign manager for the Center for International Environmental Law, said “speculative technologies” like Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement are “a dangerous distraction from the real solutions to the climate crisis,” which scientists around the world agree requires a rapid reduction in planet-heating fossil fuel emissions through a large-scale shift to renewable energy sources.
“Marine geoengineering does nothing to solve the root causes of the climate crisis and instead puts at risk the oceans’ natural capacity to absorb carbon and their role in sustaining life on Earth,” said Church.
“Outdoor experiments could not only cause immediate harm to marine life, but are also a slippery slope to potentially catastrophic impacts of large-scale deployment.”
The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity has placed a moratorium on geoengineering techniques like Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement until there is “adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities and appropriate consideration of the associated risks for the environment and biodiversity and associated social, economic, and cultural impacts.”
See more here childrenshealthdefense.org
Header image: Visit The USA
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Kevin Doyle
| #
In our world, sadly some people are born with physical or mental handicaps.
Bizarrely, we have otherwise healthy people who seek to be willfully mentally retarded. To unleash pointless chaos and destruction wherever they wander.
Unfortunately, we can’t lock them in padded cells, yet.
Reply
Howdy
| #
“puts at risk the oceans’ natural capacity to absorb carbon and their role in sustaining life on Earth.”
Isn’t this the same reason trees are felled, and burned as ‘biomass’? To elevate the readings and make climate change look much worse?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Howdy and Kevin,
A couple of questions, Howdy, could Kevin’s comment be descrobomg you? And when you do not respond to my request to begin a conversation, does your comment describe yourself?
I know I make many mistakes. Do either of you know (admit) this about yourselves?
Have a good day
Reply
Howdy
| #
Is this wishful thinking Jerry?
I believe I would have to comment ahead of Kevin, and make a total fool of myself doing it before he would attack me in such a way. Even then, such a response would be over the top.
It looks to me Kevin is addressing the target of the article.
As far as replying to you, The last time I responded to you was when you commented on the creator god, here:
https://principia-scientific.com/overlooked-impact-of-geothermal-heat-on-thwaites-glacier/#comment-106263
I responded, but you never followed up.
Also, If I never responded to you, how could my comment describe me when it doesn’t actually exist?
Just to be complete, It is you that have ignored my comments to you over the past several months, whether you were requesting help or not.
Do I admit my mistakes? You allready know I do openly, and in detail. I guess you forgot again eh?
Truth is the only thing that matters to me. If I do not honour truth, I will suffer, as I have in the past.
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
Jerry,
I love you man. I didn’t realize you were feeling left out. Do you need a hug?
KD
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi KD,
My objective was to begin a scientific discussion because that is a good way to learn the knowledge of science. Galileo had no one with to discuss his observations (experiments) so he had invent these conversations. Right now I cannot remember what and where you had written a comment of which I considered you had not yet seen its possible scientific significance. So rather than seemingly find fault with your lack of sight, I was trying to help you discover it yourself. Which based upon your past comments I considered you capable of doing.
Have a good day
Reply
Howdy
| #
Making accusations is not starting a scientific discussion. It’s just you Jerry.
You never apologise for your unfounded, and uncalled for accusations, nor have you on this occasion addressed the deficiencies you attributed to me, but were your doing instead.
MICHAEL CLARKE
| #
Hi Jerry, lonmg time no contact, but Galeleo had lots of Clergy to discus his observbations with. They were vehmently against the logic of his discovery, so much so that he suffered the consequencies!
VOWG
| #
There is no climate crisis.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael,
I had debated with myself if it was really you But there is now no debate. And I believe you know that I don’t like short lines.
Galileo knew, as did Copernicus, was going to occur but Galileo had the observations and the courage to die and he trusted the Creator God to forgive. him for lying so he could write his more famous book. Which it seems so few have read.
And if I don’t write about what I have learned (observed), I believe that no one else has had the many UNIQUE experiences I have had and the many Uniques experiences of others, like you, that I have read about.
I read in The Holy Bible that God confused the speech of the people because He knew they could not handle the rapid PROGRESS that would occur as the result of simple conversations.. Whch rapid progress has occurred in the 400+ years since Galileo’s book was published in the common language of the practical people of Italy. Farmers and fishermen always have had to be practical people to survive.
Have a good day
Reply