
Takeaways from AP report on company that sold 200,000 carbon credits to remove CO2 from ocean
But outside scientists frustrated by the lack of information released by the company say serious questions remain about whether the technology works as the company describes. Their questions showcase tensions in an industry built on little regulation and big promises.
Here are highlights from The Associated Press' reporting:
What is Gigablue?
Gigablue, founded by a group of entrepreneurs in Israel, was originally named 'Gigaton' after the one billion metric tons of carbon dioxide most scientists say will be necessary to remove from the atmosphere each year to slow global warming.
The company began trials in the South Pacific Ocean last year, and says it will work with country authorities to create a 'sequestration field' — a dedicated part of the ocean where 'pulses' of particles will be released on a seasonal basis.
The company announced earlier this year that it reached a historic milestone: selling 200,000 carbon credits. It's the largest sale to date for a climate startup operating in the ocean, according to the tracking site CDR.fyi, making up more than half of all ocean-based carbon credits sold last year.
How do the carbon credits work?
Carbon credits, which have grown in popularity over the last decade, are tokens that symbolize the removal of one metric ton of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. On paper, companies that buy credits achieve a smaller carbon footprint without needing to reduce their own emissions — for instance, by paying another vendor to plant trees or capture carbon dioxide from the air.
Only a few countries have required local industries to purchase carbon credits. Most companies that buy them do so voluntarily.
The credits have helped fund a band of startups like Gigablue that are eager to tackle the climate crisis, but they are also unevenly regulated, scientifically complex, and have in some cases been linked to fraud.
Gigablue's 200,000 credits are pledged to SkiesFifty, a newly formed company investing in greener practices for the aviation industry.
Gigablue wouldn't reveal what it earned in the sale, and SkiesFifty's team declined to be interviewed. Most credits are sold for a few hundred dollars each — but a chart on Gigablue's website suggests its prices are lower than almost any other form of carbon capture on the market.
How does Gigablue's technology work?
The particles Gigablue has patented are meant to capture carbon in the ocean by floating for a number of days and growing algae, before sinking rapidly to the ocean floor.
Algae has long been attractive to climate scientists because it absorbs carbon dioxide from the surrounding water as it grows. If the algae sinks to the deep sea or ocean floor, Gigablue expects the carbon to be trapped there for hundreds to thousands of years.
The ultimate goal is to lower carbon dioxide levels so drastically that the ocean rebalances with the atmosphere by soaking up more CO2 from the air. It's a feat that would help slow climate change, but one that is still under active study by climate scientists.
What are Gigablue's particles made of?
While Gigablue has made several commercial deals, it has not yet revealed what its particles are made of. Partly this is because the company says it will build different particles tailored to different seasons and areas of the ocean.
'It's proprietary,' said chief technology officer Sapir Markus-Alford.
Documents provide a window into the possible ingredients. According to information on the permit, Gigablue's first New Zealand trial last year involved releasing particles of pure vermiculite, a porous clay often used in potting soil.
In the second New Zealand trial, the company released particles made of vermiculite, ground rock, a plant-based wax, as well as manganese and iron.
A patent published last year hints the particles could also be made of scores of other materials, including cotton, rice husks or jute, as well as synthetic ingredients like polyester fibers or lint.
The company said it had commissioned an environmental institute to verify that the particles are safe for thousands of organisms, including mussels and oysters.
What do outside scientists say?
Several scientists not affiliated with Gigablue interviewed by the AP said they were interested in how a company with so little public information about its technology could secure a deal for 200,000 carbon credits. The success of the company's method, they said, will depend heavily on how much algae grows on the particles, and the amount that sinks to the deep ocean. So far, Gigablue has not released any studies demonstrating those rates.
Thomas Kiørboe, a professor of ocean ecology at the Technical University of Denmark, and Philip Boyd, an oceanographer at the University of Tasmania who studies the role of algae in the Earth's carbon cycle, said they were doubtful algae would get enough sunlight to grow inside the particles.
It's more likely the particles would attract hungry bacteria, Kiørboe said.
The rates at which Gigablue says its particles sink — up to a hundred meters (yards) per hour — might shear off algae from the particles in the quick descent, Boyd said.
It's likely that some particles would also be eaten by fish — limiting the carbon capture, and raising the question of how the particles could impact marine life.
Boyd is eager to see field results showing algae growth, and wants to see proof that Gigablue's particles cause the ocean to absorb more CO2 from the air.
In a statement, Gigablue said that bacteria does consume the particles but the effect is minimal, and its measurements will account for any loss of algae or particles as they sink.
The company noted that a major science institute in New Zealand has given Gigablue its stamp of approval. Gigablue hired the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, a government-owned company, to review several drafts of its methodology.
Wednesdays
Columnist Jen Zoratti looks at what's next in arts, life and pop culture.
In a recent letter posted to Gigablue's website, the institute's chief ocean scientist said his staff had confidence the company's work is 'scientifically sound' and the proposed measurements for carbon sequestration were robust.
—
This story was supported by funding from the Walton Family Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
__
Contact AP's global investigative team at Investigative@ap.org or https://www.ap.org/tips/

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Toronto Star
2 hours ago
- Toronto Star
Chinese researchers suggest lasers and sabotage to counter Musk's Starlink satellites
More than half of Canada's provincial and territorial governments buy critical internet and emergency communications services from Starlink — a satellite constellation owned by billionaire Elon Musk. A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket with a payload of Starlink V2 Mini internet satellites is seen during a time exposure as it lifts off from Launch Complex 40 at the Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Cape Canaveral, Fla., late Sunday, July 23, 2023. John Raoux / The Associated Press flag wire: true flag sponsored: false article_type: : sWebsitePrimaryPublication : publications/toronto_star bHasMigratedAvatar : false :


Winnipeg Free Press
5 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Trump administration cancels plans to develop new offshore wind projects
The Trump administration is canceling plans to use large areas of federal waters for new offshore wind development, the latest step to suppress the industry in the United States. More than 3.5 million acres had been designated wind energy areas, the offshore locations deemed most suitable for wind energy development. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is now rescinding all designated wind energy areas in federal waters, announcing on Wednesday an end to setting aside large areas for 'speculative wind development.' Offshore wind lease sales were anticipated off the coasts of Texas, Louisiana, Maine, New York, California and Oregon, as well as in the central Atlantic. The Biden administration last year had announced a five-year schedule to lease federal offshore tracts for wind energy production. Trump began reversing the country's energy policies after taking office in January. A series of executive orders took aim at increasing oil, gas and coal production. The Republican president has been hostile to renewable energy, particularly offshore wind. One early executive order temporarily halted offshore wind lease sales in federal waters and paused the issuance of approvals, permits and loans for all wind projects. In trying to make a case against wind energy, he has relied on false and misleading claims about the use of wind power in the U.S. and around the world. The bureau said it was acting in accordance with Trump's action and an order by his interior secretary this week to end any preferential treatment toward wind and solar facilities, which were described as unreliable, foreign-controlled energy sources. Attorneys general from 17 states and the District of Columbis are suing in federal court to challenge Trump's executive order halting leasing and permitting for wind energy projects. His administration had also halted work on a major offshore wind project for New York, but allowed it to resume in May. The nation's first commercial-scale offshore wind farm, a 12-turbine wind farm called South Fork, opened last year east of Montauk Point, New York. Wednesdays What's next in arts, life and pop culture. ___ The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at


Winnipeg Free Press
12 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Trump's ill-advised trade war with Brazil
Opinion It's worth remembering that Brazil and the United States, long regional rivals, are deeply suspicious of the others' motives, are concerned about issues around dominance, control and independence and are locked in a tug-of-war to be recognized as the major power-broker in the wider region. The Brazilians, in particular, are open to cordial relations with Washington, but will not take their marching orders from the U.S. White House. The Americans, for their part, just want Brasilia to advance a policy agenda of supporting U.S.-friendly countries, following the U.S. lead, ensuring open markets and an attractive investment climate and fostering a stable order in the Americas. Recently, Trump did something ill-conceived, impulsive and counterproductive by imposing a stiff 50 per cent tariff (higher than any other country in this second tariff round) on all imports from Brazil — which is the largest economy in the region — on Aug. 1. In turn, Brazil's leftist president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, promised to respond in kind against U.S. products entering the South American country. Eraldo Peres / The Associated Press Supporters of Brazil's former President Jair Bolsonaro stormed the Brazilian Supreme Court building, in Brasilia, in Brasilia, Brazil, in January, 2023. U.S. President Donald Trump is levying tariffs against Brazil to try to stop Bolsonaro's prosecution for attempting a coup to topple President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. Of course, there is nothing new about Trump imposing trade tariffs on other countries — as Canada can well attest. But what is new (and potentially very troubling) is that he appears to be doing so not on economic or commercial grounds. In fact, the U.S. actually registers a trade surplus with Brazil of some US$7.0 billion in 2024 — and roughly US$410 billion over the last 15 years. Some of America's largest businesses, such as Exxon Mobil, BlackRock and General Motors, have also found a welcoming corporate investment environment in Brazil. Instead, Trump has singled out Lula and Brazil's efforts to prosecute former far-right Brazilian president, and Trump's close friend and fellow traveller, Jair Bolsonaro for trying to discard the 2022 presidential electoral outcome. It is well known within Brazil that Bolsonaro had concocted plans to immediately call the election results fraudulent, to mobilize a supportive Brazilian military, to assassinate Lula (along with his vice president and a Supreme Court Justice) and to unconstitutionally cling to power through a coup d'état. Not surprisingly, Trump sees things much differently. He argues that Bolsonaro has been the victim of a political 'witch hunt' and much worse. In his July 9 letter to Lula, Trump noted angrily: 'The way that Brazil has treated former President Bolsonaro, a Highly Respected Leader throughout the World during his Term, including by the United States, is an international disgrace.' (There are also U.S. complaints against the Brazilian government for taking regulatory action against major American tech companies and social media platforms for disseminating misinformation and disinformation about Brazil's 2022 presidential election and its aftermath.) Bolsonaro, once dubbed the 'Trump of the Tropics,' was ideologically aligned with Trump and his MAGA base when he held political office from 2019-2022. Remember, there were people in Trump's inner circle in early 2023, such as Steve Bannon and Jason Miller, who wanted Bolsonaro to remain in South Florida and thus avoid facing prosecution for his alleged crimes. Since April of this year, though, the Brazilian National Congress passed the enabling legislation that would grant President da Silva the power to retaliate in kind against any U.S. trade levies. After Trump's recent tariff threat, he stated that 'any measure to increase tariffs will be addressed in accordance with the Brazilian Economic Reciprocity Law.' There is no disputing the fact that Brazil is deeply concerned about triggering a reduction of potentially 75 per cent of its exports to the U.S. (After all, the U.S. is Brazil's second largest trading partner after China.) But what Trump often fails to consider is the negative repercussions of his tariff tantrums. Tuesdays A weekly look at politics close to home and around the world. For instance, one-third of the coffee and half of the fresh orange juice that Americans consume at their breakfast table comes from Brazil. That means that Americans will automatically be paying more for those imported products and adding to their overall cost of living angst. I also can't imagine that Trump would want to anger his political base even more than he already has over the last few weeks. Secondly, Brazilians are very angry over what they believe is Trump's blatant interference in the country's domestic political affairs. As Lula pointed out: 'Brazil is a sovereign nation with independent institutions and will not accept any form of tutelage.' Accordingly, Trump's bumbling tariff move has only served to bolster Lula's standing in the polls. Then there's China. The Middle Kingdom has quickly become an important trade partner for Brazil. And Trump's latest move will only push Brasilia even closer to Beijing and thereby strengthen China's growing economic and political presence in the Americas. Clearly, countries that engage in trade wars invariably end up shooting themselves in the foot. Notwithstanding what Trump says, there are no winners in the types of clashes. The best thing for both sides would be for Trump and Lula to take a step back, allow cooler heads to prevail, and to recognize the mutual benefits of their important bilateral relationship. Peter McKenna is professor of political science at the University of Prince Edward Island in Charlottetown.