logo
Company's carbon credits raise questions about unproven ocean technology to fight global warming

Company's carbon credits raise questions about unproven ocean technology to fight global warming

Independent3 days ago
The startup Gigablue announced with fanfare this year that it reached a historic milestone: selling 200,000 carbon credits to fund what it describes as a groundbreaking technology in the fight against climate change.
Formed three years ago by a group of entrepreneurs in Israel, the company says it has designed particles that when released in the ocean will trap carbon at the bottom of the sea. By 'harnessing the power of nature,' Gigablue says, its work will do nothing less than save the planet.
But outside scientists frustrated by the lack of information released by the company say serious questions remain about whether Gigablue's technology works as the company describes. Their questions showcase tensions in an industry built on little regulation and big promises — and a tantalizing chance to profit.
Jimmy Pallas, an event organizer based in Italy, struck a deal with Gigablue last year. He said he trusts the company does what it has promised him — ensuring the transportation, meals, and electricity of a recent 1,000-person event will be offset by particles in the ocean.
Gigablue's service is like 'an extra trash can' where Pallas can discard his unwanted emissions, he said.
'Same way I use my trash can — I don't follow where the truck that comes and picks up my trash brings it to,' he said. 'I'll take their word for it.'
'Hundreds of thousands of carbon credits'
Gigablue has a grand vision for the future of carbon removal. It 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.
Gigablue says its solution is affordable, too — priced to attract investors.
'Every time we go to the ocean, we generate hundreds of thousands of carbon credits, and this is what we're going to do continuously over the upcoming years and towards the future, in greater and greater quantities,' co-founder Ori Shaashua said.
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, including Microsoft and Google, 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. 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.
And it could beckon a rapid acceleration of the company's work. Gigablue hopes to reach a goal this year of capturing 10 metric tons of carbon dioxide for each ton of particles it deploys, Shaashua said. At that rate, Gigablue would disperse at least 20,000 tons of particles in the ocean.
Gigablue wouldn't reveal what it earned in the sale, and SkiesFifty's team declined to be interviewed for this story. 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.
A mission to save the world
The startup is the brainchild of four entrepreneurs hailing from the tech industry. According to their LinkedIn profiles, Gigablue's CEO previously worked for an online grocery startup, while its COO was vice president of SeeTree, a company that raised $60 million to provide farmers with information on their trees.
Shaashua, who often serves as the face of Gigablue, said he specializes in using artificial intelligence to pursue positive outcomes in the world. He co-founded a data mining company that tracked exposure risks during the COVID-19 pandemic, and led an auto startup that brokered data on car mileage and traffic patterns.
'Three years ago, I decided to take the same formula, so to say, to climate,' Shaashua said.
Under his guidance, he said, Gigablue created an AI-driven 'digital twin' of the ocean based on dozens of metrics to determine where to release the particles.
Chief technology officer Sapir Markus-Alford earned a bachelor's degree in earth and environmental sciences from Israel's Ben-Gurion University in 2021, shortly before founding Gigablue.
Markus-Alford said she began her studies and eventual path to Gigablue after seeing bleached coral reefs and other impacts of warming waters on a series of diving trips around the world.
'I understood that the best thing we could do for the ocean is to be able to remove CO2,' Markus-Alford said.
A spokesperson for Gigablue did not answer whether the other co-founders have graduate degrees in oceanography or environmental science, but said the company's broader team holds a total of 46 Ph.D.s with expertise in biology, chemistry, oceanography, and environmental science. Markus-Alford said that figure includes outside experts and academics and 'everyone that supports us.'
The company's staffing has expanded from Israel to hubs in New York and New Zealand, Shaashua said.
In social media posts advertising open jobs, Gigablue employees encouraged applicants to 'Join Our Mission to Save the World!'
Trapping carbon at the bottom of the ocean
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.
'We are an elevator for carbon,' Shaashua said. 'We are exporting the carbon from the top to the bottom.'
Algae — sometimes referred to as phytoplankton — 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.
Gigablue's founders have said the company's work is inspired by nature and 'very, very environmentally safe.' The company's particles and sinking methods simply recreate what nature has been doing 'since forever,' Shaashua said.
Gigablue ran its first trial sinking particles in the Mediterranean in March last year.
Later, on two voyages to the South Pacific, the company released 60 cubic meters — about two shipping containers — of particles off the coast of New Zealand.
Materials kept a mystery
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,' Markus-Alford said.
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 particles contain a range of possible binding agents, and up to 18 different chemicals and metals, from iron to nickel to vanadium.
Without specifying future designs, Markus-Alford said Gigablue's particles meet certain requirements: 'All the materials we use are materials that are natural, nontoxic, nonhazardous, and can be found in the ocean,' she said. She wouldn't comment on the possible use of cotton or rice, but said the particles won't include any kind of plastic.
When asked about vermiculite, which is typically mined on land and heated to expand, Markus-Alford said rivers and erosion transport most materials including vermiculite to the ocean. 'Almost everything, basically, that exists on land can be found in the ocean,' she said.
The company said it had commissioned an environmental institute to verify that the particles are safe for thousands of organisms, including mussels and oysters. Any materials in future particles, Gigablue said, will be approved by local authorities.
Shaashua has said the particles are so benign that they have zero impact on the ocean.
'We are not changing the water chemistry or the water biology,' Shaashua said.
Ken Buesseler, a senior scientist with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution who has spent decades studying the biological carbon cycle of the ocean, says that while he's intrigued by Gigablue's proposal, the idea that the particles don't alter the ocean is 'almost inconceivable.'
'There has to be a relationship between what they're putting in the ocean and the carbon dioxide that's dissolved in seawater for this to, quote, work,' Buesseler said.
Buesseler co-leads a nonprofit group of scientists hoping to tap the power of algae in the ocean to capture carbon. The group organizes regular forums on the subject, and Gigablue presented in April.
'I left with more questions than answers,' Buesseler said.
Scientists raise questions
Several scientists not affiliated with Gigablue interviewed by The Associated Press 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 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.
'Typical phytoplankton do not grow on surfaces, and they do not colonize particles,' Kiørboe said. 'To most phytoplankton ecologists, this would just be, I think, absurd.'
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.
'These are incredibly challenging issues that I don't think, certainly for the biological part, I don't think anyone on the planet has got solutions for them,' he said.
James Kerry, a senior marine and climate scientist for the conservation group OceanCare and senior research fellow at Australia's James Cook University, has closely followed Gigablue's work.
'What we've got is a situation of a company, a startup, upfront selling large quantities of credits for a technology that is unproven,' he said.
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.
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.
Whether Gigablue's methods are deemed successful, for now, will be determined not by regulators — but by another private company.
A new market
Puro.earth is one of several companies known as registries that serve the carbon credit market.
Amid the lack of regulation and the potential for climate startups to overstate their impact, registries aim to verify how much carbon was really removed.
The Finnish Puro.earth has verified more than a million carbon credits since its founding seven years ago. But most of those credits originated in land-based climate projects. Only recently has it aimed to set standards for the ocean.
In part, that's because marine carbon credits are some of the newest to be traded. Dozens of ocean startups have entered the industry, with credit sales catapulting from 2,000 in 2021 to more than 340,000, including Gigablue's deal, last year.
But the ocean remains a hostile and expensive place in which to operate a business or monitor research. Some ocean startups have sold credits only to fold before they could complete their work. Running Tide, a Maine-based startup aimed at removing carbon from the atmosphere by sinking wood chips and seaweed, abruptly shuttered last year despite the backing of $50 million from investors, leaving sales of about 7,000 carbon credits unfulfilled.
In June, Puro.earth published a draft methodology that will be used to verify Gigablue's work, which it designed in consultation with Gigablue. Once finalized, Gigablue will pay the registry for each metric ton of carbon dioxide that it claims to remove.
Marianne Tikkanen, head of standards at Puro.earth, said that although this methodology was designed with Gigablue, her team expects other startups to adopt the same approach.
'We hope that there will be many who can do it and that it stimulates the market,' she said.
The road ahead
It remains to be seen whether New Zealand officials will grant permission for the expanded 'sequestration field' that Gigablue has proposed creating, or if the company will look to other countries.
New Zealand's environmental authority has so far treated Gigablue's work as research — a designation that requires no formal review process or consultations with the public. The agency said in a statement that it could not comment on how it would handle a future commercial application from Gigablue.
But like many climate startups, Gigablue was involved in selling carbon credits during its research expeditions — not only inking a major deal, but smaller agreements, too.
Pallas, the Italian businessman, said he ordered 22 carbon credits from Gigablue last year to offset the emissions associated with his event in November. He said Gigablue gave them to him for free — but says he will pay for more in the future.
Pallas sought out carbon credits because he sees the signs of climate change all around him, he says, and expects more requirements in Italy for businesses to decarbonize in coming years. He chose Gigablue because they are one of the largest suppliers: 'They've got quantity,' he said.
How authorities view Gigablue's growing commercial activity could matter in the context of an international treaty that has banned certain climate operations in the ocean.
More than a decade ago, dozens of countries including New Zealand agreed they should not allow any commercial climate endeavor that involves releasing iron in the ocean, a technique known as 'iron fertilization.' Only research, they said, with no prospect of economic gain should be allowed.
Iron is considered a key ingredient for spurring algae growth and was embedded in the particles that Gigablue dispersed in October in the Pacific Ocean. Several scientific papers have raised concerns that spurring iron-fueled algae blooms on a large scale would deplete important nutrients in the ocean and harm fisheries.
The startup denies any link to iron dumping on the basis that its particles don't release iron directly into the water and don't create an uncontrolled algae bloom.
'We are not fertilizing the ocean,' Markus-Alford said.
'In fact, we looked at iron fertilization as an inspiration of something to avoid,' Shaashua said.
But the draft methodology that Puro.earth will use to verify Gigablue's work notes many of the same concerns that have been raised about iron fertilization, including disruptions to the marine food web.
Other scientists who spoke with AP see a clear link between Gigablue's work and the controversial practice. 'If they're using iron to stimulate phytoplankton growth,' said Kerry, the OceanCare scientist, 'then it is iron fertilization.'
For now, scientific concerns don't seem to have troubled Gigablue's buyers. The company has already planned its next research expedition in New Zealand and hopes to release more particles this fall.
'They mean well, and so do I,' said Pallas, of his support for Gigablue. 'Sooner or later, I'll catch a plane, go to New Zealand, and grab a boat to see what they've done.'

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/
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Is Israel on the brink of a golden age?
Is Israel on the brink of a golden age?

Telegraph

time7 hours ago

  • Telegraph

Is Israel on the brink of a golden age?

Benjamin Netanyahu was in favour. So, too, was Ehud Barak, his defence minister at the time in 2011. But Israel's top generals and intelligence chiefs were aghast. An attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, they feared, could result in tens of thousands of Israeli civilian deaths. Months after retiring as Mossad chief that year, Meir Dagan – one of Israel's most revered spymasters – even went as far as to call the idea 'the stupidest I've ever heard'. Yet 14 years later, despite widespread opposition at home and abroad, Mr Netanyahu's boldest gamble appears to have paid off. In just 12 days, he humbled Iran at a cost much lower than even Israel's most optimistic military planners would have dared hope. When he walks into the White House on Monday, the Israeli prime minister's meeting with Donald Trump will therefore have the feel of a Roman triumph. Both men will portray their battlefield success as vindication over the wishy-washiness of their critics. But they are also thinking beyond victory laps. Mr Trump hopes to burnish his peacemaking credentials by brokering another ceasefire in Gaza. His guest will aim higher still, arguing that he has helped birth a new regional order – one that could mark the dawn of a golden era for Israel. Since the horrors of Oct 7 2023, Israel has made a Herculean effort to sever the limbs of the Iranian Hydra – Hamas and Hezbollah – before going for the head itself as it launched its first direct war with a foreign state since 1973. Mr Netanyahu now believes a legacy-defining peace dividend is within reach: new alliances with Arab states, containment of Iran and the isolation – perhaps even the marginalisation – of the Palestinians. Several Arab states are seriously considering the Abraham Accords, says Gen Yossi Kuperwasser, former director-general of Israel's Ministry of Strategic Affairs, referring to the 2020 deal that normalised relations with Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Morocco and Sudan. 'There is a golden opportunity,' he said. 'Iran is weakened. The Iranian threat feared by many countries in the Middle East is much decreased. We are even talking about countries like Syria and Lebanon hopefully joining the Abraham Accords. Who would ever have dreamed that?' But while Mr Netanyahu may have won the war, there is scepticism over whether he is the man to win the peace. Much depends on whether he can reverse Carl von Clausewitz's famous dictum and pursue diplomacy 'as the continuation of war by other means', says Col Eran Lerman, a former deputy national security adviser. That Mr Netanyahu is even in a position to consider reshaping the Middle East would once have seemed miraculous. In 2010 and again in 2012, as he edged towards war with Iran, senior military and intelligence officials were so anxious they took to privately briefing The Telegraph and other Western media on the risks. Iran's Lebanese proxy Hezbollah had amassed such a vast missile arsenal they estimated retaliatory strikes could kill up to 50,000 people. Entire neighbourhoods of Tel Aviv would be reduced to rubble. The political cost – a possible rupture with Barack Obama, then US president – was also deemed too great. In hindsight, Israel may have overestimated the potency of Iran's proxies. By 2024, Israeli missile defences and battlefield intelligence had dramatically improved, allowing the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to defeat Hezbollah in eight weeks last year and Iran itself in under a fortnight. But this was not simply a 12-day campaign of air strikes and covert hits. It was the culmination of 46 years of hostility, dating back to 1979, when Israel made peace with Egypt, formerly its greatest foe, and lost Iran – once its closest regional ally – to revolution. From the outset, the Islamic Republic waged an undeclared war on Israel, pledging its destruction and founding Hezbollah to fight Israeli forces in southern Lebanon. But for years Israeli strategists focused more on Palestinian militants than the Iranian threat – so much so that during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, Israel secretly sold arms to Tehran through the Iran-Contra Affair. After the first Lebanon war, Israel redoubled its efforts to penetrate Hezbollah. But in 2006, when Israeli troops re-entered southern Lebanon, the results were sobering. The 34-day war ended in stalemate. Gen Assaf Orion, the IDF's former head of strategic planning, calls it 'not the brightest campaign we've run'. Few understood that better than Gen Mickey Edelstein, then commander of the Nahal Brigade, who recalls how unprepared his troops were. Accustomed to small operations against Palestinian groups, they struggled with full-scale warfare. Tactical goals were vague. Air support was inconsistent. Orders were sometimes contradictory. 'My brigade was shifted between three different divisions over the war,' he recalled. 'We would go into Lebanon, be pulled back into Israel and sent out again with a different division. A lot of mistakes were made.' After the war, senior commanders privately acknowledged failures in planning, command and intelligence – and lessons were learnt. Soldiers were retrained for major warfare. When Gen Edelstein returned to battle in Gaza in 2014, the forces he led were significantly more capable. Intelligence also underwent wholesale reform, said Col Lerman. 'Intelligence in 2006 was clearly insufficient for the conduct of successful operations. After the war, there was serious self-questioning about how well intelligence was collected and how well it was distributed to forces on the ground.' Amos Yadlin, then head of military intelligence, led sweeping changes that continue to shape Israeli warfare. From 2006 on, Israel grasped the full extent of the Iran-Hezbollah nexus. Of the 121 Israeli soldiers killed in 2006, many died from Iranian-made weapons – some fired by Iranian troops embedded with Hezbollah, according to Israeli officials. In the following years, Iran poured resources into Hezbollah, providing cash, training and ever more sophisticated rockets, missiles and drones. The goal was clear: build a deterrent so fearsome it would stop Israel from ever striking Iran's nuclear programme. But that scale became a vulnerability. 'From a nimble guerrilla organisation, it became an established army, requiring greater management,' said Gen Orion. 'And with that came the exposures and weaknesses of larger organisations.' Israeli intelligence infiltrated Hezbollah deeply. It even sold the group the explosive-laden pagers and walkie-talkies that maimed thousands of Hezbollah operatives over two days last September. Most of Hezbollah's senior leadership, including its overall commander Hassan Nasrallah, was also assassinated thanks to what Col Lerman describes as a 'deeply penetrating, co-ordinated effort stretching back decades'. It wasn't just personnel. Israeli planners had mapped Hezbollah and Iranian missile sites with such precision that they destroyed most launch capabilities before the first volleys were fired. As a result, Israel was able to strike Iran, kill much of its leadership and damage its nuclear programme – and face far more muted retaliation than once feared. Although 28 Israelis were killed and 15,000 lost their homes, neither Hezbollah nor Hamas launched a single rocket in Iran's defence. 'Really the most dramatic aspect of all this is that the organisation exclusively built for one purpose – to punish Israel horrendously if it dared attack Iran – did not fire a single shot during 12 days of war,' said Col Lerman. How should Israel use its dominance? Israel has therefore emerged as the dominant military force in the region, with Mr Netanyahu's allies believing they can dictate a new dispensation for the region. Yet how the Israeli prime minister uses that dominance is now a central question. Since a ceasefire deal with Hezbollah in November, Israel has killed some 300 members of its fighters in targeted strikes – reportedly with the tacit consent of parts of the Lebanese government, which may now be looking to disarm the group entirely. Covert action in Iran is also expected to continue. Military action beyond Israel's borders aside, however, what kind of future Mr Netanyahu envisions is up for debate. There are three possible paths, says Eran Etzion, a former deputy head of Israel's National Security Council and a critic of Mr Netanyahu. One is to 'live by the sword', fighting a 'forever war', a view, he said, preferred by elements on the Right of Mr Netanyahu's coalition, who argue Israel will never be accepted in the region. Another is 'conflict management' – continuing low-intensity fighting with Hamas, expanding West Bank settlements and perhaps trying to remove Palestinians from Gaza even while seeking friendship with Arab states. 'It's a vision of perpetual war with the Palestinians while striking normalisation agreements with other Arab countries,' says Mr Etzion, who believes this is the strategy Mr Netanyahu is most likely to adopt. 'Peace is off the table' The third option – long-term peace-building – is, in Mr Etzion's view, off the table under the present government. Critics warn that Mr Netanyahu's vision of victory risks being both fragile and short-lived if it depends solely on violence. The idea that Israel can indefinitely deter aggression without addressing Palestinian aspirations may prove illusory. Saudi Arabia, the biggest prize of all, insists that any Abraham Accords-style agreement requires progress towards a two-state solution. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is thought to be eager for a deal, but without movement on a Palestinian state, his hands may be tied by public opinion, inflamed by the devastation inflicted on Gaza. Lebanon and Syria may also see advantage in rapprochement with Israel. But public sentiment remains volatile in both countries, too. Ahmed al-Sharaa, Syria's new president, appears conducive to the idea of better ties, particularly as he seeks to rebuild relations with the West. But many members of his group, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), are deeply hostile to Israel. A splinter faction recently claimed responsibility for a suicide bombing in a Damascus church that killed 25 people last month. Mr Sharaa may fear pushing his hardliners too far. Israel, for all its strengths, may overreach. It is 'still numerically and materially inferior to the sum of all its potential enemies', said Gen Orion. 'Which is why it must retain its qualitative military edge and creative diplomacy.' Meanwhile, unless a robust diplomatic agreement emerges, Iran is likely to attempt to rebuild the triad of threats that once made it so formidable: its nuclear programme, ballistic missile arsenal and regional proxy network. 'The regional landscape is shifting dramatically,' said Shai Agmon, a fellow at New College, Oxford and academic director of Molad, a liberal Israeli think tank. 'Israel can reshape it to serve its own security interests and create a thriving regional order – or it can squander it. 'Israel is the strongest force around for now. But in the absence of a stable diplomatic resolution, Iran and its proxies will regroup and try to escalate the situation again. 'And unless the government is willing to consider a path towards regional peace – which necessarily entails some form of two-state solution, an idea it has so far refused even to entertain – it is hard to see how lasting stability will be achieved.'

West Sussex to get extra electric vehicle charging points
West Sussex to get extra electric vehicle charging points

BBC News

timea day ago

  • BBC News

West Sussex to get extra electric vehicle charging points

A network of electric vehicle charging points in West Sussex is set to grow as an additional 30 on-street sites have been sites were agreed following a county-wide consultation and work was set to be led by West Sussex County Council along with district and borough councils and company Connected West Sussex Chargepoint Network already has hundreds of sites on streets and in car parks across the Pateman-Jones, CEO of Connected Kerb, says it is "one of the most ambitious and accessible public charging networks in the UK". He said: "This next phase is another important step towards building a cleaner, greener future for the county, giving drivers the confidence that reliable charging is never far away."The latest charging points will be installed with additional underground wiring to make it easier to expand further in the Dennis, the county council's cabinet member for highways and transport, said no changes to existing parking arrangements were proposed yet, and any future changes would be subject to the normal consultation process.

How the Biosphere 2 experiment changed our understanding of the Earth
How the Biosphere 2 experiment changed our understanding of the Earth

BBC News

timea day ago

  • BBC News

How the Biosphere 2 experiment changed our understanding of the Earth

In the early 1990s, a small team tried to survive in a hermetically sealed space containing replicas of Earth's ecosystems. Their trials and discoveries still have repercussions today. Glittering in the vast expanses of the Arizona desert lies a structure that seems torn straight out of the pages of science fiction. Inside a massive complex of glass pyramids, domes and towers, spread across three acres (1.2 hectares), stands a tropical rainforest topped by a 25ft (7.6m) waterfall, a savannah and a fog desert. They sit alongside a mangrove-studded wetland and an ocean larger than an Olympic swimming pool which includes its own living coral reef. It's seemingly a little capsule of Earth, which is why the structure is called Biosphere 2 – named after our own planet, Biosphere 1. The desolate landscape forms the perfect backdrop for the futuristic experiment that once took place here. In the early 1990s, eight people locked themselves inside, sealed off from the outside world for two years, to explore the challenges of living in a self-contained system – a prerequisite for building colonies in outer space. They fed themselves from the crops they grew, they recycled their own wastewater and they tended to the plants that produced their oxygen. In terms of sustaining human life, the experiment did not go well. As one commentator put it in the 2020 documentary Spaceship Earth, "everything that could go wrong went wrong". Oxygen levels plummeted, making the inhabitants sick, while carbon dioxide (CO2) levels increased. Countless animals died, including the pollinators the plants needed to reproduce. And although the "biospherians" did survive on their homegrown food, they lost weight to the point where they became a case study for calorie restriction. When supplementary oxygen needed to be brought in, commentators decried the project as a failure, calling it a "flop" and "new-age drivel masquerading as science". In recent years, however, many experts have come to see the Biosphere 2 experiment in a new light, with valuable lessons about ecology, atmospheric science and importantly, the irreplaceability of our own planet. Lisa Rand, a historian of science at the California Institute of Technology, argues that these lessons are especially worth revisiting today as billionaires advance private space programmes and float the idea of space colonies while our own planet is increasingly suffering from climate change and other man-made problems. And to environmental scientists, the Biosphere 2 experiment also demonstrates the value of bold experiments to better understand how the natural world works. In fact, today, the facility is bustling with scientists testing the effects of climate change on its living ecosystems. Far from helping humans escape Earth, Biosphere 2 seems to have become one of our best tools to understand Biosphere 1. "It wasn't a failure," Rand says. "I think it was actually ahead of its time." Though the Biosphere 2 experiment is often described as a test run of a future space colony on the Moon or Mars, the project in fact had deep environmental roots, says Mark Nelson, one of the eight biospherians and a founding director of the non-profit Institute of Ecotechnics. The idea for Biosphere 2 came from a group of people – including Nelson – living in an ecovillage on a New Mexico ranch who spent their time organic farming and doing performance art and carpentry. The group's founder, John Allen, dreamed of building a self-contained system to better understand Earth's complexities and find ways of using technology to more peacefully exist with the natural world, Nelson says. The project was bankrolled by billionaire Ed Bass, who put about $150m towards Biosphere 2 (equivalent to $440m today, or £330m). Under Allen's leadership, building began in 1984. It was – and remains – the largest building of its kind to be nearly fully sealed off from the atmosphere, Nelson says. Though none of its ecosystems was a perfect model of its real-world counterpart, each one was designed with similar kinds of vegetation, along with a selection of insects, fish, and birds, says John Adams, the current deputy director of Biosphere 2. A patch of farmland was included to grow crops. An underground system of piping and pumps controlled everything from temperature to humidity. Other systems recycled wastewater for crop irrigation and harvested drinking water from condensation in the air conditioning units. Biosphere 2 was intended to operate for a century, but when the biospherians entered the facility in September of 1991, "it was such a vast experiment that none of the eight of us had any certainty we could last one way or another for two years in there," Nelson recalls. Nelson and Adams see the events that unfolded inside not as failures, but as the outcomes of an experiment, as would occur in any other scientific study. "In science, there's no such thing as a failed experiment," Adams says. The most pressing issue for the biospherians was the decline in oxygen levels, which dropped from normal levels – roughly 21% of the atmosphere – to about 14% after 16 months. That's equivalent to oxygen levels at about 3,350m (11,000ft) above sea level. Until supplementary oxygen was brought in, the biospherians grew tired and weak from altitude sickness, making farming and other work arduous, Nelson recalls. These and other problems took scientists a while to figure out, says David Tilman of the University of Minnesota Twin Cities, who was part of a committee of ecologists that reviewed the experiment after it concluded. "It was very clear to us that the problem was much more complex than you might imagine at first," he says. Experts worked out that the cause was the extremely rich, young soils that had been introduced to fuel rapid growth of crops and other vegetation. This created a lot of food for bacteria and fungi, which, like us, consume oxygen and emit CO2. The trees and shrubs in the new ecosystems – which take up CO2 and release oxygen – were too young and too outnumbered by microbes to counterbalance this effect. "I think that was a really important lesson to learn: that that [soil] microbiome, even though we can't see it, is extremely influential," Adams says. Fortunately, the rise in CO2 – a greenhouse gas that heats up the atmosphere – was buffered by the fact that much of it got soaked up by the facility's concrete surfaces. The biospherians also did their best to stem the rise as well as boost oxygen levels. They cut dead grasses in the savannah and trimmed fast-growing rainforest species to stimulate new growth – storing the cut vegetation in dry conditions to slow down its decomposition, a process that releases CO2, Nelson says. They also planted fast-growing plants like sugarcane and created a bed of algae in the basement – but oxygen levels still waned. While some "extinctions" within the ecosystems were expected as they settled into an equilibrium, the vanishing of pollinating insects was an unexpected problem for plant life. Nelson attributes this to an explosion in the population of longhorn crazy ants that prey on pollinators, while ecologist Brian McGill of the University of Maine suggests they may have died off because the glass enclosing Biosphere 2 blocked ultraviolet light, which the insects needed to find flowers. "Bees in particular see in the UV spectrum," he says. The issue wasn't urgent as most of the ecosystems' flowering plants were long-lived, but some biospherians pollinated a few species by hand, brushing pollen into flowers so seeds could form, Nelson says. The long-term plan was to control the ant populations and introduce new pollinators from the outside world. Scientists made other interesting observations. Some trees, they realised, became weak and more prone to breaking, likely because of the lack of wind, which triggers trees to produce "stress wood" that strengthens them, McGill says. Marine biologist and geoscientist Diane Thompson, who now directs marine research at the facility, says that scientists also learned a lot about the kinds of light that corals need to thrive in captivity. But the most important lesson from the biospherians' experience, experts agree, is the realisation of how difficult it would be to live anywhere else than on Earth. Humans can't exist in isolation; they come in "biospheric packages", as Nelson puts it, and recreating these complex systems is no easy task. While Tilman reckons that some of the problems may have been solvable, it was clear during his visit to the facility that it was a long way away from being able to sustain human life. "It really impacted me when I saw that, because… my initial guess was that you would probably make it work," he says. Now, "I firmly believe that this really is our only planet ever". By extension, the experiment therefore deeply underscored the need to protect our planet in an intact state. Consider the immense technological costs – not to mention the hard physical work by the biospherians – to keep the atmosphere and life support systems intact. Tilman estimates that, if future space colonies are anything like Biosphere 2, they'd cost $82,500 (£61,000) per person a month to live in, and even that would be no guarantee of sustaining human life. "It's incredibly expensive to try to replace the services that the Earth's ecosystems provide for free to humanity," Tilman says. To Nelson, realising that his own survival was entirely dependent on the health of the ecosystems around him was transformative, as he wrote in his book Life Under Glass. Being a biospherian meant living as sustainably as possible – using the gentlest of farming practices, avoiding pollution anywhere inside Biosphere 2, and respecting every oxygen-producing plant. "Just being in a small system where you see that reality – that you're part of that system, and that system is your life support – changes the way you think at a very deep level," Nelson says. When the experiment concluded in 1993, these messages were largely overshadowed by the negative media coverage around the project, Rand says. In her view, this was because of how it appeared to clash with widely-held views at the time. Many experts had rigid views of how science should be done and didn't consider it a legitimate experiment. It had been funded by a wealthy individual rather than a government and conducted by self-taught science generalists rather than scientists with PhDs from academic institutions. Rand believes this would be far less controversial today. Meanwhile, because the public saw the project as a "glass ark" or a model of a future space colony, the biospherians were seen to be "cheating" when one of them was taken to hospital due to a finger severed in a rice-hulling machine, or when they installed the oxygen pump, Rand says. "I think it's fair to speculate that the events that were perceived by journalists [and the public] as failures might have been seen as normal, valid experimental results if the project took place now," she says. The negative media perception – as well as disagreement around how to manage Biosphere 2 after the original experiment ended – created challenges for those overseeing the project, Adams says. In 1996, Ed Bass handed over management of the facility to Columbia University and eventually gifted it to the University of Arizona. Scientists at those institutions saw the unique opportunity that Biosphere 2 provided, says Adams. Ecologists who study how living systems work usually do so by analysing what happens in the aftermath of vicissitudes like heatwaves or drought, McGill says. But in order to predict how climate change, for instance, will alter Earth's ecosystems in the future, they need to recreate future conditions and see how living beings respond. Like a time machine, Biosphere 2 allows them to do just that. From its very first experiment, "Biosphere 2 was just a really cool and vivid stake in the ground about the need for ecology to be predictive," McGill says. Today, Biosphere 2's rainforest is the stage for experiments testing how its real-world counterparts might fare under global warming. One study dialled up the temperature and found the forests to be surprisingly resilient to heat; rather, it's the drought associated with warming that hurt them. More recently, the ecologist Christiane Werner from the University of Freiburg, Germany, and her colleagues exposed the forest to a 70-day drought. They learned how some trees survive by tapping into deep, moist soil layers and that drought-stressed trees release more compounds called monoterpenes, which form airborne particles that could potentially serve as seeds for much-needed rain clouds. Thanks to Biosphere 2, "you can send a whole grown forest into a drought and then monitor all these processes along the way", she says. The coral reef, meanwhile, was the site of one of the first experiments to show that as the oceans become more acidic – which happens when they absorb CO2 – this makes it harder for corals to grow and thrive. Now, scientists are simulating severe heatwaves in Biosphere 2's mini-ocean, and plan to test whether probiotics or exposing corals to heat before transplanting them onto the reef can make them more resilient. "If we warm the ocean," Thompson asks, "will those solutions work – not just now, but decades into the future?" Adams says he hopes that Biosphere 2 can do for ecologists what the Large Hadron Collider is doing to improve physicists' understanding of particle physics, and what the James Webb Telescope is doing for astronomers striving for deeper glimpses into the universe. But ecology's mega-experiment doesn't only help us better understand the intricacies of the living world and how it's changing amid planetary upheaval. Its story, Nelson says, should also inspire and help every one of us to take better care of our only life-sustaining planet, Biosphere 1. Ultimately, we are all biospherians. -- For essential climate news and hopeful developments to your inbox, sign up to the Future Earth newsletter, while The Essential List delivers a handpicked selection of features and insights twice a week. For more Culture stories from the BBC, follow us on Facebook, X and Instagram.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store