Articles

A defence of the idea of carbon sequestration by a non expert...

One implicit argument seems to be that "carbon movement in oceans can't be monitored, therefore sequestering it won't work". This doesn't make sense. One could modify this argument to say that sequestering shouldn't be done until we can monitor it. But this would require experimentation, which means you have to try it.

Another argument is that it is not worth the risk. If the risk analysis is:
a) do something and risk unquantifiable damage to the ocean on a relatively local scale, versus
b) do nothing and risk unquantifiable damage to the ocean on a global scale
then option a) would be the winner.

A third argument is that it doesn't make sense. I am not any sort of expert, but my understanding was that after periods of high atmospheric carbon in the earth's past, carbon was naturally sequestered in the ocean over the next few thousand years, and that artificial sequestering was an attempt to speed this process up. So on the face of it - speeding up an existing mechanism - it appears to make sense.

A fourth argument is that carbon offsetting is basically "shonky". This is probably true, but is a completely separate problem, bearing no relationship to whether or not carbon sequestering will work.

However, I am not any kind of expert, and stand to be corrected on all four points.