Since we started to use fire, we emitted carbon dioxide into the air we breathe. Stone Age farmers may have even averted a minor ice age through deforestation and with fires – as some data suggest. However, with industrial revolution we tapped deeply into nature’s safe storages for carbon – safe storages the nature was creating since the beginning of the life on this planet. And the whole life on this planet depends on safety of these storages. We have opened Pandora’s Box…
I doubt that there are many left who did not hear about phenomenon called global warming. Many voices have been raised about its impacts on the planet, climate and ourselves in our daily lives. Our carbon (dioxide) footprints have been explored and various efforts to reduce them. Some countries are already pushing towards carbon (dioxide) emission neutral energy sources. All this is fine, but…
Some misleading narrative persists probably perpetuated by hastily made, but wasted interests. The first one is the myth of “clean coal”. Coal mining industry wasted a lot in an idea that we can store compressed carbon dioxide underground. Some (favourable) estimates predict that the technology could be available on the industrial scales in 2025 or later.
However we already saw few pilot projects abandoned on the safety grounds. The fact is that the underground storage of the compressed carbon dioxide can rarely be made safe. And a tectonic shift could release the gas, killing breathing life tens of kilometres around.
Furthermore, we seem to be forgetting a very important component in carbon dioxide – oxygen. Our talk about carbon this or that that leaves out dioxide is apparently the reason for our forgetfulness. But, can we rule out entirely an intention behind this omission?
In chemistry, a molecule of carbon dioxide is represented by a formula – CO2. And this means that a single atom of carbon (C) binds two atoms of oxygen (O) – oxygen we, and the rest of breathing life, need to breathe. Storing three tonnes of carbon dioxide underground would, therefore, rob us of more than two tonnes of oxygen. A choking solution, isn’t it? And yet, our policymakers are still talking about it with expensive plans to make it work…
Another misleading narrative is probably propagated by interests already wasted in ethanol and other kinds of biofuels. It goes like this: “We need arable land to grow organic matter for biofuels.” To investors and politicians who were behind such “solutions” it is probably hard to make a U turn now – especially after deforestations made to provide fertile land for biofuels. And “biofuels or food” dilemmas still fuel debates around the world.

This misleading narrative is further propagated by “strategic” concerns – as Scientific American demonstrated in its special issue “Earth 3.0” (Volume 18, Number 4, 2008). Their big article added the fuel to debates with “Water vs. Energy” dilemma – a false assumption that we need fresh water to grow organic matter for biofuels. Victims of the narrative or not, editors of the magazine placed a big question mark over the first part of its name.

Identifying “solutions” and misleading dilemmas is important, for we waste too much energies circling around them. However, this will only help us to redirect our debates towards real solutions to the problem. And for real solutions we need to see the full scope of the problem and its gravity…
We used to have sulphur emissions crisis that resulted in acid (H2SO4) rains ruining our forests. Now we have atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rapidly rising and threatening to have similar effect. Furthermore, acidity of our rivers, lakes and oceans is on the rise – reducing capacity of water to absorb oxygen. And there are many other impacts, we have not looked at yet, that may devastate not only waterborne life.
Reducing our carbon (dioxide) footprint is a step in the right direction. But, while we are making steps towards zero emission targets – we will continue to release carbon dioxide into air we breathe. And these emissions are likely to accelerate before the whole planet switches to zero emission energy sources. And even then we will emit another greenhouse gas – vapour, for generation and use of energy will always release heat. And heat pollution could be the new challenge in the waiting. Changed weather patterns will further erode our forests and our planet will have its capacity to cool itself further reduced…
Many scientists already stated that the only long term solution for reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and feeding more people is growing new forests – agroforestry. But, to grow new forests we need arable land and (fresh) water, don’t we? This narrative is similar to dilemma “biofuels or food” – and it is also a misleading narrative…
The secret of growing new forests on barren lands is in a proposal many have already made for other reasons – cultivating algae. The beauty of algae is that they can grow in saltwater basins over barren land. They do not only offer rapid capture of atmospheric carbon dioxide and release of oxygen. They can also be used for fertiliser, feed and food production. And, as a sweetener, they show great potential for biofuels production. With algae, we can also grow fish and address land salinity issues…
Greening Method (patent pending) takes growing seawater algae further. Basins above barren land will partially shield the ground from the harsh sun. This will reduce humidity loss. Furthermore, saltwater in basins will evaporate (fresh water) – reducing humidity loss of the soil further. Algae are also good “desalination plants” and used as fertiliser they will fertilise and water the barren soil. Thus, the barren land will turn fertile – ready for a new agroforestry mix.
We might be blinded by sky high tech solutions, but we need to start growing new forests everywhere possible – on massive scales. We do not have time to educate people in complex technologies. We need low tech solutions any farmer in any country can implement.
Large scale afforestation offers other benefits. Strategically placed, new forests will impact weather. Vertical air circulation will encourage cloud formation over the ground – reducing vapour levels in the atmosphere. With a bit of careful microclimate planning we can have rains where we need them the most – and reduce chances for violent weather. In time, whole continents could be transformed…
But all this also needs adequate policies. However, our policymakers seem to be stuck in mud of misleading narratives and “solutions”.

Kind regards,
Damir Ibrisimovic
Australia