Ocean acidification could cost the world up to $1 trillion annually, warns UN report

((I did a search for this and got no results so I apologize if it's already been made))

At the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity meeting earlier this week, scientists sounded the alarm about the potentially devastating impact of ocean acidification - global warming's 'evil twin' - and the billions, if not trillions of dollars it could cost the world economy every year by the end of this century.

Although ocean acidification has been called global warming's evil twin, they really should be referred to as partners in crime. Both consequences of the burning of fossil fuels and the resulting release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, neither is expected to be beneficial for us or many other species of life on this planet. Carbon dioxide traps more heat in the atmosphere, which adds more energy to our weather patterns and disrupts the climate system, but it also gets absorbed by the oceans. There, it combines with sea water to form carbonic acid, which is slowly changing the acidity level of the ocean from slightly alkaline towards neutral. That may not seem like a big problem, but many forms of life in the ocean depend on that 'slightly alkaline' environment to form their shells and skeletons, and for proper reproduction.

The amount of carbon dioxide dissolved in the world's oceans has risen by around 26 per cent since pre-industrial times. This has caused the ocean's pH level to drop from 8.2 down to 8.1. Now some of you may not think that is a big deal but that 0.1 pH difference has been enough to cause a tipping point for the mineral balance in the ocean. They are saying that ocean environment is on the cusp between shell building and shell dissolving.

This short video goes with the article


The damage we've already done is irreversible so we need to make sure that it doesn't get any worse. Between this, Fukushima & the BP oil disaster, our oceans are so messed up

Ocean acidification could cost the world up to $1 trillion annually, warns UN report

a reply to: knoledgeispower

Who cares about trillions of fake dollars? No matter the fake money involved, this is Earth and it needs taken care of IMO...Let's not worry about Fukishima either, let it keep pouring radiation into the ocean...Some people's kids just amaze me at times.

"We can look our children in the eye and tell them we did our part for them to live in a safer and more stable world"?? Okay Barry, if that is what you want to claim, there are other issues that need this attention also....(my eyes are still rolling)

a reply to: knoledgeispower

Trillions. I'm sure if they spent a few billion on thorium research they could save a lot of money but there's still some juice to squeeze from the fossil fuel industry. It's just like this ebola crap, nobody cares about it for years then only when it affects us, and the problems are potentially huge, we start working on a cure. We're lazy and stupid.

Have there been studies about ocean radiation?

Radiation might be more dangerous in a shorter time span.

Trillions eh ? well that means that it will cost the people that have the trillions to loose trillions .Or they want to use a rather large number to scare the public into letting our politicians create laws to take away more freedoms .Oh and more taxes from us so they can fix it . They can fix it right !! or is it too late to fix and we are all going to end up with acidic water ? Pffff use a little lime :>)

ETA ..in a funny sort of way ,this may come back to bite them .

The EPA is fighting a desperate battle to sink a green lawsuit, a lawsuit which is substantially based on the EPA’s own climate narrative.

The Lawsuit, launched by the Center for Biological Diversity, seeks to impose enhanced clean water act protection upon the Pacific Coast. The suit argues that protection is necessary because, according to the EPA’s own climate narrative, ocean acidification is severely damaging the marine ecosystem. wattsupwiththat.com...

According to the CBD;

“The CBD points out that the EPA has acknowledged that ocean acidification has killed billions of oyster larvae in the Pacific Northwest but still would not classify the waters as imperilled.”

a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

are you being sarcastic?

a reply to: xuenchen

Google it and you'll find your answer.

Yes radiation is bad but so is the acidification of the ocean.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Can people stop focusing on the clearly over exaggerated number of $1 trillion and focus on the main thing: the acidity in the ocean and what that means to the marine life.

Seems like all you have to do is say a large dollar amount and it distracts everyone away from the main focus. Yeesh

Can people stop focusing on the clearly over exaggerated number of $1 trillion

Do you think that they may be exaggerating other parts of the article as well ? It come across so chicken little and has lost any fear porn value it had a few years ago . a reply to: Sabiduria ETA ..I found this piece and wanted to leave a link .euanmearns.com... from what I read there it would seem we have a long way to go before the oceans become acidic .

A downward trend is still visible, but it’s very, very small (note that only actual pH measurements, not estimates, are plotted). If it continues at the same rate ocean pH will still be close to 8 in 2100 and the oceans won’t become truly acidic (pH=6.9) until about the year 2800. And even then the level of acidity will be minimal (natural rainwater has a pH of 5.6).

But the trend probably won’t continue at the same rate. The ocean absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere, so the rate of ocean pH decrease will be largely (although not entirely) dependent on future atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

a reply to: the2ofusr1
Not sure which parts you are talking about.

Yes I believe acidity can cause damage to marine life, is it happening right now? Not sure, I would have to search to see if other scientists are coming up with the same results that live in other countries than the U.S

As for why I think the dollar amount is over exaggerated, it is because they usually tend to over exaggerate.

I thought I would post this piece as well .Lots of data and graphs for people that like them .

As global warming morphs into climate change and global climate disruption and anthropogenic CO2 emissions give way to stochastic variability, clouds, the Sun, cosmic rays and our oceans as the primary drivers of climate change, environmental extremists are raising a new CO2-driven ecological disaster scenario to hysterical levels: Ocean acidification. Claims have been made that oceanic pH levels have declined from ~8.2 to ~8.1 since the mid-1700’s. This pH decline (acidification) has been attributed to anthropogenic CO2 emissions – This should come as no surprise because the pH estimates are largely derived from atmospheric CO2 concentrations (Orr et al., 2005). It has also been postulated that anthropogenic CO2 emissions will force an additional 0.7 unit decline in oceanic pH by the year 2100 (Caldeira et al., 2003).

wattsupwiththat.com...

Considering the GWP (gross world product) is around $80 trillion and growing every day $1 trillion dollars doesn't scare me to much if it is shared globally based on population of each country.

Sounds just like more doom porn, since global warming hasn't hit home with the people, and "climate change" is falling mainly on deaf ears, they need something new.

Oceans change is acidity and alkalinity just like the climate does, there are more submerged volcanoes than there are volcanoes on land, and the ring of fire is constantly active, this is nothing new it has been happening as long as the climate has been changing.

a reply to: knoledgeispower

Would all this change not be a good thing? What happened to adaptation survival of the fittest. How do you expect evolution to occur if there is no environmental change? Is this not the perfect opportunity for new species to evolve and adapt?

a reply to: guitarplayer
With the hundreds of gallons of crap we dump into the water, garbage, the Fukushima nuclear mess & the BP oil fiasco I think we don't need to add to the list of ways we harm the marine life. It is time we start taking better care of our marine life & there is nothing wrong with reducing co2 emissions.

In this day & age there is no acceptable reason to be using oil & other fossil fuels. We can reduce our impact on the environment but too many conglomerates would lose billions & that is unacceptable to them

Starfish are dying all over the west coast, but people are questioning if acidification is real?

Why does anyone pay any attention to people who don't give a damn about our future? We need to stop giving any credence at all to anti-science people and not let them have any influence on public policy since they don't care about society anyways.

Sorry OP, big corporations want the oceans of the world a mess. That way they can charge inflationary prices for fish and other marine food we consume when it becomes extinct. Mitsubishi overfishing bluefin tuna is a PRIME example.

oh look a price tag on life......when the vital systems of the earth shut down and can no longer support life as we know it money will mean very little...ive said it before ...for a smart species we are pretty dumb

a reply to: knoledgeispower

It's interesting to me that they want to blame it ALL on CO2. I think they may be partially right, but why is it that they never mentioned the runoff from all the industrial fertilizers into the oceans aroud the world? It has been well documented that runoff from industrial farming can be very acidic. I think it would be prudent for them to mention this, and to suggest to the world a more "permaculture" or natural type of farming. Pesticide runoff is very acidic as well... I will not believe for one second that it's just the CO2 from burning fossil fuels.

a reply to: InFriNiTee

I think they said it was CO2 only because of the path the ocean boats take that collects samples from the ocean. I'm not a 100% sure though. The video shows a path they take so maybe if they were to go closer to some land areas where people have a tendency to dump toxins, it would show up in the results.

We would have to figure out where they collect samples and why only from those areas, is it because that's where they figure everything will be all blended so it's an overall ocean thing instead of the concentrated amounts near the shore?

Everyone is worrying about Isis, but really this what everyone should be worrying about.

Many of these recent Jellyfish blooms have been attributed to ocean acidification. They say that they (the Jellyfish) will compete for food resources with fish, greatly reducing their population, and affecting the food chain.