Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How Sperm Whales Offset Their Carbon Footprint

Posted by samzenpus on from the all-natural-solution dept.

Boy Wunda writes "Scientists at Flinders University in South Australia found that in an awesome example of design by Mother Nature, Southern Ocean sperm whales offset their carbon footprint by simply defecating – an action that releases tons of iron a year and stimulates the growth of phytoplankton which absorb and trap carbon dioxide. If only we humans could say the same for our poop, which really doesn't do much more than just sit there." I'm going to do my part by buying some iron supplements and a can of chili, and heading off toward the ocean.

12 of 150 comments (clear)

  1. I wonder ... by electricprof · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wonder how long it will take for someone to suggest dumping raw sewage into the oceans in an effort to reduce our carbon footprint ...

    1. Re:I wonder ... by jellomizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well... It would a bit However there are other disasters to consider from doing such activity that would make carbon footprint seem like a moot point.

      That and the most of the Carbon problem we have isn't from our biology but from our use of fuels. Which is in essence the Carbon Collected by these lifeforms after they died. Basicly we are using the stuff that was collected years ago.
       

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  2. design by Mother Nature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This sounds almost religiously stupid. I doubt mother nature cares about us or the level of CO2.

    Should we take mother nature at her word and send our untreated sewage into the ocean so we can be like the whales?

    1. Re:design by Mother Nature by Rato+Ruter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This sounds almost religiously stupid. I doubt mother nature cares about us or the level of CO2.

      Should we take mother nature at her word and send our untreated sewage into the ocean so we can be like the whales?

      2 minutes

  3. Carbon Footprint? by lobiusmoop · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Anything that doesn't use fossil fuel (directly or indirectly) is already pretty much carbon neutral over its lifespan. .The O2/CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been more or less in balance for millions of years,

    --
    "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
    1. Re:Carbon Footprint? by OldOOCoboler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Lobiusmoop said "directly or indirectly". Cattle in feedlots eat corn grown with fertilizers made from previously sequestered oil. If you use oil or coal that took millions of years to sequester then you're not neutral. Whale's don't add any previously sequestered carbon to the biosphere (unless they drink straight from the BP wellhead).

    2. Re:Carbon Footprint? by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The oil in the ground is from locked up plant/animal matter. So if the O2/CO2 levels have been in balance for millions of years, where in the hell did the additional CO2 come from as the previous amount was being locked up in oil? Space?

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  4. You gotta be kidding me by boneclinkz · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "...in an awesome example of design by Mother Nature..." Please tell me this was artistic license on the part of the author, and not the actual words of a researcher on the project.

  5. Carbon Footprint? by lax-goalie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sperm whales have a carbon footprint? What? From the Hummers they're driving, or all the coal-burning power plants they've built?

    I know this is Idle on Slashdot, but man, that is the dumbest headline I've seen in a while.

  6. Re:Don't be too hard on yourselves by Surt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Define 'good'. It will grow plants. It will smell very, very bad.

    --
    "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  7. Re: samzenpus: by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In the "morbid topic" department, I've contemplated how I would exit this world if I opted for suicide (and no, I'm not suicidal, it's just a great morbid topic) and I've concluded that firearms are the only real way to go.

    Drowning? That won't do. Takes too long and involves too much panic.
    Burning? Nope, same drawbacks as drowning.
    Pills? Thanks but no thanks. Who the hell wants to commit suicide and then have time to think about the fact that they are going to die? This same drawback applies to leaving the car running in an enclosed space or slitting your wrists in the bathtub.
    Hanging? I could see this one if you had the time and materials to build a real gallows that would snap your neck. But dying via strangulation? Yuck.

    Nope, the firearm is really the only way to go. It requires true commitment (gotta squeeze that trigger) and doesn't provide much room for second guessing yourself. It should also be relatively painless unless you flinch at the last second. Added bonus: Nothing says "fuck you, cruel cruel world" quite like the mess that a headshot leaves behind ;)

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  8. Re: samzenpus: by Matt_R · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What about trains?

    Won't somebody think of the train driver?