Reposting this because I forgot 🌊 and 🧪.
My point is that it is bedrock scientific fact that marine biomass for consumption is not CDR, so studies making that particular assumption should not pass peer review or due diligence.
Thanks to @jaytcullen.bsky.social for the reminder.
John J. Cullen
A fundamental fact should have stopped the original publication in its tracks: The organic carbon in oyster biomass is not mCDR.
We eat it, use it, and exhale most of it as CO2. That's what animals do — organic carbon in, carbon dioxide out. What we don't use goes to sewage —> greenhouse gases.
John J. Cullen
Gentle people:
The challenges in PNAS to a seriously flawed study of oyster farming for carbon dioxide removal are completely valid. The reply by the study's authors does not address core issues. To...
1/x ‼️ Check out our letter to @pnas.org, led by Fabrice Pernet, which discusses a paper claiming "Oyster farming acts as a marine carbon dioxide removal (mCDR) hotspot for climate change mitigation." 🌊
doi.org/10.1073/pnas...
Scientific evidence does not support oyster farming as a marine carbon dioxide removal
strategy for climate mitigation
