Where We Stand on Iron Fertilization
by Jeremy Elton Jacquot, Los Angeles 
on 11.14.07
Image courtesy of NASA
The leading éminences grises of science, policy and industry convened a few weeks ago to hash out what has become one of the thorniest issues in climate science today: the place for iron fertilization as a strategy to combat global warming. At issue were relevant concerns about the ecological consequences of the practice and the current absence of any clear regulations for conducting these experiments at sea.
While many of the participants raised concerns about the efficacy and safety of large-scale iron fertilization, others seemed to acknowledge that the urgency of the climate crisis warranted the continuation of carefully designed experiments—pointing out that, if done appropriately, they could provide a win-win for both scientists and businesses interested in selling carbon offsets. “We’re in a learning process that involves a balance of science, commercial, and a whole variety of social activities and interests. We’ve got to set up a measured process for moving forward,” said Tony Michaels, director of the Wrigley Institute for Environmental Studies at USC.
Image courtesy of Institute of Ocean Sciences
As has been noted in much of the recent literature, the problem is that iron fertilization hasn't yet proved its efficacy as a long-term strategy to sequester more carbon dioxide in the oceans—at best, it has proven to be a successful, though ultimately short-lived, way to stimulate large phytoplankton blooms and only in certain regions of the world. They key, scientists explain, lies in ensuring that a sufficiently high enough percentage of organic carbon produced during the blooms reaches middle-depth waters, at which point it would remain in deeper underwater currents for decades.
This would be good enough to buy us more time to come up with more efficient, permanent solutions to global warming, argue its advocates. Other scientists are worried about the changes "downstream" of the areas where iron is added; the huge phytoplankton blooms would consume not only iron, but also other vitally important nutrients—including nitrate and phosphate—necessary for the basic rungs of life (and, consequently, for higher trophic levels). In addition to altering marine food webs, iron fertilization could produce greenhouse gases more potent than carbon dioxide, such as nitrous oxide and methane, or block sunlight needed by deep coral reefs.
However, they could also coax phytoplankton into producing more dimethylsulfide (DMS), a gas that is known to promote cloud formation, thus helping cool the atmosphere and countering some of effects of global warming. Proponents correctly point out that, so far, none of the iron addition experiments have led to the above-mentioned repercussions; some say this might simply be because the experiments haven't been conducted on a large enough scale yet.
Companies such as Climos and Planktos, though they acknowledge the potential impacts, urged the participants to not let uncertainty "preclude careful research". “There are plenty of ways to do it wrong, but done right, [iron fertilization] does actually sequester carbon for hundreds of years in the place that it would ultimately end up anyway,” remarked Andrew Watson, a biogeochemist at the University of East Anglia.
As the science continues to advance, Michaels explained, researchers will need to team up with private interests to conduct similar, carefully designed addition experiments. “We have to evolve a set of skills within our community to have those kinds of roles. Who else should be figuring that out but us?”
Via ::WHOI Oceanus: Fertilizing the Ocean with Iron (magazine)
See also: ::International Team Of Scientists To Test South Atlantic Carbon Sink In 2009, ::Planktos to Begin Ocean Seeding, ::Planetary Engineering For Climate Crisis: What Are The Choices?
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Support Obama's Ocean Policy with a Friendly Letter
- Plant a Chestnut Tree, Get More Carbon Offset For Your Buck
- Green Glossary: Meltwater
- Treat Poison Ivy with Vodka!
- Take it from a Beatle: Cut Your Carbon Footprint by Making Mondays Meat-Free
- Don't Miss Sheryl Crow's Green Summer Tour
We have clearly learned nothing. Now we are discussing deliberately disrupting planetary systems to compensate for the planetary systems we have already disrupted. Maybe we should try to work with, not against, nature.
Considering that the same people, businesses and mindsets that brought us the problem in the first place are now going to bring us a solution, I find it difficult to trust what they say.
The growth economy is the sole source of climate change. How great that business can make money off it.
Blooms of algae are associated with everything in the water dying. Is phytoplankton any different? Are they really talking about doing this to "save the environment"? I don't like the sound of this.
Stupid humans...
phytoplankton, is a food source for many marine species and new born fish and other animals.
HOwever I do think we are venturing into very dangerous waters here, how can we possibly think that doing this could be a good thing, we have screwed up enough as it is, each and every step we talk should be small, starting simple, starting small, actually starting!
Car pooling or even better, public transport, reducing deforestation, using more efficient lighting EVERYWHERE not just in the home, recycling everything we possibly can and so much more.
But then, I feel like i'm preaching to the choir.
As someone who is intimately involved in the study of iron limitation and its effects on different biogeochemical cycles, I would caution against completely dismissing the idea out of hand. Sure, it's not great - I'm disinclined against its use (as it is) right now - but I think that, with the right research and experiments, it could have some use.
Obviously we'd be much better off if we eliminated our dependence on fossil fuels but - given the current economic and political climate (and the rapid growth of countries like India and China) - we're not likely to see that happen any time soon. Renewable energies and alternative technologies such as solar, wind power are preferable, but let's not automatically dismiss a technique that is still in its infancy before we do more rigorous research and get a better understanding of the long-term ecological consequences.
If its disadvantages prove too costly, I'm all for eliminating its use; until then, however, let us wait and let the scientists do the necessary work.
It would be a lot easier if people would just do the right thing to begin with.
This seems to be a solution for people who still can't quit the large house and the tropical vacations.
Hopefully the precautionary principle will be followed.
This is just like bringing in another invasive species to combat the first invasive species, same "running in place result".
Could someone explain where the iron comes from? I mean, iron is a useful resource. Is this waste iron? iron oxide maybe?
This is an ecologically dangerous solution, typically put forward by arrogant chemists to whom 'scientific ethics' is a 'nice concept', and for whom the whole world is a giant lab, ready to be played with for profit. Such recidivist mindsets rarely appreciate the delicate balance of ecoological systems.
The most dangerous part of the 'iron filings' solution, is that it distracts from other, more vital solutions, that involve the de-carbonisation of our economy, rather than the carbonisation of the seas.
Surely it is better to cure the disease, rather than treat the symptoms, by brushing 'carbon containing plankton' under the 'carpet of the seas'?
I remember reading that the iron fertilization program was original proposed to revers the acidification of the ocean. Just as SO2 in the atmosphere creates sulfuric acid when it interacts with seawater, CO2 creates carbolic acid in ocean water. This has led to "dead zones" in the ocean that never existed before. The plankton that would have been absorbing CO2 and creating O2 died off and iron fertilization will neutralize the acid and encourage growth. The idea was that at the end of the initial fertilization, there would be a massive die-off, after which the ocean pH would return to normal, allowing the return of normal plankton growth. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought this was a correction to damage we had done, much like replanting vegetation in a brown-field industrial site.
Pat: That's right. However, the more acidic the ocean, the less CO2 it can absorb. Restoring the ocean to 'normal' allows it to absorb more CO2, thus reducing the CO2 in the air.
I've been reading up on this topic (and posting) for the past few years. I don't think people are giving it a fair chance. It's actually quite a promising technique.
The important thing to realize is that this technique, while it may be funded by the carbon dioxide seqquestration aspect, is primarily an ocean restoration process...a potential "reversal" of damage we've already done (and are doing) to the oceans. We do such restoration every day, routinely, on land. We restore damaged ecosystems in fields, forests,and swamps.
Note that 30 years ago, there was actually similar opposition to such eco-restoration on land. People said the same thing "hey, just leave it alone"
Folks, I'm sorry to tell you this, but "just leave it alone" is equivalent to saying "just let it die". Luckily we got past such short-sightedness in the terrestrial ecorestoration field I hope we do the same in marine restoration.
The human race is far too big and too destructive a speciels to go back to this fake-innocent-sounding "just leave the oceans alone" nonsense. Our species is currently stripping the oceans clean of biologcal material, at an astounding rate. Nobody in the US or Europe has sufficient political power to stop this process. We are already destroying our oceans, and you can chant slogans about it all day long, but that won't stop it. So the second-best choice are techniques like iron fertilization.
Let the oceans die, or intervene with artificial support mechanisms. That may well be our choice. So we'd better let the Climos and Planktos people doing these smaller-scale experiments proceed with their work, and see what they demonstrate. Give them a few years to try. If it doesn't work, then shut them down.
That's my view.
Steve Kerry, Iron Fertilization News
I'm pleased that the majority of responses on this thread come from ordinary people who are genuinely concerned about the protection of marine ecosystems. The few that defend this method of carbon sequestration may be influenced by forgivable ignorance or unforgivable self interest.
My greatest concern is that a large scale iron fertilization experiment in the Southern Ocean succeeds. Lets assume that the giant algae bloom does what its supposed to do - capture tons of CO2, dies off and sinks to the bottom of the ocean without causing an ocean anoxic event, without inducing a metabolic acidosis epidemic among marine fauna through iron poisoning and without releasing harmful amounts of nitrous oxide and methane, to mention a few of the real dangers.
Once the science is proven to work, the scientists are ushered out the door and big business with less moral fiber than a mosquito steps in - the ocean fertilizer equivalent of the Monsantos and Syngentas and DuPonts of this world - companies with massive financial backing from investors demanding obscene returns from their "carbon friendly" investments, and the whole process is run by flexi-spine third world laborers with ethical blind-spots and kids to feed on a poor salary. The ocean is quickly tuned into a carbon chop-shop with little regard for sensitive ecosystems.
Who will police the fertilization companies to make sure that they don't accidentally over-fertilize, or start experimenting with other, more effective chemicals untested by independent scientists? In a massive ocean, miscarriages are easily overlooked. Who will stop them from seeding the ocean with genetically modified phytoplankton that will only grow when their premium priced brand of ocean fertilizer is used? The few countries that can afford to oversee this enterprise are both hosts to the profiteers and the big polluters themselves, and the slowest to react to environmental concerns.
The greatest threat to nature is human nature - and then our actions are driven by profit or expediency, the result is always (and I mean ALWAYS) unsustainable.
Have we learned nothing from the damage land based agriculture (read geo-biological engineering) and artificial fertilization has caused? Are we doomed to repeat the same mistakes at sea? The ocean does not belong to us, it is not ours to poke and prod and tinker with. Lets find another solution.