What Would Be the Side Effects of Iron Fertilization?
by Jeremy Elton Jacquot, Los Angeles 
on 01. 9.08
Image courtesy of NASA
Amidst all the hullabaloo over the supposed upsides and downsides of iron fertilization, it's been hard to find a single story explaining what potential ramifications its use could incur. This latest article - part of a longer series investigating the consequences of manipulating ecosystems - provides one of the best overviews on this tricky subject.
As Andrew Watson, an oceanographer from the University of East Anglia, made clear at a conference on iron fertilization held at WHOI last September, "there’s quite a range of things that are going to happen when you do that,” suggesting that drawing down atmospheric carbon dioxide and sequestering it in the deep sea - the desired effects - could be only two of many possible consequences. The potential ways through which iron fertilization could harm the ocean - a lengthy list compiled by the Scientific Group of the London Convention - include the side effects from the added iron; the effects from plankton growing and dying; the indirect effects of nutrients cycling through the oceans; and the physical effects of having more plankton in the same amount of space.
For one thing, scientists are worried by the changes in species composition the added iron could effect; past studies have demonstrated that the addition of iron sparked higher levels of interspecific competition, inevitably benefiting some species over the others. While there is the chance that more frequent phytoplankton blooms could provide a larger, constant food supply - particularly for dwindling fish stocks - scientists point out that iron addition could just as easily support less beneficial processes in the oceans, increasing harmful algal blooms and dead zones.
There is also the concern that the changes in water chemistry caused by iron fertilization could lead to higher emissions of both nitrous oxide, two highly potent GHGs produced when organic matter decomposes in deep waters. Some have tried to downplay these concerns by proposing alternate solutions - fertilizing low-nutrient regions instead of high-nutrient ones to offset nutrient depletion, for example - or by arguing that not all side-effects need be undesired. Because many phytoplankton release dimethylsulfide (DMS) into the atmosphere, they believe bigger blooms could create a larger aerosol effect, helping to block incoming sunlight and cooling the planet.
It is a complicated situation, to be sure, but one that - as many have have long argued - can and needs to be resolved within the scientific community before drastic action is taken.
Via ::Oceanus: What Are the Possible Side Effects? (news website)
See also: ::Where We Stand on Iron Fertilization, ::International Team Of Scientists To Test South Atlantic Carbon Sink In 2009, ::It's Never Too Late To Call Off The Circular Firing Squad
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Green Glossary: Carbon Sink
- Does Recycling Really Make a Difference?
- What is an Arborist and How Can You Find One?
- Trust Stella McCartney: Meat-Free Mondays are Hip, not Hippie!
- Take it from a Beatle: Cut Your Carbon Footprint by Making Mondays Meat-Free
- Feed 8 Friends for Under $100 with this Green Frugal Feast: Sustainable Fish Fry
I suggest we keep the following facts in mind for perspective.
USEPA's ocean dumping program regularly allows deep ocean dumping of wastewater treatment plant sludges produced by coastal cities such as New York and Los Angeles. These sludges contain many tons of various metals, including iron that comes, originally, from rusting pipes and corrosion of buildings or is added to chelate and precipitate suspended solids in the treatment process. Many other coastal nations don't even bother to treat the wastewater - they just sewer it to estuaries or slurry it all offshore via submarine pipline
Aquatic toxicity standards for iron are orders of magnitude higher than the concentrations being contemplated for iron seeding of plankton populations.
If marine scientists were so concerned about this iron issue, then where were they when the various ocean dumping programs were created and then again when they are reviewed?
While it is absolutely necessary to assess the risk benefits of marine iron seeding, it is not necessary to do so under the presumption of it being a sustainable practice. The proper analogy is a patient being stabilized in an emergency room prior to physician evaluation and prognosis for treatment and return to health.
Lay persons, reporters, and politicians are completely unable to grasp the marine ecosystem concerns, as cited, in a meaningful and timely way. Look how badly they have done with basic climate science!
Only field trials of the nature that has already proposed by Planktos and other organizations can begin to resolve these questions and enlighten the policy options for the long term. I can not see how further dithering about potential risks benefits the planet. But I can see how it might benefit research grant applicants anxious to count the angels dancing on the head of a pin.
If we fail to develop and test a means to stabilize the patient there may be no ecosystems to protect. My two cents.
The fallacy with sequestering GHGs is that it will make climate change go away. If GHGs are removed from the atmosphere, GHG emissions will simply increase to fill the void through reduced restrictions or greater consumer demand. This is equivalent to bucketing water out of a boat in order to fix a leak.
I would agree with JL. Time is of the essence. I believe stalling these efforts would be wrong. Ramping these trial runs in a reasonable fashion would likely produce useful scientific data while posing only a slight risk if any negative consequences were to begin to appear.
Keep in mind that the general process being proposed is something that mimics what has always happened in nature, with iron bearing dust clouds blowing far out to sea.
Also, I find the notion that the processes would be allowed to create "dead zones" to be quite disingenuous. Obviously in an iron depleted part of the ocean, two things would be needed to create a bloom of algae resulting in a dead zone. First would be an overabundance of other required nutrients such as nitrogen and second would be an amount of iron sufficient to support an unhealthy bloom. The latter, however, would always be under full control of organization doing the seeding. To imply that the scientists involved would create dead zones, when it would be so easy to limit concentrations of iron, is a bit of a stretch in my mind. I think in public debate of this, it would be best to assume the scientists are neither stupid nor malicious.
Good analogy Astrochicken... if someone were on a boat at sea and it sprung a leak, they'd sure as heck use their bilge pump if they had one until the leak was fixed.
Okay now let's run some field tests. How long shall we observe the effect, since the time lapse effect of an entire ecosystem can go into the decades in terms of a measurable response.
Let's take those goddarn subsidies from Oil (what for for god's sake do they need another 11 billion in subsidies per year?)
Give that money to Solar, Wind and Tidal and don't even think about messing even more with Mother Nature.
Iron seeding has already been done on a modest scale several times in the ocean to no apparent ill effect. This is just a scale up to gather data about the effectiveness of the hoped for sequestration. It is proof of concept and not at a scale that risks damage.
Not many people are aware that nutrient additions and reductions have been done many many times on inland lakes during carefully planned restoration projects. As RapsodyInGlue suggests, we should not assume scientists are like Dr Evil (even though that certainly is a convenient Hollywood and SciFi stereotype).
I wonder how many of the people who react with hostility and mistrust to iron seeding proposals have seriously reviewed the literature on the subject. Damned few I'd bet.