German Scientist Outlines Massive Iron Fertilization Plan to Save the Antarctic
by Jeremy Elton Jacquot, Los Angeles on 10. 1.08
Image from es0teric
To save Antarctica from following the fate of the (doomed) Arctic ice cap, we must place our faith in phytoplankton, says Victor Shahed Smetacek. Though it may already be too late to save the Arctic -- as we've written before, most scientists predict it will be gone by century's end -- it is possible that we could forestall the wholesale melting of the Antarctic ice cap if we start dumping large amounts of iron into the Southern Ocean.
If you're a longtime reader of this site, then iron fertilization won't be anything new to you (in fact, we first described Smetacek's plan a year ago): The basic gist is that, by fertilizing large patches of the ocean with iron filings (typically as iron sulfate particles), you kickstart phytoplankton productivity by allowing them to increase their rates of photosynthesis -- which leads to more atmospheric carbon dioxide being taken up in the ocean.
Smetacek, an oceanographer from the University of Bremen whose research I've been closely following over the last few years, happens to be one of iron fertilization's most vocal proponents (and an excellent scientist). The best way to naturally sequester carbon, he believes, is to use phytoplankton to suck up excess carbon dioxide and drag it to the bottom of the ocean when they die, ensuring the gas doesn't get released back to the atmosphere. In an interview with the New Brunswick Business Journal, he said that iron-enriched phytoplankton could remove up to a gigaton, or one trillion kilograms (!), of carbon dioxide every year.
Derwin Gowan describes his plan in more detail:
However, it would take only five to 10 ocean-going ships, possibly tankers or ore carriers, to fertilize the oceans each year with iron sulphate, a waste product from smelting titanium and iron, he said.The ships would drift with wind and current. They might accommodate tourists, maybe summer students, who would underwrite part of the cost. They might even lend their labour to shovel the stuff overboard.
The project would cost in the hundreds of millions of dollars, rather than the billions or trillions it would costs for other geo-engineering proposals - such as seeding the upper atmosphere with particles to reflect sunlight back into space, Smetacek said. It could save hundrds of millions of people from being displaced, he said.
His plan certainly won't please the many environmentalists and scientists who are (understandably) wary of tinkering with the planet on such a grand scale. (As someone who's heard/learned a lot about iron biogeochemistry and oceanography over the last year and a half, I have to say that I'm still not fully convinced of OIF's merits.)
Some also argue that using geoengineering -- other techniques include carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) and injecting sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere -- will give big industries carte blanche to keep on polluting, reducing the effectiveness of GHG mitigation and energy conservation efforts.
Recognizing this, Smetacek acknowledges that any large-scale iron fertilization demonstration will need to be paired with stringent emission caps and mitigation efforts to have a sustained impact on climate change. Also, he doesn't believe that companies should be allowed to engage in iron fertilization, because he argues that all aspects of fertilization need be tightly controlled and overseen by trained scientists.
He envisages a long-term fertilization program that would remove 100 to 1,000 megatons of carbon every year. It remains to be seen whether his lofty scenario will square with reality, however, since there isn't yet any empirical evidence to back up his projections.
Via ::New Brunswick Business Journal: 'Geo-engineering' might save planet: scientist (news website)
More about iron fertilization
::Where We Stand on Iron Fertilization
::What Would Be the Side Effects of Iron Fertilization?
::International Team Of Scientists To Test South Atlantic Carbon Sink In 2009
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Royal Society Launches Large-Scale Review of Geoengineering Proposals
- Newly Imposed International Restrictions Could Dampen Interest in Commercial Iron Fertilization
- Tropical Dead Zones Set to Expand by 50 Percent Under Climate Change
- Ocean's 'Poop Machines' Could Help Fight Climate Change
Iron fertilization is an interesting method, but the way the article presents it gives the reader an impression that the method would only affect Antarctica. To my understanding removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere would limit climate change everywhere. Antarctica is certainly important and perhaps especially close to the heart of Mr. Smetacek, but it would be nice to see TreeHugger to put things more into perspective when bringing the message out.
The idea is 'old school' and a distraction. Its old school because it is assuming that humankind is in charge rather than a participant in change. The chances of unexpected and global changes caused by feedback in complex planetary systems rule out this idea immediately. The idea is a distraction because it takes away from the discussion of systemic economic and political changes which are the key to getting on top of the problem of sustainability not just carbon emissions. Saving ourselves is the key question, not saving Antarctica.
The only way iron fertilization works is if those plankton grow, sequester the CO2, and fall to the bottom of the ocean without decomposing. If they break down or are eaten on the surface, it totally defeats the purpose. They have been talking about this idea for a long time to stimulate fishery growth...it's a waste of money.
Watch out, Sea Shepard and Green Peace will start attacking this man soon, just like they did Russ George and Planktos.
This german Scientists is just stealing Russ's thoughts on the subject.
Green Peace, for one shut your mouth. Sea Shephard.... if you dont understand, go away.
I use to like both organisations until I know people who know both the leaders of these groups.
I
How much CO2 will be released during the manufacturing of all of this iron that you want to just dump in the ocean? How much CO2 will be released shipping tons of iron to the Antartic. How will dumping tons of iron into the ocean adversly effect everything else in the ocean. I don't think anyone could know, and therefore it shouldn't be done.
Wow, this is like giving a blood transfusion to somebody you just blasted with a shotgun. How about we stop killing the planet instead?
A couple problems with iron fertilization:
(1) unintended ecological impacts in the ocean. Many similar efforts have backfired with unintended consequences. We brought the snakes to eat the cats; we brought the cats to eat the rats; oh why oh why did we bring the rats.
(2) we can't easily ensure that the dead phytoplankton will in fact sink into the deep ocean which is required or else the carbon just recirculates in the upper ocean which is intimately linked to the atmosphere.
well from my understanding the phytoplankton has dramatically decrease in the last century. 75% of the earth is ocean and say we have lost 25% of phytoplankton, would you not see a rise in co2 levels and since fish live off of phytoplankton you would have less fish. I would think you would have to at least look into the possibility of Iron Fertilization. Evan if it does not cure the co2 problem would you not look at it for the benefit of the fish.
just my 2 cents