Think Ocean Geo-Engineering is a Good Idea? Think Again, Australian Scientists Urge

And what kind of philosopher are you, exactly? Look, I entirely agree with those who urge caution with regards to geo-engineering schemes, but this blanket opposition from a philosophical standpoint is extremely frustrating and counter-productive. The proposition is always rooted in some 'unnatural' tinkering with the environment by humans, who should just go back to living without fossil fuels, even if that makes life hard. This implies the traditional western dichotomy between 'man' and 'nature' that has absolutely no basis in reality. The fact is HUMANS ARE NATURAL and cannot suddenly stop being so. The idea that we should change our behaviour to promote natural cycles and minimize harm to them is certainly timely and important. But we are not the despoilers of some idyllic Eden - we are the product of a magnificently diverse and fascinating phenomena, that is now in our hands. If, as seems likely, it is impossible to save it without some major intervention, we must examine that action thoroughly, BUT WE MUST NOT SHRINK FROM USING IT. Biochar and other methods of carbon capture through agriculture is just as 'unnatural' as ocean fertilisation, as for that matter, is agriculture itself. I, for one, want to see all alternatives examined exhaustively before we decide which we must utilise. Those who think that geo-engineering is somehow too radical to contemplate are, in reality, refusing to accept that we have already carried it out, on a massive and potentially planet-ending scale. The increasingly prevalent view that we are already past the danger point in carbon emissions demands an examination of methods of its removal. You, who countenance disengagement with that fact, promote wilful ignorance and hasten our probable demise.

Balderdash.

Marine ecosystems, especially in the Southern oceans, are already severely at risk due to over fishing, ocean acidification, runoff from erosion, and untreated wastewater discharged from most of the worlds cities. The oceans are or will eventually be at even higher risk due to higher heat inputs in the tropical seas (the latter part is still unresoved but the acidification risk is higher and more near term).

The total iron discharged directly into the oceans from wastewater treatment plant outfalls is far higher than the levels being proposed for iron seeding in the deep sourthern oceans. What makes this opposition totally ludicrous is that the wastewater sludges being dumped off shore from major cities, from barges mostly, are loaded with iron sulfides.

Moreover, there is plenty of scientific documentation that aerial deposition of natural iron in the seas formerly was far higher (in the 1970s') than it is currently - largely because of man-induced changes to land use . Plankton productivity is affected already, as the growth limiting micro-nutruient, iron is in deficit in the deep offshore regions.

My personal hunch - and I am accusing no individual or organization of doing anything out of malice or selfish intent - is that marine researchers and others who are so opposed to pilot scale experiment fertilization trials in the open seas are motivated unconsciously to be so strongly opposed because that private sector scientists will be doing the pioneering work, and reducing the need for academic study grants.

It is in everyone's mutual interest to stop the squabbling over who is best entitled to come up with experimental designs and manage grants, and for academics to "get on board" with the pioneers JL

Reuters also posted a Q&A with Climos CEO, Dan Whaley:
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUKTRE4BE1VF20081215

Also of note is the recent paper by the Royal Society which looks in detail at the CO2 mitigation potential and the ecological effects, and suggests how research should go forward. There has been much more research into the environmental effects of ocean fertilization than the tone of the article suggests, but obviously more is needed.
http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/t6x58746951336m1/

Serious proponents of geoengineering recognize that it is not a "silver bullet" solution. Far from it, however it can be complimentary to emissions reductions strategies to avoid runaway climate feedbacks while society struggle with the extremely difficult task of cutting emissions. That is why it is important to *research* these techniques now.

the main problem is..

1.) algae growth is only a temporary fix anyhow
2.) It can be extremely harmful to fish and other oceanic life

Outside the Mississippi river delta algae blooms have been increasing (from farm fertilizers) ... along with a decrease in CO2 there is a huge decrease in O2 as well.

They call it a dead zone now becasue...it kills all the fish. Fish need oxygen in the water.

Does it really do us any net good to keep the atmosphere a little cooler if we manage to destroy the ocean?

If we really had to, solar mirrors (that we could remove) would be the best geo engineering option... far more controllable.. far less potentially destructive

(though I can just about envision a tyrant gaining control of them and making shade on the countries most despised by him)

Regardless of the pros and cons, it doesn't help anybody to debate points that are fallacious. In that light, I should point out that talking about about "dead zones" and "algae growth being dangerous" is off base.

Ocean iron fertilization by definition only happens in the deep (remote) oceans where plankton growth is rare or nonexistent. That's the whole point...to create plankton growth where there is none now. And we are talking about areas that are tens of thousands of square miles in size, with plankton concentrations that are a thousand times less than near shore.

Part of the probliem with this debate is the the average citizen simply has no understanding whatsoever of what the remote areas of the ocean are like.

Again, you may not support iron fertilization but please let's not waste our time on nonsense objections. there are plenty of good debate ponits that are valid.

Finally, it's not accurate to say that "growing algae is only a temporary fix". The idea of iron fertilization is to permanently remove carbon from the atmosphere and sink it to the ocean floor. Probably permanently. In this sense, this type of geoengineering is very much permanent. Once the carbon is gone, it's gone for good. Note that mother nature has been doing this for billions of years, which is why we have limestone.

On the other hand, orbiting space mirrors are totally temporary. They do nothing to reduce the root cause...carbon in air. They merely cool the planet. Once you turn them off, you are right back where you started.

Iron fertilization is one of the only carbon sequestration techniques that really IS permanent. Even forest sequestered carbon is really temporary because it would be released in a fire. Organic matter on the sea floor would persist for thousands of years, or more.