Ocean Iron Fertilization Test in South Atlantic Given Go Ahead
by Matthew McDermott, New York, NY 
on 01. 6.09
The test will be conducted off of South Georgia Island, pictured here. Photo: NASA via Wikipedia
TreeHugger has covered plans for ocean iron fertilization a number of times and the basic premise goes like this: By fertilizing parts of the ocean with iron filings you can increase the rate of photosynthesis in phytoplankton, increasing the amount of carbon dioxide which can be absorbed by the ocean. There the greenhouse gas emissions can be sequestered for long enough that global warming can be slowed.
One concern though is the effect that this will have on ocean ecosystems. Now, following a discovery by a British Royal Navy vessel off the coast of Antarctica, some of these concerns have been allayed enough for a test of the procedure near South Georgia Island:
Icebergs Release Enough Iron to Allow Larger Testing
The discovery which led up to this is that melting icebergs are already releasing large enough quantities of tiny iron particles iron into the oceans that fears about harming marine life have been reduced sufficiently to perform larger scale iron fertilization tests.
Prof Rob Raiswell of Leeds University, who is lead researcher on the project described the discovery by saying, “The Earth itself seems to want to save us.”
(Personally, I don’t think the planet, though undoubtedly self-regulating, gives a hoot about saving humanity specifically...but it is interesting that it may be that as more icebergs break free more iron particles are released into the ocean naturally, potentially increasing algae growth.)
Algae Needs to Sink Thousands of Feet for Procedure to Work
The new test will consist of several tons of iron sulphate being dumped in the ocean to create an artificial algae bloom. The researchers will then determine how much algae sinks to sufficient depth (a couple miles is needed) that the absorbed carbon can be trapped for at least a couple hundred years. If the algae doesn’t sink far enough will just release the absorbed carbon back into the atmosphere.
via: Cleantech and Daily Mail
Geo-Engineering
German Scientist Outlines Massive Iron Fertilization Plan to Save the Antarctic
What Would Be the Side Effects of Iron Fertilization
International Team of Scientists to Test South Atlantic Carbon Sink in 2009
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Stop Buying Packaged Cereal! 5 Awesome Granola Recipes to Try Instead
- Stained Car Interior? Natural Stain Removal Recipes for Your Car
- Are Your Floors Covered in Pesticides?
- Support Obama's Ocean Policy with a Friendly Letter
- 5 Reuses for: Watermelon
- Can Your Fishing Habits Save the Coral Reefs?
I cannot imagine how this would mitigate more CO2 than it consumes. Resources should be spent on preventing deforestation.
Not iron filings. FeSulfate is used mostly. But any source of iron would do as long as it is finely dispersed
The icebergs collected historic aeolian deposits, rates of which have been much reduced in recent decades due to the effect of human practices on land. The melt is reproducing iron concentration that were common in the open oceans before 1970 (when plankton productivity was greater).
Iron is a trace mineral which limits the rate of planktonic growth just like it can limit plant growth in your garden. It is a "Rate limiting factor" up until a certain concentration, at which point different nutrients take over as growth limiting factors.
The opposition to this is just plain silly and irrational It is a natural process being replicated. No worse or better than amending soild to boost productivity. The problem with too much fertilizer is guess what? Eutrophication: which is what we want when earth is in the emergency room.
Roy, can't resources be spent on both this and deforestation.
Besides this is an experiment to find out how much CO2 will be consumed which should neatly validate your imagination.
Famous last words...."The opposition to this is just plain silly and irrational It is a natural process being replicated."
Keep in mind that essentially EVERYTHING we do will have some degree of unintended consequences. Perhaps we should just focus on wider-scale application of the 'reduce, re-use, recycle' theme before artificially inducing massive conditions of hypoxia and vegetative decay in our already threatened oceans.
Want to start making a difference today? Put on a sweater and turn down that thermostat 10 degrees.
John - thank you for your input - my concern is that these natural systems are so complicated, and we seem to be attempting to replicate only one of many processes that have changed. Not to speculate this to death, but is the iron deficit the ONLY significant chemical factor in this system? If the aeolian winds are no longer depositing natural iron, they're also no longer depositing all the accompanying dust components too. Why not try to get the natural system that used to supply the necessary mineral moving again?
Witness how just supplying K/Ph/N fertilizers still had the effect of exhausting soil. You need a more broad-spectrum approach. Preventing further deforestation seems both easier and more complex.
Although I secretly love the idea of mirrors in space....
@Roy - I tend to agree that these complex systems are important to study for consequences, but it is misleading to think that we are not already altering these systems.
Geo-engineering is not something I'm comfortable with, but we are doing it regardless - CO2, Land Use, Pollution - all have dramatic consequences on the environment. Let's own up to our geo-engineering, and embrace what we do know...
A little iron might not be a bad idea- it is not a silver bullet, and it may not work, but maybe, just maybe it helps us out while we spend 100 years rebuilding our forests, and re-inventing society.
I think long-term you are right, we need the system to sustain itself- with maybe only minor tweaks from us now and then... ;-)
Reduce, reuse, recycle is good but even better is to address the POPULATION BOMB---yeah, it still is the Elephant in the Living Room. Why do you think it is being ignored? Obviously the more consumers the happier our captains of industry. Their mantra is buy more and stocks go up. Greed motivates them but how do you explain the major environmental groups also ignoring the elephant?