In the words of Rick at MBSL&S
So let’s just say you have a couple hundred thousand metric tons of iron filings laying around the house. While in the tub one day, you conceive of a terrific idea of dumping all that iron into the ocean, thus seeding phytoplankton growth (iron is a limiting nutrient for phytoplankton) and sequestering atmospheric carbon for centuries deep underwater. Voila! Hello carbon sink… goodbye global warming. And even better, you can sell shares of your iron filing dumping as carbon offsets to individuals and business who are looking to feel more carbon neutral. It’s a win-win deal!
As you might guess he is skeptical…and frankly I am with him. Rick discusses Climos that proposes a code of conduct to address contentious aspects of how such experiments are conducted.
The 2-page document calls on anyone doing experiments to protect the marine environment by obtaining permits from relevant authorities, do full environmental assessments, and avoid sensitive ecosystems. It calls for openness through release of data, third party verification of carbon uptake, and collaboration with the broader scientific community.
The key company that wants to dump iron all over the oceans? Planktos.
Indeed, they are investing 2 million to dump 100 tons of pulverized iron this November for the first time. The money quote
“We think of ourselves as an ecological restoration company, and the end results of our company will be beneficial in lots of different ways — including economic ways,” said Bill Coleman, Planktos’ COO and head of marketing.
But as you might expect not all is well. Rick mentions that Friends of the Earth, WWF, ETC Group, Greenpeace, and several Galapagos-based conservation groups (among others) have raised numerous concerns. Moreover John Cullen, oceanographer and phytoplankton researcher, notes
“There was no scientific consensus of what the effects of widespread fertilization would be. It’s been possible to qualify what happened during the course of the experiments, but none of the experiments have been able to quantify the long-term and downstream effects”… “The proposal is to fundamentally alter the chemistry and biology of the ocean on a grand scale. You have to be able to measure those effects and verify them, and be able to say that other, counteracting effects did not occur. They have to be able to quantify secondary effects for 100 years, and there’s no way that can be scientifically verified.”
Planktos disagrees saying that they are doing “the world a favor” by increasing plankton production which is “in a decline”. AND “there’s nothing unnatural about adding an ingredient that has gone missing from the oceans’ natural processes.” But potential problems could be
- Lack of ability to quantify the long-term and downstream effects
- Potential anoxic or hypoxic conditions of the seafloor below fertilization
- Enhanced release of nitrous oxide with 200x the greenhouse gas potential of CO2 during the decomposition of organisms.
- Lack of predictability of the amount carbon dioxide that will actually sink to the seafloor and how long it will be sequestered there.
- Potential of iron filing supply to be contaminated. via Rick
- Potential for harmful algal blooms.via Rick