Alternative motives and views of the players

Views vary across the spectrum, from enthusiasm to hostility.

Those for:

• Commercial venturers, hoping to profit by carbon-trading
• Governments of nations reliant on burning fossil-fuels. They enthusiastically support proposals allowing them to offset emissions, without damaging their economies.

• Fisheries anticipate increased catches. Over-harvested fish-stocks are declining, so proposals which potentially increase the ocean-food supply are welcomed.

Oceanographers

Oceanographers, who have conducted (most) iron-fertilisation experiments, have opposing views.

• Geo-engineers are searching for ways to limit global warming. They are investigating many alternatives, including ocean iron-enrichment. Some oceanographers consider the proposal a means of safely mimicking natural processes seen in the geological record, and are supportive of non-commercial artificial ocean fertilisation
• Some of those involved with marine ecology and inter-linkage of planetary systems, and conscious of our incomplete knowledge, are deeply concerned. Even if it would work - and many doubt this - many feel that the unknown side-effects represent a risk too far
• Some fear pursuance of this research directs limited funding away from other, potentially more effective and acceptable, projects
• Scientists are in constant need of limited funding. Although I found nothing by oceanographers openly supporting commercial iron-fertilisation, some sit on commercial Advisory Boards.

Against:

• Oceanographers, as above
• Environmental pressure groups, such as Greenpeace
• I believe the main-swell of public opinion would be against "messing with the oceans"
• Governments, concerned with public pressure and votes

"Where they may be going wrong"

• The scheme may not work (see 'Evidence' and the FAQ)
• Regardless of success in altering the atmosphere, artificial iron fertilisation would have repercussions throughout the oceans. The ocean-system is a crucial component of the 'Earth-systems' of which we know so little. We have only got one to 'experiment' with, and cannot afford to break it.
• Arguments that small-scale fertilisations would have insignificant harmful effect are disingenuous. To produce a significant climatic effect, fertilisations must be large-scale and continuous.

Home Page Home.htm

Overview and introduction Introduction.htm

** Current Page ** Alternative.htm

Evidence - Natural Ocean Iron Fertilisation Evidence.htm

Evidence - Experimental Expeditions Experiments.htm

FAQ FAQ.htm

Solution and Conclusion Solution.htm