Frequently Asked Questions - Is it Legal? Is it Safe? Does it Work?

Is it Legal?

International legislation has protected the oceans since 1958, with the "Law of the Sea", various Antarctica treaties, and coastal nations' own legislation (covering 200-mile exclusion zones).

The London Convention (1972) 'protects the marine environment from unregulated dumping of waste'. It forbids dumping pollutants – but not purposeful release. Technically, atmospheric carbon dioxide could be considered an industrial pollutant: a tenuous notion, rejected by the US. [1].

While protecting, these treaties encourage scientific research, and lucrative offers tempt smaller island-nations for access to their coastal-waters.

Furthermore, there is no legal framework to demand a full environmental impact assessment for the activity. Whilst academic researchers need to address responsibilities, risks and possible benefits at an international level (for large-scale projects), no such requirement constrains private companies.

Is it Safe?

The ocean is turbulent and boundless. Control and reliable monitoring of large-scale iron-additions is simply not possible. Attempting to 'engineer' oceanic biogeochemistry with incomplete understanding is fraught with known, and unknown, dangers.

From surface to seafloor:

Is the added iron safe?

Despite stringent legal restrictions of what-can-be-dumped, the presumed good intent of those involved, and assurances of 'high-street fertiliser' harmlessness, the patented proposals still raise concern. Added compounds to prevent iron-precipitation do not mimic natural iron. [2]

Is Marine Ecology Affected?

By design, fertilisation will increase phytoplankton, the base of the marine food chain. Consumed by krill and other marine animals, this increased food-supply could 'filter-up' to boost stocks of other marine life.

However, experiments show that artifical iron fertilisation causes community (species composition) change.

Disruption of the food chain's base will cause repercussions throughout, and may disturb dependencies. Furthermore, changed communities could be undesirable, or even toxic.

Are ecological effects limited to the fertilised areas?

As iron-limitation is removed, other nutrients (nitrates, phosphorous, silicates) – are 'used up' by phytoplankton in the fertilised patch. Down-current communities reliant on their availability consequently suffer. Artificially increasing phytoplankton in some areas may simply move production up-current, disrupting existent ecologies while providing no overall increase.

What happens below the surface?

As atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide increase, so too does ocean-uptake. Marine organisms (e.g. coccoliths and corals) are already suffering from seawater's consequent increasing acidity.

If, as has been emphatically proved, iron-fertilisation produces more phytoplankton, at least some will sink. Its aerobic decomposition will generates carbon dioxide, which will worsen the acidity problem.

Deeper, anoxic zones will form. Anoxic bacteria produce methane and nitrous oxide, which are both more powerful greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide (24x, 206x, respectively). Thus, increased phytoplankton-decay could produce additional, potent, greenhouse gases.

On the sea floor, a small proportion of organic carbon may get buried. Most will remain in suspension or dissolved in the water, later upwelling. Its removal from the surface is thus only temporarily.

Will it Work?

Despite early enthusiasm following first experiments, doubts are growing re the proposal's efficacy:

How much (additional) carbon will be sequestered long-term?

This is the key question: but we have no way to monitor or measure it. Thus far, only one experiment (SEEDS) has shown increased 'particulate carbon' sinking below the surface-waters. Of that reaching the ocean-floor, only a fraction would be buried, and we cannot measure how much.

Ken Buesseler has likened attempts to sequester carbon dioxide by increasing phytoplankton productivity to terrestrial sequestration by growing grass, rather than forests[3].

Does increased phytoplankton really lead to atmospheric cooling?

Some species of phytoplankton absorb solar radiation, which decreases the Earth's albedo. Satellite temperature images indicate oceans teeming with phytoplankton are warmer than they would otherwise be. Increasing phytoplankton may have the exact reverse effect than that intended. [4]

How Much Iron?

Given the difficulties of monitoring and scaling-up laboratory bottle-experiments, no-one can really say.

What is the British Stand?

We are actively investigating means of reducing atmospheric carbon-dioxide, and following experimental iron-fertilisations. However, Michael Meacher (as Environment Minister) stated "it unlikely that it would become an acceptable option in the foreseeable future".[5]

We had scientists onboard both the SOIREE and EisenEx expeditions.

What does it Cost?

Estimates based on scaling-up bottle experiments (rather easier to control than the ocean) suggest a financial cost of US$1-5 per tonne [6].

The cost to the marine ecology is uncountable – and if we damage a crucial link in the planetary system, it could "cost the Earth" - quite literally.

References:

[1] Bush Administration: Carbon Dioxide Not a Pollutant. (Knight Ridder News Service - August 29, 2003 By Seth Borenstein) http://www.greenhousenet.org/news/AUG-03/carbondioxide.html

[f1] - from "The Law of the Sea, London Convention and Kyoto Accord as It relates to ocean Enrichment" , April 25th 2001, ASLO (American Society of Limnology and Oceanography) Ocean Fertilization Symposium http://www.aslo.org/meetings/carbon2001/index.html

[2] "Dis-Crediting Ocean Fertilization" Chisholme et al. "Science" Volume 294, Number 5541, Issue of 12 Oct 2001, pp. 309-310.

[3] Climate Change: Will Ocean Fertilization Work? Ken O. Buesseler and Philip W. Boyd. Science, Volume 300, Number 5616, Issue of 4 Apr 2003, pp. 67-68.

[4] "Scripps Research Gives Tiny Phytoplankton a Large Role in Earth's Climate System". Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Press release, November 6, 2002. http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/pressreleases/frouin_phytoplankton.cfm

[5] New Scientist vol 173 issue 2326. 19 January 2002, page Page 53. Westminster Diary

[6] See Introduction(refs 2,3) for $1-2 estimate. See "Climate Engineering: A critical review of proposals, their scientific and political context, and possible impacts", compiled for Scientists For Global Responsibility, November 1996. Ben Matthews. Section 2.3.5 for $5-estimate.

Climate Engineering, Ben Matthews, 1996 http://www.chooseclimate.org/cleng/cleng.html

[f2] "Is Ocean Fertilization Credible and Creditable?" Science. Volume 296, Number 5567, Issue of 19 Apr 2002, pp. 467-468.

Home Page Home.htm

Overview and Introduction Introduction.htm

Alternative Views and Protagonists Alternative.htm

Evidence - Natural Ocean Iron Fertilisation Evidence.htm

Evidence - Experimental Ocean Iron Fertilisation Experiments.htm

** Current Page ** FAQ.htm

Solution and Conclusion Solution.htm