Science

11° London Hi 14°C / Lo 8°C

Row over scheme to 'fertilise' oceans

Scientists plan to dump iron in sea to feed plankton

By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor

Scientists are planning this week to start a highly controversial experiment in changing the composition of the oceans, in apparent contravention of international law.

The experiment – to be conducted in the Southern Ocean – aims to create a bloom of plankton so big that it will be visible from outer space. But, at the last minute, the scheme has sailed into an international storm as environmentalists have called for it to be abandoned. The researchers – mainly from Germany and India, but including two Britons – plan to add some 20 tons of iron sulphate to a 186-square-mile patch of ocean about half way between Cape Horn and the Cape of Good Hope, to demonstrate a way both of combating global warming and of saving the whale.

As the waters are short of iron, this is expected to lead to an explosive growth of plankton, which will take up carbon dioxide from the air. The scientists hope that, when the plankton die and their bodies sink deep into the ocean, they will take the carbon with them, keeping it out of the atmosphere for centuries. Applied on a large enough scale, they believe this could help stave off climate change, while increasing food for whales. Commercial firms have already announced plans to make money from such schemes.

But other scientists are deeply concerned that the practice could have devastating unintended effects on the oceans, including killing off large areas of sea, and releasing methane and nitrous oxide, which are even more potent causes of global warming. They also fear that the plankton could absorb sunlight, heating up surface waters and hastening climate change.

Last May the UN's Convention on Biological Diversity banned the practice, allowing exceptions only for "small-scale scientific research studies within coastal waters". Nevertheless, the expedition – jointly organised by the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Bremerhaven and the National Institute of Oceanography in Goa, India – set off this month.

Alarmed environmentalists, led by the Canada-based ETC Group, urged Germany's Environment Minister, Sigmar Gabriel, to stop the experiment. The German government suspended it while legal and environmental reviews were carried out, and the scientists expect to hear the result early this week.

Dr Richard Lampitt of the University of Southampton's National Oceanography Centre, which has two scientists on board, says: "We desperately need to make this sort of experiment if we are going to make rational decisions in the future."

The Alfred Wegener Institute accuses objectors of "indulging in disruptive activities merely to draw attention to themselves".

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Iron fetilisation
[info]dr_gm wrote:
Sunday, 25 January 2009 at 02:21 pm (UTC)
These sort of experiments have actually been undertaken for at least the past 8 years. Meso-scale iron fertilisation experiments have been conducted in places such as the Southern Ocean and the effects have been observed with satellite imagery. I'm surprised to read that the UN are only allowing exceptions within coastal waters - since the whole point of iron fertilisation is to provide a missing vital nutrient for plankton in waters that do not already possess it i.e. the Southern Ocean and NOT coastal waters that typically are already abundant in iron and thus plankton! - who advises these people?!

These are important scientific experiments to allow us to understand the Earth/Ocean/Atmosphere system but I do, however, find the prospect of any future commercial, industrial scale operations quite frightening!
- all the more reason to conduct proper scientific experiments.
IPCC dont want a solution
[info]pugshoes wrote:
Sunday, 25 January 2009 at 11:45 pm (UTC)
The global warmers dread a solution to the supposed AGW, as it will put them all out of business.
Biochar
[info]redroseandy wrote:
Monday, 26 January 2009 at 06:39 am (UTC)
There is no need for high tech ways of reversing global warming. 10% of all trees and plants die each year. If we turn this all into charcoal and bury the charcoal we can offset all our CO2 emissions. The process creates fuel and heat that can generate electricity. Low tech is always best.
Re: Biochar
[info]evilviolist wrote:
Monday, 26 January 2009 at 01:12 pm (UTC)
Will it take energy to gather, transport, concentrate, and then make charcoal out of wood? Isn't the process for charcoal to burn it inefficiently slowly for weeks? I think all that will render the method, um, inefficient.
It's not nice to fool mother nature
[info]blue_zen wrote:
Monday, 26 January 2009 at 09:30 am (UTC)
I am tired of know-it-all scientists playing God with the Earth. How many "good intentions" do we have to clean up before someone says enough is enough?

I'm all for experimenting with new techniques, but I am tired of scientists not thinking through ALL the implications of their actions. The Earth is in a fine tuned balance and God made it that way for a reason. We should not presume to know all there is about the effects of dumping so much iron into a specific section of ocean.

More research and system modeling is needed before they commit the entire world to their beliefs. How arrogant they are!
Re: It's not nice to fool mother nature
[info]karmashark wrote:
Wednesday, 28 January 2009 at 07:04 pm (UTC)
Erm, I think the idea of these small scale experiements *is* to figure out "ALL the implications of their actions." It's not always possible to do so just by thinking - if only it were!

"More research and system modeling is needed before they commit the entire world to their beliefs. How arrogant they are!" - Yeah, again, it would appear that more research is exactly what they are trying to do, so I'd suggest that they are not, in fact, displaying much arrogance in this regard.
Re: It's not nice to fool mother nature
[info]colinru wrote:
Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 12:52 pm (UTC)
The point of this work IS to obtain data before deciding if it is safe to proceed to larger-scale experiments. So your claim of arrogance is incorrect.

If God made the Earth in a fine tuned balance then he is a rum cove with a wandering mind - in the geologic past he has disrupted the balance dramatically by means of Solar changes, Tectonic Plate movements, massive Volcanism, Meteroite Impacts etcetera.
keep it controlled
[info]midnight_j wrote:
Monday, 26 January 2009 at 10:03 am (UTC)
I do think that these kinds of tests need to be done to find out if this can act as a way to partially help offset our destructive habits but i agree that the idea of turning this (or any geo-engineering on our only planet) into a for-profit industry is scary and i think it completely misses the point, which is to save our species from itself, not make the wealthy, wealthier, as is so often the case.

and this, if it works, will only be a small portion of what is needed.

we require many solutions working together, (low and high tech), especially since 'wealthy' people are generally so unwilling to sacrifice any of their comforts.
It's all getting sillier by the day...
[info]cheshire_red wrote:
Monday, 26 January 2009 at 01:41 pm (UTC)

More lunacy from the global waming crowd, then. Havent they ever heard of the law of unintended consequence? This madcap scheme has disaster written all over it and shouldn't even be considered. Imagine if someone from an oil company decided to try this, the Indy would be squealing from the rooftops to prevent it.

Perhaps the eco-lobby could invest in some new thermometers and satelites to measure global temperatures properly, (as it appears those nice chaps down in Anrartica need some) then they'd discover that there is no panic and we're not facing 'climate catastrophe'.

PS customer feedback to the Indy about this new style comment section: It's erm, lousy. Absolutely terrible. Just thought you'd like to know.
[info]nightside242 wrote:
Monday, 26 January 2009 at 08:01 pm (UTC)
This plan is ridiculous, it encourages people and governments to be lazy with regards to recycling and emissions targets, safe in the knowledge that 'science will have the answer'. Interference on this level can only have negative consequences.
Global Warming & The Plancton Potties
[info]global_angel wrote:
Tuesday, 27 January 2009 at 11:03 pm (UTC)
I wish folks would realise that the earth warming up is a natural phenomenon and that politicians are just using this natural process to impose unfair taxes on people. CO2 is 0.015% if that, of the air that we breath. During the industrial revolution CO2 levels did not increase even though the atmosphere was full of dirt from mining and coal fired chimneys and machinery etc.
During Medieval times the earth went through a mini ice age and temperatures dropped dramatically. Between now and then at one time the earth was 3 degrees centigrade hotter than it is at the moment. This period enjoyed an increase in the production of crops and afterwards the earth cooled natuarally and continued to go through the warm and cool cycles through which it has always travelled.
I understand that many of the scientists who signed up to Al Gore's IPPC document which stated that human kind is the cause of Global Warming, were told that they would not recive thier research grants if they did not agree with what the US government wanted them to sign. This is yet another tax imposed on people by the unconcienable actions of crooked governments.
Plankton Growth
[info]global_angel wrote:
Tuesday, 27 January 2009 at 11:12 pm (UTC)
I suspect that this is exactly the type of 'experiment' which can get out of control. The next thing that will happen will be another 'ice age' bought on by the overgrowth of uncontrollable plankton as a result. No doubt the tax payer will then have to pay to clear this up.

I sincerely belive that CO2 is being made into an issue simply because it is something which governments can tax.

I do not think that we need to have experiments to help us understand how the Earth/Ocean/Atmosphere works, it has managed to 'work' for millions of years without our interference. If we need to know about the earth/oceans/atmosphere then we must study it further without doing things which we do not fully understand the consequences of.
CSK001
[info]singh001 wrote:
Tuesday, 3 February 2009 at 11:34 am (UTC)
Hi,
Thank you very much for this useful information. Please keep updating me on this.

CSK
Flat Fee MLS
Thanks
[info]singh001 wrote:
Tuesday, 3 February 2009 at 11:35 am (UTC)
HI,
Thanks for this useful information. I'm a new one in this forum. I must appreciate the tools provided by you. Please keep updating me in this regard.

CSK
Flat Fee MLS
Smaller scale
[info]henry3678 wrote:
Saturday, 14 February 2009 at 01:57 am (UTC)
Isn't there a way that scientists can "experiment" with this on a much smaller scale, so that if something does go wrong, we don't kill everything living in the ocean? I would have a difficult time supporting something of such a tremendous size, I mean this could be really good or really bad and if it turns out really bad then what?

----------------------------------------
Chris
real estate license
Whale fall
[info]damnfools123 wrote:
Monday, 16 February 2009 at 08:16 pm (UTC)
This doesn't replace whale fall.It's estimated 69,000 whales die a year in turnover. Though commercial counts are exaggerated.It use to be several hundred thousand. The oceans have not had that nutrition source for near a hundred years.Most died old cold painless deaths in the cooler oceans.A whale carcass lasts as a nutrition supply near a hot vent for 4 to 8 decades and in other places lasts for decades.That nutrition travelled the globe on currents once upon a time feeding a maze of micro biology that has fitted in and balanced for millions of years.
It takes a pen stroke to reverse that matter.Where nuclear will take decades longer to have any effect if at all.Especially with a dying ocean.The other matter of this was the tonnage of whale feaces that fed ,that doesn't exist any more.This matter has the capability to layer crust on the floor and all data needed can be done in test tanks with more figures and knowledge of what is going on.
The matter appears to be involved in cashing in on the carbon credit scheme and contracts that has the public paying for the already rich to pollute even more.
Nothing will restore balance like fixing the ocean . Matters of co2 and methane and nuclear and warming or cooling have dead ends in the theories and fearmongering.The only thing that has fully traceable and understandable science connected to it is Whale fall.
The rates, morals and scruples-and absolute idiocy of the dawning industrial era should not be repeated this century.That time was mans prime and height on earth, we have crashed the gate onto the downhill.That is the time and condition to aim for with restoration. Because the matters of whale wall, shark finning etc and other assoc matters are not addressed ,the only conclusion is that the matter of co2 etc is not even addressed in sincerity by the industries that are selling it with the rest of the global agenda. A display of the idiocy above.
Scheme to 'fertilise' oceans
[info]jelly_knight wrote:
Wednesday, 17 June 2009 at 01:12 pm (UTC)
Doing scientific research is important, but there have to be enough evidence to allow it on such a big scale. We can expect to ?fertilise? a part of the Ocean, effects can be devastating and could change marine life forever. We all know that traces of lead and even mercury are found in seals in the Arctic, we know it didn?t originate there; it was carried over thousands of miles. Did we not learn enough from Earth? We have over fertilised our Earth, overpowered Mother Nature and now we are ready to destroy our Oceans? Can they guarantee that it will not harm marine life and will not get out of control? I don?t think so. Jell from buy to let mortgage.

Most popular