Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 12 November 2007 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2007.230
News
Convention discourages ocean fertilization
International treaty aims to put rules on geoengineering.
The parties to the London Convention, an international treaty that governs ocean pollution, have agreed that large-scale ocean ‘fertilization’ isn't yet justified, given gaps in scientific knowledge.
The convention, which regulates activities such as the dumping of garbage at sea, had not previously taken a stand on the notion of throwing nutrients into the ocean with the intention of promoting plankton growth.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email redesign@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
Thank you for highlighting an important issue. International regulations are a fine idea, but at what point do those regulations simply become a way of banning further development of the science altogether? This is the stated goal of the environmental groups you quoted, and has been the default position of many of the influential marine scientists. In fact if you read the literature, it is clearly shown that scientists currently influencing this debate were attempting to block the entire line of research years ago...because they felt that the human race was incapable of being trusted with this technology. There are significant violations of scientific ethics and public trust in how this science has been developed, and sooner or later the public is going to become aware of them. None of these attempts at supression are going to work in the long run. Any number of large nations are studying this technology and will simply ignore the IMO position if they see, as they will see, that it is based not on scientific fact, but simply a poorly-concealed attempt to shut down the normal unfolding of a major scientific discover. The net result of this will be, the IMO and western environmental groups will have less influence, not more, as they will have destroyed whatever credibility they started with. Steve Kerry, Iron Fertilization Blog
I don't know enough about the subject, but my gut feel is that S Kerry is correct. The topic needs to be researched independently by several Oceanographic entities. Then and ONLY then should an international body step in with rules and regulations.
At moment, the sole respectful thing that "THE MAN" should do on the sea is nothing... Luciano D'Agostino, M.D.
It seems we should regard these experiments as similar to clinical trials, with the ocean ecosystem (and all the connections to the rest of the biosphere) as the patient. As such, it only makes sense to have at least as much oversight as one would expect for clinical trials
My feeling is that international oversight is very much needed, as we are dealing with something that is intended to change the Earth's climate! Obviously said oversight should not act as a choke-hold on the science, but neither should those who want to engage in these types of activities be allowed to do as they please unfettered by any rules, regulations, and/or oversight. If it is world that will be affected by this, then the people of the world one way or another should have a say in it.
Companies looking for sell carbon credits from this when the effects are still unknown and make a profit from the oceans, I thougth it was international waters and with a global dynamic such as the ocean it must be regulated for international bodies.
The ocean ecosystem is not sick. If anything is sick, more likely it is human's attitude.
1. Iron and nitrogen in warm ocean water? Aren't they known, strongly suspected if not absolutely concluded, as the agents for red algae that fume neurotoxins? 2. What is the poop dumping level in the ocean between Borneo and Phillippines now? I believe that they are called human wastes and farm runoffs. It is my understanding that the packed coast-line housings in rich countries are responsible for the increase in the nitrogen level of their coasts in general. 3. Haven't we done enough experiments with human wastes? Haven't you seen the fields of desolate dead grey corals? Warm water and blooming algae on the surface blocking sunlight and oxygen killing just about everything underneath and contaminating the coastlines? 4. If the plancktons are friendly to fish, wouldn't the growth of the plancktons feed the fish that blow out CO2? If the plancktons are too thick, then the fish and the plants underneath where the fish nest will be dead? How are they going to harvest the plancktons? If they aren't havested, then they will decay to produce CH4 and others right on the surface back to the air?
1. The main worldwide experiment is 30 000 000 000 tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year 2. Oceans loose more and more the ability to absorb CO2 3. Oceans are becoming more acidic because of CO2, some animals/corals have problems building their shells 4. Total amount of Plankton in the oceans is decreasing in the last time 5. Oceans content 50 to 60 times more CO2 then the atmosphere, hence the oceans are the playing the main role 6. Shortening of oil supply and further growth of China/India will increase the use of coal, hence we will see more CO2 being emitted, because coal is worse in terms of CO2 7. Look at the CO2 concentration records (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/), the rise of CO2 increases from top to top 8. Plankton is a) partially eaten up by the next food chain members, b) some of it will sink to the deep ocean. 9. The first effect a) increases the bound carbon in the oceans and can be compared to growing trees on land. The effect b) takes carbon out of the cycle for a long time, if it sinks below a certain depth 10. The effect b) is the important one, as it really takes out carbon each time again. Hence it makes no sence to do fertilization in shallow water!! 11. Plankton blooms are happening a lot of times natural, and they are huge. See home pages of named companies. 12. Natural processes are more powerfull, all our technical attempts will not work or work too late (CO2 concentration goes from top to top, not caring much for the Kyoto accord) We are not able to stop the experiment of the yearly 30 000 000 000 tonnes CO2 emissions, but we care a lot for 100 tonnes of totally benign iron-fertilizer. My recommendation: Don´t let us loose time and relativity her, there is almost no time left (IPCC remark). Support the experiments as much as possible and decide 5 years from now, if it works or not. In that time there might been 10 ships per year going out to do experiments. What do you think can this ships do wrong compared to the 30 Billion tonnes of CO2 with well accepted effects. We discussed already too much on this effects. We should have learned from that. Lets do something and decide with more data.