HSRC
Workers on a Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation boat release iron sulphate into the Pacific Ocean.
When a chartered fishing boat strewed 100 tonnes of iron sulphate into the ocean off western Canada last July, the goal was to supercharge the marine ecosystem. The iron was meant to fertilize plankton, boost salmon populations and sequester carbon. Whether the ocean responded as hoped is not clear, but the project has touched off an explosion on land, angering scientists, embarrassing a village of indigenous people and enraging opponents of geoengineering.
The first reports about the project, which appeared in British newspaper The Guardian on 15 October, presented it as a rogue geoengineering scheme — the largest in history — in “blatant violation” of international treaties. Critics suggested that Russ George, a US entrepreneur, had persuaded the Haida Nation village of Old Massett on the Queen Charlotte Islands to fund the project by promising that it would be possible to sell carbon credits for the carbon dioxide taken up by phytoplankton.
The reality was much more complex, and it underscores the combustible politics and uncertain science of geoengineering.
Contacted by Nature, George lashed out at the media and “radical environmentalists” for manufacturing a “racist” story about a maverick geoengineer taking advantage of naive natives. “This was their work and their project,” he says. “It is not the result of them being too stupid to know better.”
It is now clear that Old Massett, a fishing village of fewer than 1,000 people, embraced the project in hopes of restoring dwindling salmon runs by boosting phytoplankton and, in turn, the entire marine food web. Villagers voted in February 2011 to lend Can$2.5 million (US$2.5 million) to the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation (HSRC) to fertilize the ocean, says John Disney, head of the Old Massett-based corporation and economic-development officer for the village. George, who previously headed Planktos, a firm based in San Francisco, California, that had sought to commercialize ocean fertilization using iron, signed on as chief scientist after the HSRC approached him, says Disney. The company planned to repay the village for its loan by selling carbon credits to companies seeking to offset their greenhouse-gas emissions, he adds.
“We created life where there wasn’t life,” says Disney, adding that the fertilization fed a phytoplankton bloom of some 10,000 square kilometres, which attracted fish, birds and whales (see ‘Sowing controversy’). “The only difference between what we’ve done and what everybody else has done is that we’ve taken it up a notch.”
In fact, the Old Massett scheme dumped five times more iron than previous fertilization experiments. And no scientists outside the project have seen data that might show whether it worked as advertised. “I’m not going to condemn it offhand, but this is just not the way to do this experiment,” says Victor Smetacek, a marine biologist with the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Bremerhaven, Germany. “It’s quite sophisticated science, and it would have been good if scientists had carried it out.”
The project was also on uncertain legal grounds. Ocean fertilization is restricted by a voluntary international moratorium on geoengineering, as well as a treaty on ocean pollution. Both agreements include exemptions for research, and the treaty calls on national environment agencies to regulate experiments. Officials from Environment Canada say that the agency warned project leaders in May that ocean fertilization would require a permit.
“Environment Canada did not approve this non-scientific event,” environment minister Peter Kent told Parliament on 18 October. “Enforcement officers are now investigating.” The Canadian National Research Council gave nearly Can$70,000 in funding to the HSRC, and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration provided 20 buoys to help to monitor water conditions. But officials at those agencies say they were never informed of the ocean-fertilization project, and they thought that the work involved salmon ecology.
Jason Blackstock, a geoengineering expert at the University of Oxford, UK, says that the situation highlights the grey area between geoengineering to alter global climate, and local actions with other goals such as boosting salmon stocks or seeding clouds for weather modification. “This has the potential to become a ubiquitous problem,” says Blackstock.
The ETC Group, an advocacy organization based in Ottawa that has led a global drive against geoengineering, has suggested that George misrepresented the project’s potential to generate carbon credits. Documents from the Old Massett website imply that in raising funds, project leaders stressed the potential for easy carbon credits. One document, tied to a 2011 loan application, showed that bank managers were wary of the HSRC’s claims that the market for such carbon offsets was proven and that “retail outlets and banks in Germany are begging for the product”.
In fact, carbon credits from iron-fertilization projects cannot be offered on formal markets such as the European emissions trading system, although willing buyers might be found outside those markets. And whether iron fertilization actually sequesters carbon is uncertain. A study1 by Smetacek published in July — based on analysis of an experiment in 2004 — found that at least half of the carbon taken up by the iron-fertilized plankton was buried after they sank to the bottom of the sea. But other studies2 have found that carbon in the blooms remains in the active biological cycle and is not sequestered at all.
George says that the bankers were ultimately satisfied, and that carbon credits are no more than a possible source of future funding, if the science supports them. But in an initial interview, Disney repeatedly said that the company needs to sell the carbon credits quickly to repay its loan from the community. “Being the guy who sold this to the community, I bloody well better come up with the money,” he said. Disney later backed off his emphasis on carbon credits and stressed that he stands by George.
It is unclear whether the project will restore the salmon. A bumper run of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) in 2010 came two years after a volcanic eruption in Alaska sent a layer of iron-rich ash over the ocean, fertilizing a plankton bloom3. But many scientists remain sceptical.
Whether the Haida experiment worked won’t be known for two years, when the youngest of the salmon feeding in the ocean today return home to spawn. John Nightingale, president of the Vancouver Aquarium in Canada, says that will be a chance to glean some science from the project. The work may have lacked scientific rigour, he says, but the HSRC has now agreed to make all of its data available to scientists. It has “done something unique”, Nightingale says. “I want the maximum information, the maximum analysis, the maximum debate.”
- Journal name:
- Nature
- Volume:
- 490,
- Pages:
- 458–459
- Date published:
- ()
- DOI:
- doi:10.1038/490458a
<span style="line-height: 1.5;">I the performance of this experiment being declared geoengineering and thus taboo seems to ignore the many aspects of human impact on life since the bronze, silver and steel age with many examples such as irrigation.</span>
<span style="line-height: 1.5;">Rashani gooden,</span>
<a style="line-height: 1.5;" href="http://homestylerealty.net/">Homestyle</a>
This was an interesting read.. Would like to see more from this author!
Jeff Tollefson’s interesting article about the Ocean-fertilization project off Canada sparks furore. A chartered fishing boat strewed 100 tonnes of iron sulphate into the ocean off western Canada. The goal was to supercharge the marine ecosystem. The iron was meant to fertilize plankton, boost salmon populations and sequester carbon. <a href="http://www.windows7helpdesk.com">Windows 7 helpdesk</a>
I have to hand it to the writer of this post it was really a great read.
Keep up the good work writer from the guys at we do followers
Great read! I wonder if ocean fertilization is restricted by a voluntary international moratorium on geoÂengineering, as well as a treaty on ocean pollution because it just bad? LoL. Keep up the great work guise. <a href="http://www.dermavita.com/latisse">Latisse Seattle</a>
I just started reading you through your website and it shocked me to learn that this ocean fertilization project was causing such controversy videos . I hope there can be a mutual agreement between both parties.
This experiment shouldn't have taken place in the first time. As said before it will noy have any benefit but it will encourage the opponents of geoengineering. The government should intervene in that – boosting phytoplankton did anyone think of the consequences?refrigerators for sale
Thanks for mentioning that awesome project that suppose to help revive the environment.
This is very similar to the old refrigerator project we started here at the NSHB. You bring in
an <a href="http://fridgeadvisor.com/apartment-refrigerator/">old refrigerator</a> and get to buy a new one by a major discount. The old one is being dissimilated and buried in a trash center, to preserve the environment.
Mr.Andrew John Pelley
Email: andrewjohnpelley@yahoo.co.uk
Awesome project and a great idea. Its about time we, as humans start caring about our planet, the other animals who are living here. What we did until now is take, we have to start giving.Its irritating that Environment Canada did not approve this event. Why? Read my opinion Attract and love
Maybe this is the best solution! We should adapt it for many other area with good results! For sure we will see improvements in the future!
Thanks for your researched posting! I actually enjoyed reading it, you will be a great author.I will ensure that I bookmark your blog and will come back in the foreseeable future t h a n k s
Thanks for your researched posting! I actually enjoyed reading it, you will be a great author.I will ensure that I bookmark your blog and will come back in the foreseeable future <a href="http://suplemenx.com/">s</a><a href="http://onimov.com/">u</a><a href="http://moviezhd.info/">p</a><a href="http://timeforpopcorn.com/">e</a><a href="http://eliakosmetik.com/">r</a>
Really I impressed from this post. Post is a genius and knows how to keep the readers connected. thanks for sharing this with us. Epic Followers
I have fully watch that your information such a nice posting because its deeply thinking about this topic.. essay help
I have fully watch that your information such a nice posting because its deeply thinking about this topic.. <a href="http://www.essaylounge.com/">essay help</a>
Nice pic ... Thanks for taking the time to share this content on ocean fertilization with us.
Bridal Warehouse
How to Edit Videos
Fantastic one rich in information. I have been looking for such a post for a long time. Thanks again. yesRX
I have downloaded the pdf of the article based on ocean fertilization.Good summary here.
http://www.dermavita.com/laser-hair-removal Hair Removal
Awesome blog. I enjoyed reading your articles. This is truly a great read for me. I have bookmarked it and I am looking forward to reading new articles.Keep up the good work! joelocal
Fantastic and interesting which we talk about with you so i think so it is very useful and knowledgeable. I would like to thank you for the projects. I am tiring the same best execute from me later on as well.spring bed
This argument that geoengineering is taboo has the potential to or is becoming a tool for the regulatory interference of one agency upon the freedoms and or rights of another with an unfortunate predilection of committee based bureaucratic decision making non science based criteria. Anabelle Rosanda
This is interesting because project sponsors have yet shared the precise design, facts about the sampling frequency and aerial extent, the statistical techniques used, the sensitivity analysis conducted...whatever. Online Marketing
It is interesting to ponder the various impacts created by the town of Old Massett when they embraced the project in hopes of restoring dwindling salmon runs and how this impacted the entire marine food web. Lakeville MN
I think the performance of this experiment being declared geoengineering and thus taboo seems to ignore the many aspects of human impact on life since the bronze age with many examples such as irrigation.
Youselina,
Web Design
I think the attitudes of some of the scientific community are unfortunate as they give the impression that only they can do science. A more diplomatic expression of concern that observations and measurements are being neglected would be better. As for the performance of this experiment being declared geoengineering and thus taboo seems to ignore the many aspects of human impact on life since the bronze age with many examples such as irrigation, damming of rivers, the claiming of land for crops, historical over harvesting of wild fauna etc. etc. The accidental introduction of invasive species (ie zebra mussel in The Great Lakes and Lake Tahoe) provide for another example of something that could fall under geoengineering (sub category accidental or subversive if purposeful).
This argument that geoengineering is taboo has the potential to or is becoming a tool for the regulatory interference of one agency upon the freedoms and or rights of another with an unfortunate predilection of committee based bureaucratic decision making non science based criteria.
Ultimately, Canadians trying to revive a fishery in international waters near their coast need to be encouraged and cooperated with to help guide good means for good results. As opposed to being the victim of the kangaroo court of public opinion taking a stick to them for being proactive with good intentions.
Agricultural fertilization, combining mineral, synthetic petroleum based materials, along with biomass inputs, has been variously used over vast areas of the earth's land surface for thousands of years. Somehow, fertilizing a very small segment of the ocean (0.0003%, roughly) with a naturally abundant trace mineral is intrinsically 'bad' in comparison?
The presumption of this project being 'unscientific' with respect to design, sampling, data reduction, etc. would seem to be a proven fact - - assuming the various comments posted and articles published are sensible. This is interesting: as project sponsors have not yet shared the precise design, facts about the sampling frequency and aerial extent, the statistical techniques to be used, the sensitivity analysis to be conducted...whatever. So, how do those with such strong opinions know for a fact that the work is/was not scientifically useful? In the haste to accuse without a factual basis, jealousies, & prejudices can be revealed.
Finally, I would like to point out the absurdity of regarding iron sulfide as a hazardous material to be managed like a toxin (at the concentrations dispersed by the project). Quoting Nature.com: "Iron composes more than 30% of the Earth's mass, and is a ubiquitous element found in the atmosphere, biosphere, lithosphere, and hydrosphere. It is one of the most abundant elements on Earth and among the most important elements in the biosphere (Morgan & Anders 1980). It is an essential element for countless cellular processes and metabolic pathways in both eukaryotic and prokaryotic organisms. Yet despite its abundance, iron can be in short supply for growing organisms because it changes its chemical form, in ways that govern its availability...." http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/earth-s-ferrous-wheel-15180940
Agricultural fertilization, combining mineral, synthetic petroleum based materials, and biomass inputs to soil, has been variously used over vast areas of the earth's land surface for thousands of years. That's ok. But, somehow, fertilizing a very small segment of the ocean (0.0003%, roughly) with a naturally abundant trace mineral is intrinsically 'bad?'
The presumption of this project being 'unscientific' with respect to design, sampling, data reduction, etc. would seem to be a proven fact - - assuming the various comments posted are sensible. This is interesting because project sponsors have yet shared the precise design, facts about the sampling frequency and aerial extent, the statistical techniques used, the sensitivity analysis conducted...whatever. So how do those with such strong opinions know for a fact that the work is not scientifically useful. A haste to accuse without a factual basis, jealousies, & prejudices can be revealed.
Finally, I would like to point out the absurdity of regarding iron sulfide as a hazardous material to be managed like a toxin (at the concentrations dispersed by the project). Quoting Nature.com: "Iron composes more than 30% of the Earth's mass, and is a ubiquitous element found in the atmosphere, biosphere, lithosphere, and hydrosphere. It is one of the most abundant elements on Earth and among the most important elements in the biosphere (Morgan & Anders 1980). It is an essential element for countless cellular processes and metabolic pathways in both eukaryotic and prokaryotic organisms. Yet despite its abundance, iron can be in short supply for growing organisms because it changes its chemical form, in ways that govern its availability...." http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/earth-s-ferrous-wheel-15180940
We will see more of this kind of action. Technology driven fixes to environmental problems that are caused by our way of life seem evident to our way of thinking; possibly since we – and our mind – evolved as species. Increasing production by (over) fertilizing seems evident too; one may refer to recent article on agriculture yields in this same journal. The debate apparently triggered now possibly is a very fruitful consequence of this action.