START STRONG 3 - STRONG PRAYERS - PTRA DONNA TARUN - 6:30PM EVENING SERVICE
22 3 Strong
-
Upload
sir-templar -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
0
Transcript of 22 3 Strong
8/8/2019 22 3 Strong
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/22-3-strong 1/26
Oceanography Vol.22, No.3236
Ocan
Flaon Scnc, Polc, an Coc
B y A A r O N L . S t r O N g , J O h N J . C u L L e N ,
A N d S A L L i e W . C h i S h O L m
S C i e N C e A N d P O L i C y F e At u r e
ABStrACt. Over the past 20 years there has been growing interest in theconcept o ertilizing the ocean with iron to abate global warming. Tis interest
was catalyzed by basic scientic experiments showing that iron limits primary
production in certain regions o the ocean. Te approach—considered a orm o
“geoengineering”—is to induce phytoplankton blooms through iron addition, with
the goal o producing organic particles that sink to the deep ocean, sequestering
carbon rom the atmosphere. With the controversy surrounding the most recent
scientic iron ertilization experiment in the Southern Ocean (LOHAFEX) and
the ongoing discussion about restrictions on large-scale iron ertilization activities
by the London Convention, the debate about the potential use o iron ertilization
or geoengineering has never been more public or more pronounced. o help
inorm this debate, we present a synoptic view o the two-decade history o iron
ertilization, rom scientic experiments to commercial enterprises designed to
trade credits or ocean ertilization on a developing carbon market. Troughout
these two decades there has been a repeated cycle: Scientic experiments are
ollowed by media and commercial interest and this triggers calls or caution and
the need or more experiments. Over the years, some scientists have repeatedly
pointed out that the idea is both unproven and potentially ecologically disruptive,
and models have consistently shown that at the limit, the approach could not
substantially change the trajectory o global warming. Yet, interest and investment
in ocean ertilization as a climate mitigation strategy have only grown and
intensied, ueling media reports that have misconstrued scientic results, and
conated scientic experimentation with geoengineering. We suggest that it is
time to break this two-decade cycle, and argue that we know enough about ocean
ertilization to say that it should not be considered urther as a means to mitigate
climate change. But, ocean ertilization research should not be halted: i used
appropriately and applied to testable hypotheses, it is a powerul research tool or
understanding the responses o ocean ecosystems in the context o climate change.
Oceanography Vol.22, No.3236
8/8/2019 22 3 Strong
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/22-3-strong 2/26
Oceanography Spb 2009 237
1 “LOhA” s hn o “on,” FeX sans o “Felaon Xpn.”
seeking to carry out large-scale ocean
ertilization activities to sell carbon-oset
credits in a carbon trading market. Tese ventures have been a cause o concern
or some scientists and several environ-
mental NGOs, who have argued that
claims o signicant carbon sequestration
are unsupported by scientic evidence,
and that large-scale iron ertilization
will, by design, prooundly alter marine
ecosystems (Chisholm et al., 2001;
Gnanadesikan et al., 2003; Cullen and
Boyd, 2008; Denman, 2008; EC Group
News Release, 2009; World Wildlie Fund
International, 2009). Tese concerns have
helped spur recent UN resolutions, which
were intended to restrict iron ertilization
activities to small-scale scientic research
(UN CBD, 2008; London Convention
Meeting Report, 2008).
As we describe below, the histories o
the scientic and commercial interests
in ocean iron ertilization (OIF) are
intimately connected—co-evolving and
transorming over time. In studying
this history, it becomes apparent that
despite the lack o experimental results
indicating that OIF would be eec-
tive or signicant climate mitigation,
iNtrOduCtiON
Over the 20 years since oceanographer
John Martin o Moss Landing MarineLaboratories quipped, “Give me hal
a tanker o iron, and I’ll give you an
ice age,” ertilization o the ocean with
iron has drawn increasing attention as
a potential geoengineering strategy or
carbon sequestration. As interest in the
idea has increased, so has the contro-
versy surrounding it. In January 2009,
major news services broadcast the
gripping story o the suspension o LOHAFEX1, an iron ertilization
experiment in the Southern Ocean.
Te research vessel Polarstern was
midway between South Arica and South
America when the German Research
Ministry put a halt to the experiment.
Te story was eatured in Wired maga-
zine (Keim, 2009) and on Reuters (Szabo,
2009) and the BBC (Morgan, 2009). A
blog headline covering the controversy
posed the question: “LOHAFEX—I
you mean well, are you allowed to screw
up the oceans?” (Campbell, 2009). Te
experiment drew immediate and intense
commentary rom environmental
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs),
one o which cast it as a violation o the
2008 United Nations (UN) Convention
on Biological Diversity’s moratorium on
iron ertilization activities (EC Group
News Release, 2009). Te international
press, including news articles in Science,
consistently reerred to LOHAFEX as
a “geoengineering project,” an experi-
ment designed to test the potential o
ocean iron ertilization to change global
climate (Kintisch, 2009).
Te LOHAFEX scientists, however,
deended their experiment as purely
scientic and consistent with relevantUN regulations. And, the Director o the
Alred Wegener Institute (AWI), which
sponsored LOHAFEX, deended the
scientic validity o the research, stating
that they “neither plan to nor want to
smooth the way or a commercial use o
iron ertilization with our expedition,”
and that they “oppose iron ertilization
with the aim to reduce CO2
to regulate
the climate” (AWI News, 2009). Aer
the German Research Ministry received
several independent environmental
assessments o LOHAFEX and an impact
statement rom the Indo-German
research crew on Polarstern, the green
light was given (AWI Press Release,
2009a): scientists commenced ertilizing
the Southern Ocean with 10 tonnes o
iron sulate on January 27, 2009.
At the core o the controversy over
LOHAFEX was the idea o using iron
ertilization to mitigate global climate
change by sequestering carbon dioxide
in the deep ocean. Over the last two
decades, this idea has attracted the
interest o several commercial ventures
…the hiStOrieS OF the SCieNtiFiC ANd
COmmerCiAL iNtereStS iN OCeAN irON
FertiLizAtiON (OiF) Are iNtimAteLy
CONNeCted—CO-eVOLViNg ANd
trANSFOrmiNg OVer time.“ ”
8/8/2019 22 3 Strong
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/22-3-strong 3/26
Oceanography Vol.22, No.3238
commercial interests have continued to
pursue and advance the idea, ueling a
cycle o media interest, ollowed by calls
or caution, and then proposals or more
research requiring longer and larger
experiments. Here we take a synoptic view o the two-decade history o this
cycle (Figure 1) to better understand
how the scientic and commercial
interests have become intertwined,
conated, and conused. We have much
to learn rom this history, as proposals
or research on other orms o geoen-
gineering are beginning to emerge
(Latham et al., 2008; Rasch et al., 2008).
hiStOry OF PuBLiC-
SeCtOr SCieNtiFiC OCeAN
FertiLizAtiON eXPerimeNtS
t “ion hposs”
While the idea that iron limitation might
control productivity in certain areas o
the ocean has been around since the
mid-1920s (Hart, 1934) i not beore
(de Baar, 1994), the contemporary
history o ocean iron ertilization and the
“iron hypothesis” is attributed to John
Martin. During a 1988 lecture at the
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution,
Aar L. Sr is Research Assistant,
Department o Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Massachusetts Institute
o Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA.
J J. Cll ([email protected])
is Killam Chair o Ocean Studies,
Department o Oceanography, Dalhousie
University, Haliax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Salli W. Cisl ([email protected]) is
Martin Proessor o Environmental Studies,
Department o Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Department o Biology,
Massachusetts Institute o Technology,
Cambridge, MA, USA.
F 1. tln o ocan on
laon xpns OiF,
pva sco ns n ,
an polc vlopns.
8/8/2019 22 3 Strong
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/22-3-strong 4/26
Oceanography Spb 2009 239
F 2. rlaonsp bwn F an CO2
concnaons o
Vosok c cos. Ater Martin (1990b)
Martin amously quipped, “Give me
hal a tanker o iron, and I’ll give you
an ice age” (Martin, 1990a). Reerring
to shipboard experiments on samples
o seawater, and ice core data showing a
relationship between atmospheric irondust deposition and atmospheric CO
2
concentrations over the past 160,000
years (Figure 2), Martin developed a
two-part hypothesis. First, he argued
that the “high nutrient, low chlorophyll”
(HNLC) regions o the ocean could be
explained by iron limitation (i.e., surace
nitrate and phosphate concentrations
were not depleted because additional
phytoplankton growth was limited by iron). Second, he argued that i iron
did indeed control the productivity o
HNLC waters, and thus the transport o
organic carbon to the deep sea via the
so-called biological pump (Figure 3), it
could explain the observed relationship
between atmospheric iron dust deposi-
tion and atmospheric CO2
during the
last glacial maximum (Martin, 1990b).
He also commented that this “paleo-
iron” hypothesis could be important,
because intentional oceanic iron ertil-
ization could prove an eective method
o drawing down atmospheric CO2
“should the need arise” (Martin et al.,
1990; see Box 1).
Using ultra-clean experimental
approaches with seawater incubated on
the deck o a ship, Martin’s team success-
ully demonstrated that iron addition
could stimulate phytoplankton growth
in bottled samples collected rom the
HNLC Gul o Alaska (Martin et al.,
1989) and the HNLC Southern Ocean
(Martin et al., 1990). Wide acceptance o
the iron hypothesis would require tests
on open waters, however. Tough, sadly,
Martin did not live to see it, in 1993 his
colleagues carried out the rst open-
ocean mesoscale (i.e., more than several
kilometers on a side) iron ertilization
experiment, “IronEx I,” in equatorial
Pacic HNLC waters (Figure 4). Te
results demonstrated a phytoplankton
bloom in response to iron addition,
but they were conounded when the
ertilized patch was subducted under
low-density water (Martin et al., 1994).
Tus, several hypotheses remained
untested (Cullen, 1995).
Armed with this experience, a second
experiment, IronEx II, was organized
in May 1995—again in the equatorial
Pacic. Tis time, a 72-km2 patch was
ertilized serially three times over the
course o one week. Tis experiment
demonstrated a strong phytoplankton
response to iron addition in these
HNLC waters, prompting the authors
to conclude that “it is now time to
regard the ‘iron hypothesis’ as the
‘iron theory’” (Coale et al., 1996). Te
authors suggested that the logical next
step was to conduct an experiment in
the Southern Ocean as this is “where
most o the HNLC waters are ound and
where paleoclimate coherence between
iron ux and carbon export has been
observed” (Coale et al., 1996).
t Nx ron o expns:
Cabon Sqsaon
Bcos hposs
Over the ve years rom 1999 to 2004,
eight more major open-ocean iron ertil-
ization experiments would take place in
the Southern Ocean and subarctic Pacic
HNLC regions (Figure 4; able 1). Tese
experiments sought, or the most part,
to track the ate o carbon xed in iron-
induced blooms. As such, they became
increasingly ocused on the question o
carbon export rom the surace waters,
as this is what is necessary to draw CO2
out o the atmosphere and transport it
into the deep sea. At the same time, as
interests in OIF or carbon sequestra-
tion were taking o (see below), the
scientic language began to morph:
increasingly, “carbon export” became
8/8/2019 22 3 Strong
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/22-3-strong 5/26
Oceanography Vol.22, No.3240
“carbon sequestration” (Boyd et al., 2000,
2004; Buesseler et al., 2004), a term
used in the US Department o Energy
(DOE) climate mitigation vocabulary
(Department o Energy, 1999). Tis
shi in language contributed to blurring
the lines between the basic and applied
science dimensions o OIF.
An analysis o the “post-IronEx”
mesoscale experiments illuminates the
evolution o hypotheses that motivated
them (able 1; see de Baar et al., 2005,
and Boyd et al., 2007, or reviews). Te
new ocus on the Southern Ocean began
with the Southern Ocean Iron Release
Experiment (SOIREE) and the European
Iron Enrichment Experiment (EisenEx;
Boyd et al., 2000; Smetacek, 2001),
and placed more emphasis on longer-
duration experiments tracking particle
export, remineralization, and changes in
zooplankton communities. Both experi-
ments conrmed the hypothesis o iron
limitation o primary production in
the HNLC Southern Ocean. Although
diatom production increased in response
to iron addition in the SOIREE patch,
carbon export did not (Boyd et al., 2000).
EisenEx also demonstrated a diatom
bloom, and measured a larger net atmo-
spheric CO2
drawdown than SOIREE,
but storms interrupted the experiment
and the ate o xed carbon could not
be tracked (Assmy et al., 2007). A year
later, SEEDS-I (Subarctic Pacic Iron
Experiment or Ecosystem Dynamics
Study) conrmed that productivity
was limited by iron in the HNLC
region o the western subarctic Pacic,
F 3. Cabon ox a wol
ows b n aosp s
so n p sa bcas
bolocal pp ps an kps
. Poplankon n l
sac la ak p nns
.., na an pospa an
ow, convn CO2 o oanca a ls an oo wbs.
So o oanc ao
xapl, snscn poplankon,
cal plls, an aa bs
snks o p ocan w
coposs, lasn CO2
an
nns wl consn oxn.
Wn ocan cabon ccl s
ol n balanc, s cabon an
nnc p wa os no
ac sac o cas o
ns o as, an wn os,
bolocal pocv conss
CO2 an nns an sns C, N,an P back o p was as snkn
oanc a. T aon o CO2
s so n p sa lal
cospons o aon o ajo
nns N an P cons n
l sac la o ocan.
Wn on ls pocv, N an
P pss w woln’ o
ws; on laon s allva,
ajo nns a cons, o
oanc a s poc, an o
cabon snks o p sa. Ts xa cabon assoca w a on naal o nnonal
col b cons sqsaon. B aon an aon o cabon sqsaon pns on ow
p oanc a snks bo s copos an w o no on s sll avalabl n xcsswn cabon an nnnc was ac sac aan. Figure modifed rom Chisholm (2000)
8/8/2019 22 3 Strong
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/22-3-strong 6/26
Oceanography Spb 2009 241
documenting a oristic shi toward
diatom production. Carbon export was
not measured (suda et al., 2005).
Te next set o experiments were
designed to be larger and longer, with
the hope that this would allow better
tracking o the ate o iron-induced
blooms. Te Southern Ocean Iron
Experiment (SOFeX), a multi-part,
multi-ship iron ertilization expedi-
tion, set out to address hypotheses
about carbon export as inuenced by
silicate availability in the context o
iron-induced blooms (Coale et al., 2004).
SOFeX produced the rst conclusive
measurement o enhanced particulate
organic carbon (POC) export resulting
rom an intentional iron-ertilization-
induced bloom (Buesseler et al.,
2004). Although POC export rom the
iron-enriched patch was elevated, the
incremental ux was small compared
to those observed during a natural iron
ertilization event in the same location
in 1998 (Buesseler et al., 2001). Te
authors concluded that the observed
carbon ux was small relative to what
would be required by proposed geoengi-
neering plans to sequester carbon using
iron ertilization, but they stressed that
they had not been able to observe the
termination o the iron-induced bloom
(Buesseler et al., 2004).
Te Subarctic Ecosystem Response
to Iron Enrichment Study (SERIES)
expedition ollowed. Conducted over a
month in the subarctic Pacic, a 77-km2
iron-enriched patch was created and
POC export ux monitored (Boyd
et al., 2004). Te decline and termina-
tion o the iron-induced bloom (caused
by silicate limitation) was observed.
Te majority o the carbon xed in
SERIES was remineralized by bacteria
and zooplankton grazing in the surace
waters. Only a small raction (8%) o
the xed carbon sank below the 120-m
permanent pycnocline, signicantly
lower than the deep-export rate observed
in natural blooms (Buesseler, 1998).
Further, the iron content (Fe:C) o the
exported material was a thousandold
higher than that assumed in assess-
ments o the efciency and cost o OIF
or climate mitigation. Noting increased
attention to the idea o iron ertilization
or geoengineering, Boyd et al. (2004)
argued that “inefcient vertical transer
o carbon may limit the eectiveness o
iron ertilization as a mitigation strategy.”
Te European Iron Fertilization
Experiment (EIFEX), conducted in
2004 and the longest iron ertilization
experiment to date, was also designed to
evaluate the carbon export response and
community shis in a Southern Ocean
iron-induced bloom (Homann et al.,
2006). Biomass export resulting rom
the sinking o an iron-induced bloom
represented the highest ratio o carbon
exported to added iron to date (Jacquet
et al., 2008). At the same time, SEEDS-II
a second subarctic Pacic experiment,
detected no signicant bloom response
to iron enrichment (suda et al., 2007).
Box 1. T PaloCla Poon o ion hposs: Sll an Opn Qson
rcnl, so palocanoaps av call no qson casal lnk bwn aospc s poson an low aospc CO2
an s a cool cla n las lacal ax. Kol al. 2005 anal ol o bolocal pp n lacal CO2
aw
own sn sn cos, o xapl. T aa nca a n la poons o Son Ocan, xpo pocv was acall
low n las lacal axxacl n a po o ncas s x. T s a a on laon o s col
no av bn soll sponsbl o CO2
awown Kol al., 2005.
usn s pocv aa an os o os Paan al., 1996; Anson al., 2008 an copan o s x cos o
Wnckl al. 2008, Anson al. 2007 psn an an a s no colaon n palocanoapc aa bwn s
x an ncas xpo pocv n qaoal Pacfc o Son Ocan. Wl aa o sow a son ancolaon
bwn s x an CO2 , a a s no vnc a s cas CO
2awown. T casal n o
onal c co aa F 2 as bn a cnal a n an o OiF o onnn, an, a v las, s cn a
ns qsonn a casal sv o anon an sac Anson al., 2007. Alna poss ncl son nncs
o cann wn pans on ovnn o cabonc son p wa towl al., 2006.
8/8/2019 22 3 Strong
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/22-3-strong 7/26
Oceanography Vol.22, No.3242
wo other experiments were
conducted in 2004 to test additional
biogeochemical hypotheses using
iron enrichment. Te Surace-Ocean
Lower-Atmosphere Studies Air-Sea Gas
Exchange (SAGE) experiment in the
sub-Antarctic Pacic o New Zealand
sought to understand the eects o iron
addition on air-sea gas exchange, partic-
ularly dimethylsulde (DMS). DMS
plays a role in cloud ormation, and as
such is thought to play a role in climate
regulation and, potentially, in increasing
Earth’s albedo (Charlson et al., 1987).
In this experiment, scientists ertilized
serially with over 5 tonnes o iron sulate,
but ound only a modest chlorophyll
increase and no increase in either CO2
drawdown or DMS production, which
they believed may have been due to light
limitation (Law et al., 2006). Another
iron-enrichment experiment, FeeP,
perormed a combined Fe and phosphate
addition to low nutrient, low chloro-
phyll (LNLC) waters in the Northeast
Atlantic to test the hypothesis that iron
enrichment o LNLC waters can lead to
a net N import (ultimately supporting
increased productivity) by stimulating
nitrogen xation. Although rates o
nitrogen xation increased in response
to enrichment, productivity did not.
Carbon export in response to enrich-
ment was not measured (Rees et al.,
2007; Karl and Letelier, 2008).
Collectively, these experiments taught
us a good deal about the initial phyto-
plankton community response to iron
enrichment, and conrmed iron limita-
tion o productivity in HNLC regions
around the globe. Te results, however,
were highly variable and inconclusive
with regard to carbon sequestration: the
major conclusion to be drawn is that
physical oceanographic, geographic, and
biological variability all inuence the
long-term ate o blooms induced by iron
ertilization, signicantly constraining
generalizations about iron-induced
carbon sequestration (Boyd et al., 2007).
moln
Open ocean iron enrichment experi-
ments over the last 16 years have
conrmed the hypothesis o iron limita-
tion o productivity in HNLC regions
and have provided evidence or highly
F 4. Locaons o ajo afcal on ncn xpns, ncln plo onsaons o gnSa Vn
an Plankos. Colo a ap psns sac na concnaons w wa colos ncan concnaons,
sown ajo hNLC ons n Son Ocan, asn qaoal Pacfc, an sbacc Pacfc. Data rom
National Virtual Ocean Data System, http://erret.pmel.noaa.gov/NVODS/; analyzed nitrate data rom the World Ocean Atlas 2005
8/8/2019 22 3 Strong
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/22-3-strong 8/26
8/8/2019 22 3 Strong
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/22-3-strong 9/26
Oceanography Vol.22, No.3244
variable, and small, rates o carbon export
rom these iron-induced blooms. But
experiments at this scale cannot resolve
key questions about geoengineering
scenarios or carbon sequestration on
the order o decades to centuries, and onthe scale o the entire Southern Ocean
and beyond. Tese questions can be
addressed eectively only by using global
biogeochemical models.
From the very beginning o research
on the iron hypothesis, models were used
explicitly to predict what small-scale
experiments could not show: the global
carbon cycle response to large-scale
OIF. In response to the initial interestin iron ertilization as a potential tool
or global climate mitigation in 1990,
Sarmiento and Orr (1991) modeled
what complete depletion o surace-layer
macronutrients in the Southern Ocean
(by iron-induced phytoplankton blooms)
would do to global atmospheric CO2
and
ocean chemistry. Teir model, operating
on a 100-year time rame, predicted
a net global drawdown o around
1–1.5 Gt C yr-1 (98–181 Gt C total over
100 yr). At the time, this gure repre-
sented osetting about 20% o anthro-
pogenic emissions over the 100 years,
corresponding to a delay in the rising
atmospheric CO2
trajectory o about
18 years. Even so, the projections resulted
in a global atmospheric concentration o
CO2
near 700 ppm by 2100. Teir model
also predicted a huge area o anoxia in
the southwestern Indian Ocean, and a
high potential or methane production
as a result o this anoxia (Sarmiento and
Orr, 1991; see also Fuhrman and Capone,
1991). O essential importance is that
these results, by design, represent the
extreme (unrealistic) case scenario—
ertilizing the entire Southern Ocean
with iron or 100 years, and assuming
that all o the macronutrients available
were completely used up. Tus, these
results represent an unachievable (both
logistically and ecologically) upper limit.
Since these initial modeling eorts,there have been many published
variations on the theme (able 2)—all
concluding, more or less, that large-
scale ocean ertilization could, at the
limit, sequester only modest amounts o
carbon relative to global human emis-
sions. All such scenarios involve spatial
scales o the entire Southern Ocean or
beyond and time scales o decades to
centuries. Most recently, Zahariev et al.(2008) modeled how the “elimination
o iron limitation” in the ocean globally
would aect atmospheric CO2. Teir
results were similar to previous esti-
mates: rates o 0.9 Gt C yr-1 reduction
in atmospheric carbon, or about 11% o
2004 global emissions, and these seques-
tration rates could only occur “or a year
or two, even under continuous ertiliza-
tion.” Tey conclude that their idealized
model o iron ertilization oers only
a “minor impact on atmospheric CO2
growth” (Zahariev et al., 2008).
Te early publications also recognized
the downstream eects o OIF, that
is, (1) the inuence o iron-induced
nutrient depletion on surace waters
that are subducted and transported,
and that ultimately resurace elsewhere
with diminished nutrient supplies, and
(2) enhanced decomposition o organic
matter in subsurace waters, depleting
oxygen with ecological and biogeochem-
ical consequences that over time will
extend well beyond the ertilized loca-
tion. As Sarmiento and Orr (1991) put
it, the act that an increase in produc-
tivity o such a magnitude would be
concentrated in 16% o the world ocean
would have “dramatic eects on oceanic
ecology which are difcult to predict.”
Fuhrman and Capone (1991) high-
lighted expected inuences o enhanced
nutrient cycling on global productiono the potent greenhouse gases methane
and nitrous oxide. Including tenta-
tive assessments o eects on sheries,
Gnanadesikan et al. (2003) modeled
what some o the long-term downstream
ecological eects o nutrient depletion
might look like, and argued that down-
stream reduction in productivity could
ar outweigh the benet o the initial
iron-induced carbon sequestration interms o a global carbon budget.
In short, marine ecosystems are
complex, and any estimate o the net
impact o iron ertilization on global
carbon storage and greenhouse warming
requires an analysis o all o the down-
stream potentially negative eects,
including a long-term reduction in ocean
productivity, alteration o the structure
o marine ood webs, and a more rapid
increase in ocean acidity (Denman,
2008). As argued by Cullen and Boyd
(2008), such long-term and downstream
eects must not only be acceptably
predictable, but also veriable, i OIF is
to be considered a viable technology or
climate mitigation. So ar, no proponents
o OIF have demonstrated, or even
argued, that these eects can be moni-
tored over decades to reveal statistically
signicant assessments against the back-
drop o climate variability.
inan Scnc
an movn Fowa
Between 2005 and 2009, the scien-
tic community reviewed the results
rom previous articial ertilization
8/8/2019 22 3 Strong
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/22-3-strong 10/26
Oceanography Spb 2009 245
experiments and models (de Baar
et al., 2005; Boyd et al., 2007; Powell,
2007–2008) and began a more public
discussion about where the eld was, and
should be, going (Boyd, 2008; Buesseler
et al., 2008; Lampitt et al., 2008; Smetacek
and Naqvi, 2008). Although mesoscale
experiments had shown that iron addi-
tion caused phytoplankton blooms in
HNLC regions, what happened to the
carbon in those blooms, however, was
less consistent and did not support key
calculations in Martin’s “paleo”-iron
hypothesis. For example, an analysis
o results rom experiments in the
Southern Ocean (de Baar et al., 2005)
revealed that the average net dissolved
inorganic carbon (DIC) drawdown
rom the atmosphere as a result o
iron enrichment was approximately
4347 mol C per mol Fe. Assuming a
carbon export rate to the deep ocean
o 20% o primary production, carbon
export efciency (amount o carbon
exported to the deep ocean per unit o
iron added) is thus 870 mol C per mol Fe.
Tis gure is 200 times less than required
to explain paleo-climate observations
(de Baar et al., 2005). Tus, the collective
carbon export efciency results rom
open-ocean experiments were signi-
cantly lower than initially hypothesized.
An important symposium was held
at the Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution (WHOI) in September
2007 (http://www.whoi.edu/page.
do?pid=14617) that included invited
representatives o private companies
promoting ocean ertilization or climate
mitigation. Experimental results and
modeling predictions, as well as the
policy implications and economics o
OIF, were discussed. In an outgrowth
o that workshop, Powell (2007–2008)
summarized the state o OIF science
as it relates to climate mitigation. He
concluded that iron ertilization may
work in principle to sequester some
carbon, but yields are low and long-
term sequestration is difcult to veriy,
making it less attractive and making
the cost per ton o carbon seques-
tered greater than proponents might
hope. Uncertainties about ecosystem
tabl 2. Slc ols o lascal ocan on laon an s pac on aospc cabon nvno.
mos ols sow as o CO2
awown n sac was, w onl a sall acon xpo blow pcnocln, an onl a sall acon o a xpo cabon sqs. mols conv a < 1g C 1 , an
nall ass naconsan laon o vas hNLC aas o cas o cns.
Model Approach
Overall estimate
of C sequestered
Maximal estimate of
C sequestration rate Summary
Sano anO, 1991
Copl aconn plon o on laon o hNLC ons
98–181 g C ov 100 s
ras aon1–1.5 g 1 na ova cn
Asss copl aconn plon oOiF o n Son Ocan an sls n a 20%con n anoponc ssons onl s lvlo laon s anan o 100 as.
gnanaskan al., 2003
Pac laon;ncls ownsaeects of macronun plon onbolocal pp
ulal, naveect on productivity
o OiF col b30x aon o Cxpo o OiF
2–20% sqsaon o 2 g 1 asan nal sao lobal xpopocon
Sqsaon o 100 s a sall pcnao annal xpo pocon. Ovall ownsa pacs o OiF a ow cabonsqsaon spons.
Aon anBopp, 2006
uss ols bas onOiF xpns osla pocv,
xpo pocon, anlal sqsaon
70 g C ov 100 s
expo pocon:inal ncas3.8 g 1 , slowso 1.8 g 1
Sqsaon:0.3–1 g 1
ulal, 90% o sqsaon cos o Son Ocan. mol pcs sbsanal ncass npocv. Onl a acon o s pocv s l
al xpo, an onl a acon o a s lalsqs. rqs consan s laon.
Jn al., 2008
mols pac o basnscal laon oon ca; analsCO
2awown
3.4 g C ov 10 s N/A
T ol sows aospc CO2
uptake eciency, but low total biological pump eciency: full
laon o n Pacfc hNLC o 10 s slsn 3.4 g o CO
2awown.
zaav al.,2008
Copl l o onlaon n lobalocan
77 g C ov 5,300ax
1 g 1 axConnos laon o n Son Ocanresults in about 11% oset of global emissions under the
os al conons.
8/8/2019 22 3 Strong
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/22-3-strong 11/26
Oceanography Vol.22, No.3246
disruption and other potential down-
stream negative side eects were also
recognized as a cause or concern.
In an outgrowth o the WHOI
workshop and in an eort to move the
eld orward, Buesseler et al. (2008)ocused on the need to reduce uncertain-
ties about OIF as a climate mitigation
strategy, arguing that there is “as yet, no
scientic evidence or issuing carbon
credits rom OIF.” Tey urged a move to
larger and longer experiments because
“ecological impacts and CO2
mitigation
are scale-dependent” (Buesseler et al.,
2008). Te proposed experiments would
seek to test a broad array o ecosystemimpacts o iron ertilization, would inte-
grate with modeling eorts to analyze
potential downstream eects o OIF, and
would attempt more detailed measure-
ments o the ate o xed carbon rom
iron-induced blooms.
Around the same time, Smetacek and
Naqvi (2008)—arguing that an apparent
consensus against OIF was premature—
also called or larger and longer experi-
ments to test both the geoengineering
potential o OIF and the potential
or unintended negative side eects.
Collectively, these proposals advocated
cautiously moving orward, gradually
increasing the size o experiments, and
measuring carbon export, net green-
house gas budgets, ood-web disruption,
and other parameters, in order to gain
more inormation about the potential o
iron ertilization as a climate mitigation
strategy. Following up on arguments
presented at the WHOI workshop,
Cullen and Boyd (2008) pointed out that
it will be necessary to predict and veriy
cumulative and long-term eects o OIF
or climate mitigation, and there are
good reasons to believe that it may not
be possible to detect signicant down-
stream eects o wide-scale OIF, such as
increased anoxia and nitrous oxide emis-
sions, against a background o ocean
variability. It ollows that i negative
eects were large but masked by natural variability, they might not be detectable
until they were irreversible. But regard-
less, it was the responsibility o propo-
nents to show that these eects could be
assessed (Cullen and Boyd, 2008).
As the cycle o experimentation,
media coverage, and calls or more
research on unintended side eects
continued, the scientic questions being
addressed by OIF experiments evolvedsubstantially. One dening aspect has
emerged: the experiments that were once
ocused on controls o ocean produc-
tivity and their relationships to climate
are now almost exclusively couched—
either explicitly or implicitly—in terms
o testing iron ertilization as a carbon
sequestration strategy or mitigating
excess global atmospheric CO2.
Te rst experiment aer the 2008
calls or geoengineering research,
LOHAFEX, was conducted in early
2009 amidst international controversy
and aer a temporary suspension by the
German government. Te controversy
stemmed rom a belie that the experi-
ment, the largest and longest conducted
to date, would pave the way or geoengi-
neering projects and, by being an experi-
ment designed to test the idea that iron
ertilization could alter CO2
concentra-
tions, was itsel geoengineering.
Te initial results o the LOHAFEX
experiment, conducted over 40 days
using 10 tonnes o iron sulate distrib-
uted over 300 km2, demonstrated the
expected iron-induced bloom (AWI
Press Release, 2009b). However, the
bloom also induced an increase in
copepod grazing and amphipod abun-
dance, channeling carbon into the ood
web and largely to respiration; in this
way, the vast majority o the newly
xed carbon was rapidly remineral-ized and only a negligible amount was
exported. Te National Institute o
Oceanography (NIO) report indicated
that these results “dampened the hopes”
o using OIF in the Southern Ocean to
mitigate global climate change (NIO
Press Release, 2009). Te controversy
surrounding LOHAFEX brings into
ocus the dynamics between OIF science,
companies hoping to conduct OIFcommercially, and international and
national regulations on OIF. No publicly
unded scientic experiments beyond
LOHAFEX have been announced, but
uture experiments will be conducted
under new regulatory regimes and,
certainly, under close scrutiny.
OCeAN FertiLizAtiON AS A
COmmerCiAL VeNture
t hso o Cocal
ins Paallls Scnc
As the iron hypothesis—and John
Martin’s amous quip—became popular-
ized, so did the idea that ertilizing the
ocean could be a cheap, ast, and easy
solution to the greenhouse gas problem.
Not long aer the hypothesis was rst
put orward, Te Washington Post
published an article on iron ertiliza-
tion as way to “battle the greenhouse
eect” (Booth, 1990). Tis attention
would quickly translate into commercial
ventures seeking to prot rom ocean
ertilization’s geoengineering potential.
Aer the rst round o press coverage,
the American Society o Limnology and
Oceanography (ASLO) held a workshop
8/8/2019 22 3 Strong
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/22-3-strong 12/26
Oceanography Spb 2009 247
to review the science (ASLO, 1991).
Aer many presentations and long
discussion, participants agreed on a reso-
lution, endorsed by the Society, “urging
all governments to regard the role o
iron in marine productivity as an areaor urther research and not to consider
iron ertilization as a policy option that
signicantly changes the need to reduce
emissions o carbon dioxide” (see preace
to Chisholm and Morel, 1991). Tis
resolution’s emphasis on the scientic
uncertainties surrounding the ecosystem
response to iron ertilization stimulated
important OIF research as intended,
but the careully worded phrase aboutOIF as a policy option did not stem the
growing interest in ocean ertilization or
commercial gain.
Interested in what appeared to be
an easy and intriguing solution or
global warming, the press ollowed the
IronEx I and II experiments in 1993
and 1995, and interpreted their results
in a dierent context rom the intent o
the experiments. Te addition o iron
to equatorial Pacic waters in IronEx I
resulted in a phytoplankton bloom, and
the scientists involved were justiably
very excited about the results: iron did
indeed stimulate the growth o phyto-
plankton consistent with the rst arm
o the iron hypothesis—that iron limits
productivity in these HNLC waters. Te
magnitude o the bloom, however, was
muted, in part because o the design,
and in part because o unexpected
physics during the experiment. Te press
coverage o the experiments, however,
ocused on the small magnitude o the
bloom and its meaning in the climate
mitigation context, rather than the
exciting act that there was a bloom
at all. (Tis view is understandable, as
they are writing or an audience that is
not interested in whether or not iron
limits HNLC regions o the ocean; it is
interested in climate change.) One head-
line prompted by the low-magnitude
response during the IronEx I experimentread: “Pumping iron: too weak to slow
warming” (Monastersky, 1994), and
another account reported that “the idea
o ertilizing the entire Southern Ocean
should probably be considered dead”
(Kunzig, 1994). But such skepticism was
short-lived. When results rom IronEx II
were published in 1996, Te Washington
Post ’s coverage described them as a
conrmation o Martin’s hypothesis o
CO2
sequestration and climatic cooling
(Suplee, 1996).
t Fs Cocal
Poposal: Ocan Flaon
o Fs Pocon
In 1994, beore IronEx II had taken
place, Michael Markels Jr., ormer CEO
o the engineering rm Versar Inc., led
the rst o several patent applications
or a method o improved production o
seaood by ocean ertilization (Markels,
1995). Te method reerred to ertilizing
with “all nutrients that are ound to limit
production in the surace ocean.” In this
patent, Markels cited the results o the
IronEx I experiment and suggested that
he could constantly ertilize 140,000 km2
o the Gul Stream (which is not an
HNLC region) with enough iron, phos-phate, and micronutrients to remove
1.3 Gt o CO2
and produce 50 Mt o
additional seaood production annually
(Markels, 1995).
Markels would go on to ound Ocean
Farming Inc., a company seeking to capi
talize on what it said was ocean ertiliza-
tion’s promise to increase sh biomass
production. In early 1998, Ocean
Farming Inc. carried out two successive
small-scale (9 km2) ocean iron ertiliza-
tion “demonstrations” in the Gul o
Mexico. Te results were not published,
but it was reported that, while the iron
ertilization induced an initial increase
in phytoplankton production, the bloom
ailed to expand as much as anticipated,
owing to a “second limitation,” most
likely rom phosphorus (Markels and
Barber, 2001)—an unsurprising result
because the Gul o Mexico is a low
macronutrient region, not avorable
to iron-induced bloom development
(Markels and Barber, 2001).
We SuggeSt thAt it iS time tO BreAK thiS
tWO-deCAde CyCLe, ANd Argue thAt We KNOWeNOugh ABOut OCeAN FertiLizAtiON tO SAy thAt
it ShOuLd NOt Be CONSidered Further AS A meANS
tO mitigAte CLimAte ChANge.“”
8/8/2019 22 3 Strong
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/22-3-strong 13/26
Oceanography Vol.22, No.3248
Citing its own unpublished activities
rom the Gul o Mexico, and the initial
results rom IronEx I and II experiments,
Ocean Farming Inc. then reportedly
secured a lease o 800,000 square miles
o LNLC tropical ocean in the exclusiveeconomic zone o the Republic o the
Marshall Islands in the western Pacic
Ocean (Markels, 1998). According to the
structure o the lease, once ertilization
o this vast area occurred and sh catch
had commenced, Ocean Farming Inc.
would pay the Marshallese government
$3.75 a square mile or 7% o the prot,
whichever was more (Markels, 1998).
t Can o Cabon Cs
While the ertilization o the waters
near the Marshall Islands never did take
place, the idea o commercializing the
ecosystem response to ocean ertilization
did not disappear. Instead, it morphed.
As Markels wrote in 1998, “Ocean
ertilization also promises benets that
should be welcomed by those concerned
about possible global warming. Te
growth o phytoplankton in the ocean
removes CO2, a greenhouse gas, rom
the ocean surace and the atmosphere.
About hal o the carbon removed in
ertilized areas will sink to the bottom o
the deep ocean…Te continuous ertil-
ization o the same 100,000 square miles
o tropical ocean should sequester about
30 percent o the CO2 produced by theUnited States rom the burning o ossil
uels” (Markels, 1998). Tis statement
was published beore any OIF experi-
ment had provided an estimate o carbon
export rom an iron-induced bloom. A
year later in an article in the journal o
the Cosmos Club, Markels discussed
combining the dual purposes o ocean
arming and carbon sequestration rom
OIF. He also started a new company,
GreenSea Venture, which sought to
commercialize ocean ertilization to
sell carbon oset credits or seques-
tered CO2
(Markels, 1999).
A mo Cow Fl: gnSa
Vn gs a Copo
In the late 1990s, a second corporation
seeking to invest in ocean iron ertiliza-
tion as a way to sequester carbon and sell
carbon oset credits, Carboncorp USA,
was created. According to an archived
copy o the Carboncorp USA Web site
(Carboncorp USA, 1999), “Ocean
Carbon Sequestration (OCSM) patented
nutrient supplements will stimulate an
immediate plankton bloom. Tis bloom
o plant biomass removes CO2
rom the
atmosphere and stores it saely in richphytoplankton.” At the time, Carboncorp
USA proposed to use commercial ships
traversing shipping lanes on the high
seas to meter small amounts o the
company’s nutrient supplements into the
water. Te idea was to oset the emis-
sions o the shipping by sequestering
carbon and selling credits (Carboncorp
USA, 1999; Adhiya, 2001).
By 2001, Carboncorp USA haddisappeared, and many o its ideas were
presented by Ocean Carbon Sciences
Inc., led by Vancouver-based entrepre-
neur Robert Falls. Representatives rom
both Ocean Carbon Sciences Inc. and
GreenSea Venture were invited partici-
pants in a 2001 ASLO workshop on iron
ertilization (ASLO Workshop Statement,
2001), as commercial ocean ertilization
or carbon sequestration was attracting
attention and investment (Krivit, 2007).
Scaln up: A Poposal Fo a
tcnolo donsaon
Ocean Carbon Sciences Inc. initially
committed $325,000 CAD to the
Canadian component o the SERIES
experiment, but deaulted on the pledge,
did not participate in the experiment
(Canadian SOLAS Report, 2003), and
made little headway toward conducting
its own experiment. GreenSea Venture,
however, was moving orward. In 2001,
Michael Markels teamed up with Richard
Barber, a highly respected biological
oceanographer at Duke University
and one o the scientic team rom the
original IronEx experiments. At the 2001
But, OCeAN FertiLizAtiON reSeArCh ShOuLd
NOt Be hALted: iF uSed APPrOPriAteLy ANd
APPLied tO teStABLe hyPOtheSeS, it iS A POWerFuL
reSeArCh tOOL FOr uNderStANdiNg thereSPONSeS OF OCeAN eCOSyStemS iN the CONteXt
OF CLimAte ChANge.“ ”
8/8/2019 22 3 Strong
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/22-3-strong 14/26
Oceanography Spb 2009 249
National Energy echnology Laboratory
Conerence on Carbon Sequestration,
hosted by the Department o Energy,
Markels and Barber announced plans
or GreenSea to move ahead with a
5,000-square-mile “technology demon-stration” o ocean iron ertilization or
carbon sequestration in the HNLC
region o the equatorial Pacic (Markels
and Barber, 2001). Supporting their
proposal, they cited the two IronEx
experiments, SOIREE, and Ocean
Farming’s two Gul o Mexico demon-
strations. Although none o these experi-
ments showed any carbon export rom
an iron-induced bloom, it was arguedthat increasing the size o the ertilized
patch approximately 100 times rom
previous experiments would yield better
estimates o carbon export potential o
OIF (Markels and Barber, 2001). While
the proposed technology demonstration
never did take place, the commercial
potential suggested in their proposal—
quoted at a cost o $2 per ton o seques-
tered carbon dioxide, including the cost
o verication, overhead, and prot—
served to broaden the discussion about
the ways in which ocean ertilization
experimentation should move orward.
Despite no direct scientic evidence
that ocean ertilization could substan-
tially slow global warming, the simply
stated appeal o OIF as a quick climate
x continued to attract media attention.
Tis attention, in turn, urther ueled
commercial interest in the idea. In an
interview with Wired magazine in 2000,
Markels claimed that “given 200 boats,
8.1 million tons o iron, and, say, 11
percent o the world’s ocean,” he could
“zero out global warming. Next ques-
tion?” (Graeber, 2000). Te vision o
commercial ventures interested in using
iron ertilization or geoengineering was
unquestionably large in scope and was
not being dictated by the results o initial
scientic OIF experiments.
Scnss gv mx SnalsAt this point, the activities o GreenSea
Venture and Ocean Carbon Sciences
elicited a response rom oceanographers,
who raised concerns about the discon-
nect between scientic evidence and
commercial proposals. Several o us cited
the difculties o veriying the magni-
tude o carbon sequestration explicitly
caused by ocean iron ertilization, and
argued that this would make oceanertilization ineligible or carbon credits
(Chisholm et al., 2001). We pointed
out urther that widespread ecosystem
disruption is inherent to the design o
ocean ertilization, and the unintended
consequences o this disruption would
likely be signicant and unpredictable.
Although we maintained that ocean iron
ertilization should not be conducted
on a commercial scale, we also made
explicitly clear that we were not arguing
against small-scale scientic iron enrich-
ment experiments designed to answer
specic questions about how marine
ecosystems unction. Some elt that we
had “overstated the current knowledge
in reaching [our] opinion that iron
ertilization is not a viable option or
CO2management” (Johnson and Karl,
2002), and countered that veriying
carbon credits is not the critical issue,
what is key is whether OIF “is a easible
strategy to mitigate increasing CO2
in
the atmosphere” (Johnson and Karl,
2002). Tus, the potential or climate
mitigation using OIF was gaining cred-
ibility (at least as a testable hypothesis) in
the scientic community.
the reCeNt hiStOry OF
COmmerCiAL OiF ANd OiF
reguLAtiON
Cocal Vns
Conn o expn
As scientists were gearing up or theSOFeX experiment in the Southern
Ocean, Caliornia-based entrepreneur
Russ George ounded the Planktos
Foundation, which billed itsel as a
not-or-prot organization seeking to
use iron ertilization to solve global
warming. Planktos oered, or sale by
charitable donation on the Internet,
$4 “Green ags” (Planktos Green ags,
2002), which were in eect like personal,small carbon ootprint osets and would
be used to support the oundation’s
eorts to develop iron ertilization as
a technology or carbon sequestration
(Plotkin, 2002).
In the summer o 2002, temporally
and geographically between SOFeX in
the Southern Ocean and SERIES in the
Gul o Alaska, the Planktos Foundation
conducted its own iron ertilization
“demonstration,” dumping iron-
containing paint pigment into the North
Central Pacic along a 50-km transect
east o Hawaii (not HNLC waters)
rom Neil Young’s antique sailing yacht,
Ragland (Schiermeier, 2003). Journalist
Wendy Williams quoted Russ George
in a piece or Living on Earth as arguing
that this ertilization project had induced
a large phytoplankton bloom and had
sequestered enough carbon to oset the
entire carbon ootprint o his Caliornia
hometown o Hal Moon Bay. George
urther described Planktos’ activity as
“really more o a business experiment”
(Williams, 2003). Although the results
o the experiment were never made
public, a description o the activity was
8/8/2019 22 3 Strong
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/22-3-strong 15/26
Oceanography Vol.22, No.3250
published in the news eature section o
Nature the ollowing year (Schiermeier,
2003), including a photo o George on
Ragland . Te Planktos Foundation, and
the entire idea o carbon credit sale rom
ocean ertilization, was gaining attention
and momentum.
Lal isss As
As it became evident that commercial
operations were moving orward,
concerned scientists and environmental
groups continued to raise questions
about the efcacy and legality o
commercial ocean ertilization. Tere
appeared to be no law preventing
ocean ertilization beyond the 200-mile
exclusive economic zone o any country
(Markels and Barber, 2001; McKie,
2003). Indeed, to our knowledge, the
initial, small-scale, scientic OIF experi-
ments were carried out without permits,
as there were no clear statutes at the
time. Also, it was widely recognized
that the small scale o the experiments
rendered their impacts miniscule and
ephemeral by any measure.
Several international treaties cover
activities in international waters,
including the United Nations Convention
on the Law o the Sea, the 1972 London
Convention on Marine Pollution and
Ocean Dumping, and the 1959 Antarctic
reaty, which covers portions o the
Southern Ocean. Te UN Convention
on Biological Diversity also regulates
activities that will impact ecosystem
species diversity (see Boxes 2A, 2B, and
2C). At a 2001 ASLO workshop on ocean
ertilization, the ormer secretary o
the Intergovernmental Oceanographic
Commission, Geo Holland, stated
that “there are no legal precedents that
apply directly to ocean ertilization,
though there are parts o existing laws
that are relevant” (Holland, 2001). At
the time, it was not clear whether ocean
ertilization ell under the purview o
the London Convention, and the lack
o clarity on the legal issue meant that
commercial interests could move ahead,
or the time being.
Cocal Vns Avanc
Plans o Flaon as Scnss
dba is F
Aer 2004, while scientists were
analyzing previous results and planning
uture experiments, commercial interests
continued to advance their plans. Te
Box 2A. un Naons Convnon on Law o Sa uNCLOS
WhAt:
• International treaty rst passed in 1982 that governs territorial legality of the ocean areas.
• United States has not yet ratied it, but many provisions are regarded as binding international law.
• Te Law of the Sea sets limits for exclusive economic zones and laws of conduct on the high seas.
• UN General Assembly passes relevant resolutions. UN’s International Maritime Organization and other organizations administer UNCLOS.
hoW It ReLAteS to oIF: Sval nal povsons o uNCLOS a lvan o OiF. Acl 145 splas a s o sas o an
scnfc sac s b o pacl pposs a owa ncas o knowl an nsann o all ankn. Vaos
o acls oln qns o sas o poc l o an nvonn. uNCLOS s also lvan o OiF o fs pocon, as
ovns bo laon o fsn s wn xclsv conoc ons eezs an fsn s on sas.
Key StAtementS And deCISIonS on oIF:
Dec 2007: General Assembly resolution calls for more research into the eects of ocean iron fertilization.
dc 2008: gnal Assbl solon wlcos Lonon Convnon an Convnon on Bolocal dvs
csons aans lascal OiF.
FutuRe ReguLAtIonS: Alo gnal Assbl as no pass spcfc lao solons an OiF, cnal o
uNCLOS o a laon, an s lvanc o nvonnal pocon, scnfc sac laon, an nnaonal was lal
sss, col ak a oo o o coona laon o on laon n .
8/8/2019 22 3 Strong
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/22-3-strong 16/26
Oceanography Spb 2009 251
Planktos Foundation became Planktos
Inc. in 2005 and was shortly thereaer
purchased by Solar Energy Limited
(Business Wire, 2005a). Later that year,
Diatom Corporation agreed to purchase
the marketing rights or carbon credits
generated rom Planktos Inc.’s iron
ertilization activities (Business Wire,
2005b). About 18 months later, publicly
traded Diatom Corp. became Planktos
Corp. (Business Wire, 2007). During
this time, the other commercial entity
involved in OIF, GreenSea Venture,
had moved rom ocean ertilization
demonstrations to nancial support or
Box 2B. Convnon on Pvnon o man Pollon b dpn o Wass
an O ma 1972 Lonon Convnon an 1996 Lonon Poocol
WhAt:
• 1972 intergovernmental treaty involving 86 countries.• Headquarters: International Maritime Organization in London, a UN organization.
• London Convention regulates pollution via dumping at sea (but not coastal runo).
• Some dumping pollution (such as scrap metal) is regulated, and some (such as mercury) is banned outright.
• 1996 London Protocol expands the London Convention to use the “Precautionary Principle” and reduce pollution.
• United States is party to Convention, but has signed but not ratied the London Protocol.
• US enforcement of London Convention by EPA under Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972.
• Enforcement is by each country in its own waters and to ships sailing under its ag. No international enforcement.
hoW It ReLAteS to oIF: Bcas on laon acvs q aon o noanc aal n hNLC ons o wol
ocan, an nall ak plac n nnaonal was, Lonon Convnon s lvan. Ts lvanc as bn sbjc o
so scsson, owv, as Lonon Convnon las pn o sposal o was. Bcas OiF o cabon sqsaon wol
sqs cabon n p ocan, scsson o w OiF s o appopal pn o cabon as also bn as.
Key StAtementS And deCISIonS on oIF:
Jn 2007: Scnfc gop ss “San o Concn” o Lonon Convnon ov lascal ocan laon acvs.
Nov 2007: Lonon Convnon rsolon aops “San o Concn” an as a ocan laon alls n solon’s
pvw.
ma 2008: Scnfc gop oln wa ocan on laon nals an al so nknown sks.
Oc 2008: Lonon Convnon rsolon sas a no ocan laon acvs o an “la scnfc sac” o b fn
n 2009 sol b allow.
Fb 2009: tcncal Wokn gop as colocal sk assssn awok o OiF sac splan a sac s b
possvn. Ts pon os no l o cocal an o cabon cs o la sac.
Fb 2009: Lal Wokn gop poposs nw solons an nw bnn acls on OiF, olnn lao possbl s o
consaon o ll Convnon.
ma 2009: Scnfc gop n ro o cons pos o wokn ops an o sa olnn accpabl lvls o na
v nvonnal pacs o la scnfc sac .., xpns 200 x 200 k o sall.
FutuRe ReguLAtIon: Te London Convention is clearly grappling with the dicult issue of regulating scientic research at the suprana
onal lvl. A sa , s a cla ps owa scon o nonscnc OiF acvs. Spcfc poposals o Fba
2009 wokn ops an o o bans o all nonscnc OiF acvs o “sspnsons” o acv nl o aa can b a.
T qsons o cocalaon, colocal assssn, an o nocn/nns o laon av all bn as b non
o s solv. T Scnfc gop av sa o scss qsons abo ow c o an nvonnal pac o scnfc
sac s oo c an wll psn a po o ovnn bos o convnon wn n Lonon n all o 2009.
8/8/2019 22 3 Strong
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/22-3-strong 17/26
Oceanography Vol.22, No.3252
biogeochemical modeling (Chu et al.,
2003; Rice, 2003). Meanwhile, Dan
Whaley, a ormer inormation tech-
nology entrepreneur, ounded Climos
Inc., a or-prot company setting out to
pursue the same goals as Planktos Inc.:
selling carbon credits rom ocean iron
ertilization (Riddell, 2008). Tus, by
2006, two companies operating in the
San Francisco Bay area—Climos and
Planktos—were developing the business
o iron ertilization.
In late 2006, it was reported that
Planktos donated carbon credits to two
Caliornia environmental organizations
to make them “carbon neutral” or 2007
(Industrial Environment, 2006), a claim
that was based on an upcoming pilot
demonstration o ocean ertilization.
At this time, Planktos was describing
itsel as an “ecorestoration” company,
seeking to replenish what was described
as diminished plankton stocks in the
ocean, in addition to sequestering carbon
or oset credits. In a 2007 presentation
to the US House Committee on Energy
Independence and Global Warming,
Planktos’ Russ George stated that “our
ocean plankton restoration pilot projects
will generate the rst substantial iron
seeded blooms aimed at serving our twin
purposes o restoring ocean plant ecosys-
tems and sequestering atmospheric CO2”
(George, 2007).
Plankos Fols Bo
i Can Fl
In early 2007, Planktos Inc. announced
plans to conduct a large ertilization
experiment in the equatorial Pacic near
the Galápagos Islands. Like the proposed
Markels-Barber demonstration, the
Box 2C. un Naons Convnon on Bolocal dvs CBd
WhAt:
• International treaty established at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.
• Dual purposes of biodiversity conservation and sustainable use and equitable distribution of resources.
• All UN nations are party, except the United States, which has signed but not ratied the treaty.
• Te Convention is administered by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP).
• Enforcement by individual ministries of member states.
hoW It ReLAteS to oIF: T Convnon las acons a an bovs, ncln an bovs. in s wa,
unknown ecological eects of large-scale OIF implementation fall under the purview of the Convention.
Key StAtementS And deCISIonS on oIF:
ma 2008 CBd dcson: “All lascal OiF acvs sol no b allow.”
• Makes exception for “small scale studies in coastal waters.” Coastal waters may be an aberration.
• Decision explicitly mentions commercial interests as a reason not to allow OIF.
• Decision passed because of ecological risks of OIF and uproar over Planktos’ experimental plans.• Widely viewed as a “UN moratorium” on commercial OIF activities.
FutuRe ReguLAtIonS: T CBd ss a OiF laon b on n coonaon w innaonal ma Oansaon
imO an Lonon Convnon. i calls o a lobal anspan conol an lao cans o b sabls, an s conslaon
w all pas nvolv o sabls a knowl bas abo assoca colocal sks.
note on CBd enFoRCement: in al 2009, gan sac ns c uN CBd COP 9 oao on ocan laon
n s cson o sspn inogan LOhAFeX OiF xpn. i an o nvonnal sk assssns an npnn
scnfc assssns o pojc, spcfcall nonn coasal wa splaon an cn colocal concns as b CBd.
Alo xpn was vnall vn n l, was a fs s o conspcfc nocn o nnaonal as on s
ss an as no Lonon Convnon wokn ops’ scssons on ow bs o la scnc o OiF.
8/8/2019 22 3 Strong
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/22-3-strong 18/26
Oceanography Spb 2009 253
experiment was to be on a previously
unachieved scale o 10,000 km2; it would
be the rst pilot project in a planned
“Voyage o Recovery” (see Figure 5
or a sense o the relative size o this
experiment). Te company purchased aretired research vessel, Weatherbird II ,
rom the Bermuda Biological Station to
execute the experiment (Environmental
Protection Agency, 2007). Te scale and
seriousness o this proposal, coupled
with increasing concerns about risks to
marine ecosystems, mobilized environ-
mental NGOs. Te Canadian-based EC
Group called on the US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to stop thePlanktos experiment (EC Group News
Release, 2007). Te World Wildlie
Fund argued that Planktos was taking
too big and too dangerous a leap with
the scale and intent o the experiment,
especially because it was near the
Galápagos Islands (Sullivan, 2007). Te
Sea Shepherd Society threatened to block
Planktos’ ertilization ship physically
(South Bay, 2007), arguing that it was a
violation o international laws on marine
dumping (the London Convention; Sea
Shepherd News, 2008).
With international law once again
in question, the legal arguments began
to mount. Te Scientic Group o the
London Convention issued a June 2007
statement o concern about Planktos’
plan (Scientic Group o the London
Convention Meeting Report, 2007). In
a statement submitted at that London
Convention meeting, the US EPA
announced that it would not permit
the Planktos plan to proceed under the
US Marine Protection Research and
Sanctuaries Act o 1972 (the US enorce-
ment o the London Convention) i
Planktos was ying a US ag rom
Weatherbird II (Parks, 2008; Scientic
Group o the London Convention
Meeting Report, 2007). Apparently,
Planktos assured the EPA that it would
not be sailing under a US-agged ship
(International Center or echnology
Assessment, 2007), which seemed to
contradict that Weatherbird II was a
US-registered vessel and would set out
rom a US port or the experiment.
Because o the proposed experiment’s
proximity to the Galápagos, the govern-
ment o Ecuador also issued statements
o alarm (Scientic Group o the London
Convention Meeting Report, 2007).
In the all o 2007, as Planktos’ vessel
prepared to leave the eastern coast o
the United States, the ull Conerence o
Parties to the London Convention issued
a statement o concern about the legality
and wise practice o large-scale ocean
iron ertilization activities, taking the
rst step toward explicit international
regulation o iron ertilization (London
Convention Meeting Report, 2007).
Planktos’ experiment did not take
place (Courtland, 2008). Citing concerns
over disruption o their activities,
Weatherbird II le port headed to an
undisclosed location in the Atlantic
F 5. T lav ss o l pacs n ocan laon xpns, an n onsaons
ca o, o popos, b pva sco. A boo s an sa bas on ol o
zaav al., 2008 o s o pac a wol sl o ln hNLC ons o
Son Ocan.
8/8/2019 22 3 Strong
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/22-3-strong 19/26
Oceanography Vol.22, No.3254
Ocean. When the ship approached the
Spanish-owned Canary Islands, report-
edly to pick up supplies, the Spanish
government reused it port entry
(Consumer Eroski, 2007), a decision
that Planktos blamed on environmental
organizations (Tompson, 2008). Te
ship eventually docked in the Portuguese
island o Madeira to take on needed
supplies (San Francisco Business imes,
2007). Investors pulled out o Planktos,
and, in early 2008, Planktos Corp. ended
its relationship with Planktos Inc., as
did Solar Energy Limited. Planktos Inc.
then suspended operations (Business
Wire, 2008; Kerry, 2008), citing both
a lack o unds and a “highly eective
disinormation campaign waged by
anti-oset crusaders” (Brown, 2008).
Several months later in June 2008, Russ
George started a new iron ertiliza-
tion “ecorestoration” company, named
Planktos-Science, though there has been
little activity other than Web posts rom
this company thus ar (see http://www.
planktos-science.com/).
Clos’ Pa Fowa
Tese events le Climos as the leading
company involved in the nascent
commercial iron ertilization business.
Since its inception, Climos made clear its
intention to conduct research in collabo-
ration with the scientic community,
and to this end brought in Margaret
Leinen, an accomplished oceanogra-
pher, and ormer Assistant Director or
Geosciences at the US National Science
Foundation, to be Chie Science Ofcer
(Climos About Us, 2008). Climos’ initial
plan was to attract substantial business
investment and to employ environ-
mental consulting rms to produce
codes o conduct or iron ertilization
experiments as a rst step toward
eventual verication or carbon credit
sale (Climos Press, 2007). Climos repre-
sentatives have attended international
meetings, UN meetings, and scientic
conerences to participate in debating
the uture o iron ertilization science.
At the same time, the company has also
made clear its plans to conduct its own
technology demonstration (Murray,
2008). In early 2008, Climos issued a
press release responding to Greenpeace
criticisms o plans or commercial OIF
(Allsopp et al., 2007). In particular,
Climos challenged what it described
as Greenpeace’s assumption that OIF
or carbon sequestration would require
large-scale and continuous ertilization,
something that “no commercial entity
has suggested should take place beore
a period o experimentation” (Leinen
et al., 2008). On its Web site and in the
press, Climos has announced plans or a
Southern Ocean demonstration experi-ment that would be “part o a new phase
o research ocused on the efcacy and
impact o moderately sized experiments
(< 200 x 200 km)” that would “emphasize
research related to export and sequestra-
tion as well as environmental impact”
(Climos FAQ, 2008). In a statement to
the press, Climos ofcials indicated that
they hope to conduct their rst trial by
the end o 2009 and to be able to startselling carbon credits shortly thereaer
(Murray, 2008). More recently, Leinen
has been identied as Chie Executive
Ofcer o the Climate Response Fund,
“a nonprot organization ormed to
provide unding and support or other
activities needed to explore innova-
tive solutions to the eects o climate
change” (Climate Response Fund, 2009).
At the time o this writing, it is unclear
whether the ormation o this new
nonprot organization will inuence
the plans o Climos.
rlao Cla is
On t hoon
In part due to the activities o Planktos,
Climos is operating in a vastly changed
regulatory arena than existed in the
early years o commercial interest in
ocean ertilization. Planktos’ proposed
experiment, and the vigorous response
to it rom environmental NGOs and the
London Convention regulators, showed
the rst signs o a negative eedback
loop. Up until this point, the trajec-
tory had been continued expansion
o commercial interest and proposed
the POteNt iNteLLeCtuAL reSOurCeS thAt
hAVe BeeN tied uP iN the OCeAN FertiLizAtiON
CONtrOVerSy yeAr AFter yeAr ShOuLd Be Freed
tO PurSue mOre eFFeCtiVe reSPONSeS tO the
PerVASiVe threAt OF CArBON diOXide emiSSiONS
ANd gLOBAL WArmiNg.
“
”
8/8/2019 22 3 Strong
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/22-3-strong 20/26
Oceanography Spb 2009 255
demonstrations, despite the absence o
direct evidence or commercial claims
rom the results o scientic experi-
ments. Aer concerns were expressed at
the 2007 London Convention assembly
regarding the planned Planktos experi-ment in all 2007, representatives met
again in May 2008. Tey reiterated their
concerns about unchecked large-scale
ertilization activities, and dened
how iron ertilization t under the
jurisdiction o the London Convention
(Scientic Group o the London
Convention Meeting Report, 2008).
Tat same month, members o the
UN Convention on Biological Diversity passed a decision on iron ertilization
(UN CBD, 2008), citing the London
Convention’s statements o concern.
Tey requested all member states to
ensure that ocean iron ertilization
activities do not take place, with the
exception o small-scale scientic studies
in coastal waters (see below), until there
is adequate scientic basis on which to
justiy these activities. Tey emphasized
that the excepted small-scale studies
could not be used or the generation o
carbon oset credits.
While the Convention on Biological
Diversity did not explicitly dene what
was meant by “small scale,” a report
submitted by the Intergovernmental
Oceanographic Commission (IOC), part
o UNESCO, to the London Convention
Scientic Group at Guayaquil in 2008,
proposed that OIF activities greater
than a size o 200 x 200 km (40,000 km2)
should be considered “large scale,” and
anything smaller would remain “small
scale” (Scientic Group o the London
Convention Meeting Report, 2008).
Te area 200 x 200 km is two orders o
magnitude larger than the largest OIF
experiments to date (Figure 5).
Te stipulation o “coastal waters” in
the CBD statement was largely viewed
as an aberration, as most coastal waters
are not iron limited, and this is why
all previous scientic studies havetaken place in the open ocean (Owens,
2009; Alred Wegener Institute, 2009).
Nonetheless, because the stipulation
was written into the UN CBD language,
members o the LOHAFEX scientic
team ound themselves having to nd a
way to describe their open-ocean experi-
ment as “coastal” in order to proceed.
Tus, when providing their risk assess-
ment to the German Research Ministry during the experiment’s suspension (see
introduction above), they argued that
iron ertilization in the Southern Ocean
would stimulate the growth o “coastal
species” o phytoplankton, an argument
that was apparently accepted, as the
German ministry ultimately allowed the
experiment to proceed. I science and
policy are to move orward on this issue,
lines o communication between sectors
should be continually improved.
A ew months aer the Convention
on Biological Diversity decision, the ull
London Convention took up the issue o
ocean iron ertilization once more, and
passed a Resolution on the Regulation
o Ocean Fertilization, announcing that
all iron ertilization activities, with the
exception o “legitimate science,” were
in violation o the London Convention’s
regulations on marine dumping. Te
London Convention also decided that
technical and legal working groups
would meet in February 2009 to
determine what constitutes legitimate
scientic research, establish an assess-
ment ramework, and propose uture
regulations under the Convention. A
multi-step delineated environmental risk
assessment ramework was proposed
or uture experiments, including small-
scale scientic experiments (Report o
the First Meeting o the Intersessional
echnical Working Group on OceanFertilization, 2009). Te hope is to avoid
the kind o controversy and uncertainty
surrounding LOHAFEX by having a
system in place to prevent conusion
between scientic experiments and
geoengineering projects.
In May 2009, the Scientic Group o
the London Convention met to discuss
the report o the echnical Working
Group and attempt to urther dene theacceptable ecological impacts o “legiti-
mate scientic research.” Specically on
the agenda was a “Dra Action List or
Ocean Iron Fertilization,” proposed by
representatives rom Australia and New
Zealand, which lists upper and lower
limits or nutrient and chemical species
concentrations (dissolved oxygen, pH,
nitrous oxide, ammonium, and methane,
among others) altered in response to
a small-scale (less than 200 x 200-km)
scientic experiment. Dra Action Lists
are used by the London Convention
process to regulate substances on the
basis o their eects on the marine
environment; the 2009 version entitled
“Ocean Fertilization: Development o a
Dra Action List” is the rst step in the
process o answering the question, “How
much o a negative result rom OIF is too
much?” In the all o 2009, the governing
body o the London Convention will
take up the reports rom the meeting o
the Scientic Group.
What remains unclear is whether
these assessments o uture small-scale
scientic OIF experiments will be
conducted at the international level
8/8/2019 22 3 Strong
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/22-3-strong 21/26
Oceanography Vol.22, No.3256
o the London Convention, or by the
science and research entities o the
individual countries involved. Future
regulation o larger-scale and nonscien-
tic OIF activities also remains unclear.
Te Legal Working Group o the LondonConvention proposed a set o possible
regulatory rameworks, ranging rom a
simply structured nonbinding resolu-
tion against large-scale OIF, to a ull
article amendment to the Convention
explicitly prohibiting it (Report o the
First Meeting o the Intersessional Legal
and Related Issues Working Group on
Ocean Fertilization, 2009). Te working
groups also avoided resolving the issue o whether commercialized carbon credits
could be sold as a product o “legitimate
scientic research,” leaving that question
to the ull Convention. What is now
clear is that the London Convention is
the central international legal rame-
work or this issue, and that regulation
o OIF will be a subject o continued
discussion and debate.
WhAt hAVe We LeAr Ned?
A rpa Ccl
Looking back, it is obvious that the
rst ew years o debate about the iron
hypothesis were a condensed version
o the 20 years to ollow. Small-scale
ocean ertilization experiments were
executed by oceanographers to address
specic scientic questions; ar-reaching
interpretations, conclusions, and rami-
cations were highlighted by the media
and by entrepreneurs, prompting a
response rom the scientic community
urging caution, ollowed by calls rom
academics and commercial-sector
proponents o OIF or more research.
Tis cycle has played out repeatedly as
the eld o ocean iron ertilization has
moved orward. And, despite the absence
o direct scientic evidence or OIF as
an eective long-term climate mitigation
tool, appeals or research on its efcacy
or this purpose have intensied over
the 20 years since the rst experiments,leading to larger and longer experiments.
Te dampening eedback rom negative
results, central to the advancement o
scientic research, seems largely absent
rom this cycle.
t Scnc dos No Sppo
OiF Fo global gonnn
Nearly two decades o scientic OIF
experiments have taught us that ironlimits productivity in several regions
o the ocean. We have learned that the
carbon export response to OIF is highly
variable—strongly regulated by the avail-
ability o light and silicate as inuenced
by physics, and also sensitive to the
interplay o many other actors that have
yet to be resolved. And we have learned
that on the temporal and spatial scales
o the experiments, carbon export is
oen quite small due to remineraliza-
tion o the phytoplankton bloom in the
surace waters. Models show that at the
limit—assuming complete macronu-
trient depletion and ertilization o the
Southern Ocean or 100 years—what
could be expected at most is global
sequestration o 1.0 Gt C yr-1 (able 2).
In all modeled scenarios, the amount
o CO2
sequestered is small relative to
the amount predicted to be released by
ossil uel burning, and the estimates
o sequestration have only gotten
smaller with more experimentation and
modeling (Denman, 2008). Furthermore,
models show that in order to maintain
the carbon sequestration, we would
have to continue to ertilize the entire
Southern Ocean with enough iron to
deplete macronutrients, in perpetuity.
Tis scenario is not realistic.
uncan an rsk
While the uncertainties about theefcacy o carbon sequestration rom
OIF as a geoengineering proposal
are high (Buesseler et al., 2008), the
certainty o ecological disruption is also
high. OIF or carbon sequestration is
designed to initiate a oristic shi to the
production o larger, bloom-orming
phytoplankton—in particular, diatoms
that are heavy and can sink rapidly. Tis
undamental alteration o the base o aood web would change the structure
and biogeochemical unction o the
community that depends upon it. Te
induced blooms would consume the
excess macronutrients at the surace
in HNLC regions, which, in combina-
tion with enrichment o deep waters
(e.g., Fuhrman and Capone, 1991),
would over time alter the biogeochem-
istry o the global ocean ecosystem.
Although we cannot predict the precise
changes that would occur, the only way
in which iron ertilization can work or
climate mitigation is to change deep
ocean chemistry and the way endemic
marine ood webs unction. Tere is
considerable risk in trusting inherently
uncertain predictions o such large-scale
and long-term alterations o the ocean.
Lont Ocan Cabon
Sqsaon o ion
Flaon is No Vabl
Fertilization-induced changes in
ecosystem unction would not only
have proound eects on the ecology o
huge marine ecosystems, but they would
also aect the potential efcacy o OIF
8/8/2019 22 3 Strong
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/22-3-strong 22/26
Oceanography Spb 2009 257
as a carbon sequestration strategy. As
Gnanadesikan et al. (2003) point out,
in order to accurately model the net
global benet o carbon sequestration,
all downstream eects on biological
productivity must be counted, includingpotential disruption o sheries rom
the depletion o macronutrients in the
source waters o productive ecosystems.
Tese negative eects may outweigh
the benets o carbon export. Besides
the potential or changes in net global
productivity, OIF could stimulate
nitrous oxide production as a result o
increased remineralization o carbon
and nitrogen (Denman, 2008). Tiswould result in longer-term and ar-eld
changes in nitrous oxide production
that could potentially oset signicant
amounts o predicted green-house gas
benets o OIF (Law, 2008). It can thus
be argued that measurements associated
with individual experiments cannot
be adequate to veriy what would
ultimately be a long-term, large-scale
eect o many applications o iron
(Cullen and Boyd, 2008).
Tese complex downstream responses
to ocean ertilization make verica-
tion o net greenhouse gas reduction
through ertilization next to impossible
(Chisholm et al., 2001; Cullen and Boyd,
2008; Gnanadesikan and Marinov, 2008).
Furthermore, carbon export measured as
a result o a ertilization-induced bloom
would have to be reerenced to a baseline
rate o carbon export. As ocean ertiliza-
tion and carbon ux research has shown,
this natural rate o carbon export is
highly variable in space and time; estab-
lishing an appropriate baseline to grant
carbon credits or individual applications
would be exceedingly difcult, and rie
with uncertainty (Figure 6).
At present, there is no system under
the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development
Mechanism to provide or carbon
credits rom osets by marine carbon
sequestration (Powell, 2007–2008).
Tus, under the current internationalmechanism, any credits granted
would thereore have to be sold on
the currently unregulated “voluntary
carbon credit market.” Although Climos
Inc. submitted a carbon sequestration
methodology to Det Norske Veritas, an
international verication company, in
late 2007 (Climos Press, 2007), ofcial
approval or verication has not been
given to OIF as a carbon sequestrationmethodology. Nonetheless, in the uture,
international carbon credit regulatory
systems may well include provisions or
marine “sequestration” osets (Powell,
2007–2008). It will then be very impor-
tant or OIF proponents to show in their
plans that the eects o wide-scale, long-
term carbon sequestration rom OIFare predictable, acceptable, and statisti-
cally veriable across ocean basins over
decades. In our opinion, assessments o
individual applications are not enough.
Sol W Conn o ts OiF
o Cla maon?
Arguments have been made or 20 years
that OIF should not be pursued as a
“quick-x” or the climate problem. Wehope we have shown that the original
arguments have not been weakened
F 6. Cocal ocan laon, wc wol nvolv vala cabon cs,
wol av o onsa a onnc bloo wol no av ows
occ. Ts sall cloopll a a sows bloo nc b on aon
n LOhAFeX ccl. T o bloos a ccl n black. how wol on
pov a nnonall l was, l alon, wol no av bloo lk
nbon was? Image taken rom: http://www.awi.de/en/inrastructure/ships/polarstern/
weekly_reports/all_expeditions/ant_xxv/ant_xxv3/26_ebruary_2009/
8/8/2019 22 3 Strong
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/22-3-strong 23/26
Oceanography Vol.22, No.3258
by new evidence over that interval.
Ocean ertilization will not solve the
CO2
problem, and i implemented or
prot, regardless o scale, has the poten-
tial to change the nature o the ocean
through the “tragedy o the commons”(Hardin, 1968). Perhaps it is time to
break the two-decade cycle o debate
and accept that we know enough about
ocean ertilization to say that it should
not be considered urther as a means
o climate mitigation. But our opinions
aside—and they are indeed opinions,
though science-based—a undamental
issue remains: the ecological and climate
mitigation response to OIF is scale-dependent (Buesseler et al., 2008; Cullen
and Boyd, 2008), and the biogeochemical
changes would be cumulative. Te only
way to test OIF as a climate mitigation
tool (i.e., to see i model projections
are right) would be to alter much o
the ocean system, perhaps irreversibly,
beore crucially important negative
eects could be evaluated with statistical
condence. We eel that the risk o doing
this does not compare well to even the
most optimistic predictions o potential
climate mitigation.
movn On
Climate change is already upon us.
Society needs to know what the ocean
will be like in a high CO2
world—which
ecosystems will be at risk as the ocean
warms and acidies, and how the altered
ocean will in turn inuence climate.
Understanding how ocean biogeochem-
ical cycles are linked, and the processes
that drive these cycles, is essential or
climate prediction. ransormational
developments in genomics along with
rapid advances in ocean observations and
modeling (Doney et al., 2004) allow us
to study the ocean as a system on scales
rom molecules to ocean basins, and we
are poised to ully integrate studies o
evolution and biogeochemistry (Woese
and Goldeneld, 2009). Tese develop-
ments open new vistas or understandingthe very basis o lie processes, and it is
these very lie processes that, scaled up,
regulate the concentration o CO2
and
other greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmo-
sphere. In this context, small-scale ocean
perturbation experiments are useul
tools or probing ecological and biogeo-
chemical relationships, and they should
continue to be used as such. Te potent
intellectual resources that have been tiedup in the ocean ertilization controversy
year aer year should be reed to pursue
more eective responses to the perva-
sive threat o carbon dioxide emissions
and global warming.
ACKNOWLedgmeNtS
ALS and SWC are supported in part
by unds rom the Gordon and Betty
Moore Foundation Marine Microbiology
Initiative, the US National Science
Foundation, and the US Department
o Energy. JJC is unded by the Natural
Sciences and Engineering Research
Council o Canada, the Killam rusts,
and the Ofce o Naval Research. None
o the authors have solicited or received
unds rom organizations or companies
or or against ocean ertilization. We
thank Jim Long or graphics, Edward
Boyle or his expert advice on one
part o the manuscript, Charles Miller
or extremely helpul comments and
discussion throughout, and E. Virginia
Armbrust, Heidi Sosik, Kenneth
Denman, and an anonymous reviewer
or their careul and insightul reviews
o the manuscript.
reFereNCeSAdhiya, J. 2001. Is Ocean Fertilization a Good
Carbon Sequestration Option? Master’s Tesis,
Massachusetts Institute o echnology.
Alred Wegener Institute. 2009. Risk Assessment
or LOHAFEX . Bremerhaven, Germany, 19 pp.
Available online at: http://www.awi.de/leadmin/
user_upload/News/Selected_News/2009/
LOHAFEX/0%20AWI_NIO_LOHAFEX_Risk_
Assessment.pd (accessed August 2, 2009).
Allsopp, M., D. Santillo, and P. Johnston. 2007. A
scientic critique o oceanic iron ertilization as
a climate change mitigation strategy. Available
online at: www.greenpeace.to/publications/iron_
ertilisation_critique.pd (accessed August 6, 2009).
Anderson, R.F., M.Q. Fleisher, Y. Lao, and G. Winckler.
2008. Modern CaCO3
preservation in equatorial
Pacic sediments in the context o late-Pleistocene
glacial cycles. Marine Chemistry 111:30–46.
Anderson, R.F., G. Winckler, and M. Fleisher. 2007.
What can we learn rom the paleo record about
past changes in ocean productivity and controls o
atmospheric CO2? Paper presented at the Woods
Hole Oceanographic Institution Iron Fertilization
symposium, Woods Hole, MA, September 26–27,
2007, http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=14617.
ASLO. 1991. American Society o Limnology and
Oceanography Symposium Report on What Controls
Phytoplankton Production in Nutrient-Rich
Areas o the Open Sea . San Marcos, Caliornia,
February 22–24, 1991, 21 pp.
ASLO Workshop Statement. 2001. Te Scientic and
Policy Uncertainties Surrounding the Use o Ocean
Fertilization to ranser Atmospheric Carbon
Dioxide to the Ocean. Washington, DC, April 25,
2001. Available online: http://also.org/docs/ocnert.
html (accessed August 6, 2009).
Assmy, P., J. Henjes, C. Klaas, and V. Smetacek. 2007.
Mechanisms determining species dominance in aphytoplankton bloom induced by the iron ertiliza-
tion experiment EisenEx in the Southern Ocean.
Deep-Sea Research Part I 54(3):340–362.
Aumont, O., and L. Bopp. 2006. Globalizing results
rom ocean in situ iron ertilization studies.
Global Biogeochemical Cycles 20, GB2017,
doi:10.1029/2005GB002591.
AWI News. 2009. LOHAFEX. Available online at:
http://www.awi.de/en/news/selected_news/2009/
lohaex/ (accessed August 2, 2009).
AWI Press Release. 2009a. Polarstern expedition
“LOHAFEX” can be conducted. January 26, 2009.
Available online at: http://www.awi.de/en/news/
press_releases (accessed March 25, 2009).
AWI Press Release. 2009b. Lohaex provides newinsights on plankton ecology: Only small amounts
o atmospheric carbon dioxide xed. March 23,
2009. Available online at: http://www.awi.de/en/
news/press_releases (accessed August 1, 2009).
Booth, W. 1990. Ironing out the “greenhouse eect”:
ertilizing oceans is proposed to spur algae. Te
Washington Post . May 20, 1990.
Boyd, P.W. 2008. Implications o large-scale iron
ertilization o the oceans: Introduction and
synthesis. Marine Ecology Progress Series: Teme
Section 364:213–218.
8/8/2019 22 3 Strong
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/22-3-strong 24/26
Oceanography Spb 2009 259
Boyd, P.W., . Jickells, C.S. Law, S. Blain, E.A. Boyle,
K.O. Buesseler, K.H. Coale, J.J. Cullen,
H.J.W. de Baar, M. Follows, and others. 2007.
Mesoscale iron enrichment experiments
1993–2005: Synthesis and uture directions.
Science 315(5812):612–617.
Boyd, P.W., C.S. Law, C.S. Wong, Y. Nojiri, A. suda,
M. Levasseur, S. akeda, R. Rivkin, P.J. Harrison,
R. Strzepek, and others. 2004. Te decline and ate
o an iron-induced subarctic phytoplankton bloom.
Nature 428(6982):549–553.
Boyd, P.W., A.J. Watson, C.S. Law, E.R. Abraham,
. rull, R. Murdoch, D.C.E. Bakker, A.R. B owie,
K.O. Buesseler, H. Chang, and others. 2000. A
mesoscale phytoplankton bloom in the polar
Southern Ocean stimulated by iron ertilization.
Nature 407(6805):695–702.
Brown, S.E.F. 2008. Planktos cancels ocean project,
recalls ship, cuts jobs. San Francisco Business imes.
February 13, 2008. Available online at: http://
www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2008/02/11/
daily49.html (accessed August 3, 2009).
Buesseler, K.O. 1998. Te decoupling o production
and particulate export in the surace ocean. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 12:297–310.
Buesseler, K.O., L. Ball, J. Andrews, J.K. Cochran,
D.J. Hirschberg, M.P. Bacon, A. Fleer, and
M. Brzezinski. 2001. Upper ocean export o partic-
ulate organic carbon and biogenic silica in the
Southern Ocean along 170°W. Deep-Sea Research
Part II 48:4,275–4,297.
Buesseler, K.O., J.E. Andrews, S.M. Pike, and
M.A. Charette. 2004. Te eects o iron ertiliza-
tion on carbon sequestration in the Southern
Ocean. Science 304(5669):414–417.
Buesseler, K.O., S.C. Doney, D.M. Karl, P.W.
Boyd, K. Caldeira, F. Chai, K.H. Coale,
H.J.W. de Baar, P.G. Falkowski, K.S. Johson, and
others. 2008. Environment: Ocean iron ertiliza-tion: Moving orward in a sea o uncertainty.
Science 319(5860):162.
Business Wire. 2005a. Solar announces the acquisition
o Planktos, Inc. Business Wire, August 12, 2005.
Available online at: http://www.allbusiness.com/
legal/environmental-law-air-quality-regulation/
5037838-1.html (accessed August 2, 2009).
Business Wire. 2005b. Solar’s subsidiary, Planktos,
enters into unding agreement with Diatom in
exchange or exclusive intellectual property and
marketing rights. Business Wire, September 13,
2005. Available online at: http://www.redorbit.com/
news/science/238992/solars_subsidiary_planktos_
enters_into_unding_agreement_with_diatom_in/
index.html (accessed August 1, 2009).Business Wire. 2007. Diatom announces name
change, orward stock split and symbol change.
Business Wire, March 8, 2007. Available online
at: http://ndarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/
is_2007_March_8/ai_n27307673/ (accessed
August 3, 2009).
Business Wire. 2008. Planktos shareholder update.
Business Wire, August 20, 2008. Available online at:
http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/
permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=
20080820005832&newsLang=en (accessed
August 1, 2009).
Campbell, H. 2009. LOHAFEX: I you mean well,
are you allowed to screw up the ocean? Available
online at: http://www.scienticblogging.com/
science_20/blog/lohaex_i_you_mean_well_
are_you_allowed_screw_ocean (accessed
August 1, 2009).
Canadian SOLAS Report. 2003. A research
network or the Canadian Surace Ocean Lower
Atmosphere Study. Progress Report 2001–2003.
April 30, 2003, C-SOLAS Secretariat, Haliax, Nova
Scotia, 54 pp. Available online at: http://as01.ucis.
dal.ca/wag/template/uploads/solas/SOLASreport_
may1.doc.pd (accessed August 10, 2009).
Carboncorp USA. 1999. Ocean carbon biomass
sequestration. Executive summary. Available online
at: http://web.archive.org/web/20000112024658/
http://rsrch.com/carboncorp/execsummary2.html
Charlson, R.J., J.E. Lovelock, M.O. Andreae, and S .G.
Warren. 1987. Oceanic phytoplankton, atmo-
spheric sulphur, cloud albedo, and climate. Nature
326:655–661.Chisholm, S.W. 2000. Stirring times in the Southern
Ocean. Nature 407:685-686.
Chisholm, S.W., and F.M.M. Morel, eds. 1991.
What regulates phytoplankton production in
nutrient-rich areas o the open sea? Limnology and
Oceanography Special Edition 36(8), 493 pp.
Chisholm, S.W., P.G. Falkowski, and J.J. Cullen. 2001.
Oceans – Dis-crediting ocean ertilization. Science
294(5541):309–310.
Chu, S., S. Elliott, M. Maltrud, F. Chai, and F. Chavez.
2003. Studies o the consequences o carbon
sequestration using Los Alamos ocean models.
Paper presented at the Second National Energy
and echnology Laboratory Conerence on Carbon
Sequestration. Washington, DC. Available onlineat: http://www.netldoe.gov/publications/proceed-
ings/03/carbon-seq/PDFs/043.pd (accessed
August 6, 2009).
Climate Response Fund. 2009. Available online
at: http://www.oceanstewardship.com/bios/
Margaret%20Leinen.pd (accessed July 30, 2009).
Climos About Us. 2008. eam. Available online at:
http://www.climos.com/team1.php (accessed
August 3, 2009).
Climos FAQ. 2008. Available online at: http://www.
climos.com/aq.php (accessed July 30, 2009).
Climos Press. 2007. Climos receives rst methodology
or ocean iron ertilization rom EcoSecurities,
Signs with DNV or Assessment. December 3,
2007. Available online at: http://www.climos.com/press_detail.php?pid=55 (accessed August 1, 2009).
Coale, K.H., K.S. Johnson, F.P. Chavez, K.O. Buesseler,
R.. Barber, M.A. Brzezinski, W.P. Cochlan, F.J.
Millero, P.G. Falkowski, J.E. Bauer, and others.
2004. Southern ocean iron enrichment experiment:
Carbon cycling in high- and low-Si waters. Science
304(5669):408–414.
Coale, K.H., K.S. Johnson, S.E. Fitzwater,
R.M. Gordon, S. anner, F.P. Chavez, L. Ferioli,
C. Sakamoto, P. Rogers, F. Millero, and others.
1996. A massive phytoplankton bloom induced
by an ecosystem-scale iron ertilization
experiment in the equatorial Pacic Ocean.
Nature 383(6600):495–501.
Consumer Eroski. 2007. El buque “Weatherbird II”
no vertera hierro en aguas de Canarias. Available
online at: http://www.consumer.es/web/medio_
ambiente/2007/12/14/172992.php (accessed
April 24, 2009).
Courtland, R. 2008. Planktos dead in the water.
Nature News. Available online at: http://www.bioe-
donline.org/news/news.cm?art=3823 (accessed
August 1, 2009).
Cullen, J.J., and P.W. Boyd. 2008. Predicting and
veriying the intended and unintended conse-
quences o large-scale ocean ertilization. Marine
Ecology Progress Series 364:295–301, doi:10.3354/
meps07551.
Cullen, J.J. 1995. Status o the iron hypothesis aer the
open-ocean enrichment experiment. Limnology
and Oceanography 40:1,336–1,343.
de Baar, H.J.W. 1994. Von Liebig’s law o the minimum
and plankton ecology (1899–1991). Progress in
Oceanography 33:347–386
de Baar, H.J.W., P.W. Boyd, K.H. Coale, M.R. Landry,A. suda, P. Assmy, D.C.E. Bakker, Y. Bozec,
R. Barber, and others. 2005. Synthesis o iron
ertilization experiments: From the Iron Age in
the Age o Enlightenment. Journal o Geophysical
Research 110, C09S16, doi:10.1029/2004JC002601.
Denman, K. 2008. Climate change, ocean processes,
and ocean iron ertilization. Marine Ecology
Progress Series 234:219–225.
Department o Energy. 1999. Enhancement o natural
carbon sequestration in the ocean. Chapter 3.2 in
Carbon Sequestration: Research and Development ,
a 1999 report by DOE’s Ofce o Fossil Energy
and Ofce o Science, Washington, DC. Available
online at: http://www.ossil.energy.gov/programs/
sequestration/publications/1999_rdreport/(accessed August 7, 2009).
Doney, S.C., M.R. Abbott, J.J. Cullen, D.M. Karl, and
L. Rothstein. 2004. From genes to ecosystems: Te
ocean’s new rontier. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment 2:457–466.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Submission
to 30th Meeting o the Scientic Group o the
London Convention. Document LC/SG 30/
INF.28. Planktos, Inc. Large-scale Ocean Iron
Addition Projects.
EC Group News Release. 2007. Planktos’ commercial
ocean iron ertilization carbon-trading gambit:
Brakes on akes. Available online at: http://www.
etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_
id=641 (accessed March 25, 2009).EC Group News Release. 2009. LOHAFEX Update:
Geo-engineering ship plows on as Environment
Ministry calls or a halt. 2009. January 13, 2009.
Available online at: http://www.etcgroup.org/en/
materials/publications.html?pub_id=712 (accessed
March 25, 2009).
Fuhrman, J.A., and D.G. Capone. 1991. Possible
biogeochemical consequences o ocean
ertilization. Limnology and Oceanography
36(8):1,951–1,959.
8/8/2019 22 3 Strong
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/22-3-strong 25/26
Oceanography Vol.22, No.3260
George, R. 2007. Inormation provided to the House
Select Committee on Energy Independence and
Global Warming. Wednesday, July 17, 2007.
Available online at: http://74.125.45.132/search?q
=cache:n1jbvaQsEAJ:globalwarming.house.gov/
tools/assets/les/0026.pd+Russ+George+
Planktos+restoration+2006&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk
&gl=us (accessed on May 18, 2009).
Gnanadesikan, A., and I. Marinov. 2008. Export is not
enough: Nutrient cycling and carbon sequestra-
tion. Marine Ecology Progress Series 364:289–294,
doi: 10.3354/meps07550.
Gnanadesikan, A., J.L. Sarmiento, and R.D. Slater.
2003. Eects o patchy ocean ertilization on
atmospheric carbon dioxide and biological produc-
tion. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 17(2), 1050,
doi:10.1029/2002GB001940.
Graeber, C. 2000. Dumping iron: Ecohacker Michael
Markels claims he has a megax or global
warming: Supercharge the growth o ocean
plankton with vitamin Fe and let a zillion CO2
scrubbers bloom. Wired. Available online at: http://
www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.11/ecohacking_
pr.html (accessed August 1, 2009).Hardin, G. 1968. Te tragedy o the commons.
Science 162:1,243–1,248.
Hart, . 1934. On the plankton o the Southwest
Atlantic and the Bellingshausen Sea. Discovery
Reports 8:1–268.
Homann, L.J., I. Peeken, K. Lochte, P. Assmy,
and M. Veldhuis. 2006. Dierent reactions o
Southern Ocean phytoplankton size classes to
iron ertilization. Limnology and Oceanography
51(3):1,217–1,229.
Holland, G. 2001. Workshop on Ocean Fertilization
to ranser Atmospheric CO2
to the Oceans.
Paper presented at the American Society or
Limnology and Oceanography Ocean Fertilization
Symposium, Washington, DC, April 25, 2001.Industrial Environment. 2006. Caliornia green groups
embrace Planktos ecorestoration. Company over-
view. November 1, 2006. Available online at: http://
www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-
32130890_IM (accessed May 18, 2009).
International Center or echnology Assessment. 2007.
Letter to the Securities Exchange Commission
regarding alse and misleading statements made
by Planktos, Corp. June 22, 2007. Available
online at: http://www.icta.org/global/actions.
cm?page=1&type=369&topic=12 (accessed
April 24, 2009).
Jacquet, S.H.M., N. Savoye, F. Dehairs, V.H. Strass, and
D. Cardinal. 2008. Mesopelagic carbon reminer-
alization during the European iron ertilizationexperiment. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 22,
GB1023, doi:10.1029/2006GB002902.
Jin, X., N. Gruber, H. Frenzel, S.C. Doney, and
J.C. McWilliams. 2008. Te impact on atmo-
spheric CO2
o iron ertilization induced
changes in the ocean’s biological pump.
Biogeosciences 5(2):385–406.
Johnson, K.S., and D.M. Karl. 2002. Is ocean
ertilization credible and creditable?
Science 296(5567):467–467.
Karl, D.M., and R.M. Letelier. 2008. Nitrogen xation-
enhanced carbon sequestration in low nitrate, low
chlorophyll seascapes. Marine Ecology Progress
Series 364:257–268.
Keim, B. 2009. Ocean ertilization works—unless
it doesn’t. Wired Science. March 25, 2009.
Available online at: http://blog.wired.com/
wiredscience/2009/01/oceaniron.html (accessed
August 1, 2009).
Kerry, S. 2008. Planktos announces resignation and
release o CEO and employees. Iron Fertilization
News. March 25, 2009. Available online at: http://
carbonsequestration.blogspot.com/2008/04/
planktos-announces-resignation-and.html
(accessed August 1, 2009).
Kintisch, E. 2009. Controversy in Teir Wake,
Geoengineering Experiment in Southern Ocean
to Begin. Science Insider . January 26, 2009.
Available online at: http://blogs.sciencemag.org
/scienceinsider/2009/01/controversy-in.html
(accessed August 1, 2009).
Koheld, K.E., C. Le Quere, S.P. Harrison, and R.F.
Anderson. 2005. Role o marine biology in glacial-
interglacial CO2 cycles. Science 308(5718):74–78.Krivit, S.B. 2007. Te Wizard o Hal Moon Bay: A
New Energy imes special report on Planktos
and D2Fusion. New Energy imes Issue 24,
September 10, 2007. Available online at: http://
newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2007/NE24.
shtml#thewiz (accessed August 1, 2009).
Kunzig, R. 1994. Te Iron Man’s revenge. Discover June
1994. Available online at: http://discovermagazine.
com/1994/jun/theironmansreven391 (accessed
August 1, 2009).
Lampitt, R.S., E.P. Achterberg, .R. Anderson,
J.A Hughes, M.D Iglesias-Rodriguez, B.A. Kelly-
Gerreyn, M. Lucas, E.E Popova, R. Sanders,
J.G Shepherd, and others. 2008. Ocean ertiliza-
tion: A potential means o geoengineering?Philosophical ransactions o the Royal
Society A 366:3,919–3,945.
Latham, J., P. Rasch, C.C. Chen, L. Kettles, A. Gadian,
A. Gettelman, H. Morrison, K. Bower, and
. Choularton. 2008. Global temperature stabiliza-
tion via controlled albedo enhancement o low-
level maritime clouds. Philosophical ransactions o
the Royal Society A 366:3,969–3,987.
Law, C.S., and the SAGE eam. 2006. Plankton, iron,
and climate. Water and Atmosphere 14(2):21.
Available online at: http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-
and-publications/publications/all/wa/14-2/iron
(accessed August 1, 2009).
Law, C.S. 2008. Predicting and monitoring the eects
o large-scale ocean iron ertilization on marinetrace gas emissions. Marine Ecology Progress
Series 364:283–288.
Leinen, M., K. Wilden, and D. Whaley. 2008. A
response to concerns raised about ocean iron ertil-
ization by Greepeace. Available online at: http://
www.climos.com/imo/Climos/Climos_Response_
to_Greenpeace_OIF_May2008_Final.pd (accessed
August 1, 2009).
London Convention Meeting Report. 2007. Report
o the wenty-Ninth Consultative Meeting and
the Second Meeting o the Contracting Parties.
December 14, 2007. Available online at: http://
www.imo.org/includes/blastDataOnly.asp/data_
id%3D20797/17.pd (accessed August 4, 2009).
London Convention Meeting Report. 2008. Report
o the Tirtieth Consultative Meeting and
the Tird Meeting o the Contracting Parties.
December 9, 2008. Available online at: http://
www.imo.org/includes/blastDataOnly.asp/data_
id%3D24255/16.pd (accessed August 4, 2009).
Markels, M. 1995. US Patent 5433173: Method o
improving production o seaood . Available online
at: http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5433173/
ulltext.html (accessed August 1, 2009).
Markels, M. 1998. Farming the Oceans: An update.
Regulation 21(2):9–10. Available online at:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv21n2/
v21n2.html (accessed August 1, 2009).
Markels, M. 1999. Eects o creativity and entrepre-
neurship. Cosmos Journal . Available online at:
http://www.cosmos-club.org/web/journals/1999/
markels.html (accessed August 1, 2009).
Markels, M., and R. Barber. 2001. Sequestration
o CO2
by ocean ertilization. Paper presented
at the First National Energy and echnology Laboratory Conerence on Carbon Sequestration,
Washington, DC.
Martin, J.H. 1990a. A new iron age, or a erric antasy.
JGOFS Newsletter 1(4):5,11.
Martin, J.H. 1990b. Glacial-interglacial CO2
exchange:
Te iron hypothesis. Paleoceanography5:1–13.
Martin, J.H., K.H. Coale, K.S. Johnson, S.E. F itzwater,
R.M. Gordon, S.J. anner, C.N. Hunter, V.A. Elrod,
J.L. Nowicki, .L. Coley, and others. 1994. esting
the iron hypothesis in ecosystems o the equatorial
Pacic Ocean. Nature 371(6493):123–129.
Martin, J. H., R.M. Gordon, S. Fitzwater, and
W.W. Broenkow. 1989. Vertex: Phytoplankton iron
studies in the Gul o Alaska. Deep-Sea Research
Part A 36(5):649–680.Martin, J.H., R.M. Gordon, and S.E. Fitzwater.
1990. Iron in Antarctic waters. Nature
345(6271):156–158.
McKie, R. 2003. Bid to reduce greenhouse gases ‘is
olly.’ Te Observer . January 12, 2003. Available
online at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/
jan/12/research.science (accessed August 1, 2009).
Monastersky, R. 1994. Pumping iron: oo weak to slow
warming. Science News 145(10):148.
Morgan, J. 2009. Ocean climate x remains aoat.
BBC News: Science and Environment. January 29,
2009. Available online at: http://news.bbc.
co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7856144.stm (accessed
August 1, 2009).
Murray, J. 2008. Climos aiming or rst “ocean ert”project in late 2009. BusinessGreen. September
23, 2008. Available online at: http://www.
businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2226690/
climos-aiming-rst-ocean-ert (accessed
August 1, 2009).
NIO Press Release. 2009. LOHAFEX provides
surprising insights on plankton ecology that
dampen hopes o using the Southern Ocean
to sequester atmospheric CO2. National
Institute o Oceanography. Available online
8/8/2019 22 3 Strong
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/22-3-strong 26/26
at: http://www.nio.org/projects/narvekar/
Lohaex_press_release_23_03_09.pd (accessed
August 1, 2009).
Owens, N.J.P. 2009. Review o: LOHAFEX Iron
Enrichment Experiment, Southwest Atlantic.
Available online at: http://www.bmb.de/_media/
press/BAS_zu_LOHAFEX.pd (accessed
August 1, 2009).
Parks, N. 2008. Fertilizing the seas or climate mitiga-
tion: Promising strategy or sheer olly? American
Institute o Biological Sciences Washington
Watch. Available online at: http://www.aibs.org/
washington-watch/washington_watch_2008_
02.html (accessed August 1, 2009).
Paytan, A., M. Kastner, and F.P. Chavez. 1996. Glacial
to interglacial uctuations in productivity in the
equatorial Pacic as indicated by marine barite.
Science 274(5291):1,355–1,357.
Planktos Green ags. 2002. Originally rom www.
planktos.com/greentags.htm. Available online
at: http://web.archive.org/web/20020612160156/
www.planktos.com/greentags.htm (accessed
August 1, 2009).
Plotkin, H. 2002. Ocean Rescue: Planktos Foundationhopes to reduce global warming by ertilizing the
seas. San Francisco Chronicle: SF Gate. May 22,
2002. Available online at: http://www.sgate.com/
cgi-bin/article.cgi?le=/gate/archive/2002/05/22/
plnktos.DL (accessed August 2, 2009).
Powell, H. 2007–2008. Six-part series. Part 1:
Fertilizing the oceans with iron. Part 2: Will
ocean iron ertilization work? Part 3: What are
the possible side eects? Part 4: Lessons rom
nature, models, and the past. Part 5: Dumping iron
and trading carbon. Part 6: Proposals emerge to
transer excess carbon into the ocean. Oceanus.
November 2007–January 2008. Available online
at: http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.
do?id=34167 (accessed August 2, 2009).Rasch, P.J., P.J. Crutzen, and D.B. Coleman. 2008.
Exploring the geoengineering o climate using
stratospheric aerosols: Te role o particle
size. Geophysical Research Letters 35, L02809,
doi:10.1029/2007GL032179.
Rees, F.P., P.D. Nightingale, N.J.P. Owens, and the
PML FeeP eam. 2007. FeeP-An in situ PO4
3- and
Fe2+ addition experiment to waters o the sub-
tropical north-east Atlantic. Geophysical Research
Abstracts 9:A01440.
Report o the First Meeting o the Intersessional
Legal and Related Issues Working Group on
Ocean Fertilization. 2009. February 11–13, 2009,
28 pp. Available online at: http://www.imo.org/
Saety/mainrame.asp?topic_id=1777 (accessedAugust 7, 2009).
Report o the First Meeting o the Intersessional
echnical Working Group on Ocean Fertilization.
2009. Available online at: www.imo.org/includes/
blastData.asp/doc_id=11172/5.pd (accessed
August 1, 2009).
Rice, M.L. 2003. GreenSea’s interest in ertilizing sea
with iron. Nature 421(6925):786–786.
Riddell, L. 2008. Climos aims to prot rom hungry
plankton. San Francisco Business imes. April 25,
2008. Available online at: http://www.bizjournals.
com/sanrancisco/stories/2008/04/28/story17.html
(accessed August 2, 2009).
San Francisco Business imes. 2007. Planktos starts
to sink. December 19, 2007. Available online
at: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanrancisco/
stories/2007/12/17/daily28.html (accessed
August 3, 2009).
Sarmiento, J.L., and J.C. Orr. 1991. Tree-dimensional
simulations o the impact o Southern Ocean
nutrient depletion on atmospheric CO2. Limnology
and Oceanography 36:1,928–1,950.
Schiermeier, Q. 2003. Climate change: Te oresmen.
Nature 421(6919):109–110.
Scientic Group o the London Convention Meeting
Report. 2007. Report o the Tirtieth Meeting o
the Scientifc Group o the London Convention and
First Meeting o the Scientifc Group o the London
Protocol . July 25, 2007. Available online at: http://
www.imo.org/includes/blastDataOnly.asp/data_
id%3D19765/14.pd (accessed August 4, 2009).
Scientic Group o the London Convention MeetingReport. 2008. Report o the Tirty-First Meeting
o the Scientifc Group o the London Convention
and Second Meeting o the Scientifc Group o the
London Protocol . July 8, 2008. Available online
at: http://www.imo.org/includes/blastDataOnly.
asp/data_id%3D22812/16.pd (accessed
August 4, 2009).
Sea Shepherd News. 2008. Sea Shepherd deeats the
Planktos ocean dumping scheme. Sea Shepherd
News, February 14, 2008. Available online at:
http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/
news-080214-1.html (accessed August 2, 2009).
South Bay. 2007. Sea Shepherd to intercept/
block Planktos ship. South Bay, July 28, 2007.
Available online at: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/07/28/18437803.php (accessed
August 2, 2009).
Smetacek, V. 2001. EisenEx: International team
conducts iron experiment in Southern Ocean.
US JGOFS News 11(1):11–14.
Smetacek, V., and S.W.A. Naqvi. 2008. Te next
generation o iron ertilization experiments in the
Southern Ocean. Philosophical ransactions o the
Royal Society A 366:3,947–3,967.
Sullivan, K. 2007. World Wildlie Fund warns against
iron dumping experiment near the Galapagos
Islands. WWF Press Release. Available online
at: http://www.worldwildlie.org/who/media/
press/2007/WWFPresitem973.html (accessed
August 1, 2009).Suplee, C. 1996. Iron supplement or a cooler world.
Te Washington Post , October 14, 1996.
Szabo, M. 2009. New science could help solve climate
crisis. Reuters: Environment News. Available
online at: http://www.reuters.com/article/
environmentNews/idUSRE50R08V20090128
(accessed August 1, 2009).
Tompson, K. 2008. Carbon discredit. Popular
Science. Available online at: http://www.popsci.
com/environment/article/2008-07/carbon-
discredit?page=4 (accessed April 24, 2009).
oggweiler, J.R., J.L. Russell, and S.R. Carson.
2006. Midlatitude westerlies, atmospheric
CO2, and climate change during the ice ages.
Paleoceanography21, doi:10.1029/2005PA001154.
suda, A., H. Kiyosawa, A. Kuwata, M. Mochizuki,
N. Shiga, H. Saito, S. Chiba, K. Imai, J. Nishioka,
and . Ono. 2005. Responses o diatoms to iron-
enrichment (SEEDS) in the western subarctic
Pacic, temporal and spatial comparisons. Progress
in Oceanography 64(2–4):189–205.
suda, A., S. akeda, H. Saito, J. Nishioka, I. Kudo,
Y. Nojiri, K. Suzuki, M. Uematsu, M.L. Wells,
D. sumune, and others. 2007. Evidence or the
grazing hypothesis: Grazing reduces phytoplankton
responses o the HNLC ecosystem to iron enrich-
ment in the western subarctic pacic (SEEDS II).
Journal o Oceanography 63(6):983–994.
UN CBD. 2008. Biodiversity and Climate Change:
Ocean Fertilization. Decision IX.16 UN
Convention on Biological Diversity. Adopted
May 31, 2008.
Williams, W. 2003. Iron ertilization. Living on Earth.
Available online at: http://www.loe.org/series/
iron_ertilization/ (accessed August 1, 2009).Winckler, G., R.F. Anderson, M.Q. Fleisher, D. Mcgee,
and N. Mahowald. 2008. Covariant glacial-
interglacial dust uxes in the equatorial Pacic and
Antarctica. Science 320(5872):93–96.
Woese, C.R., and N. Goldeneld. 2009. How the
microbial world saved evolution rom the Scylla
o molecular biology and the charybdis o the
modern synthesis. Microbiology and Molecular
Biology Reviews 73:14–21.
World Wildlie Fund International. 2009. WWF
opposes precarious ocean ertilization project.
Available online at: http://www.panda.org/ww_
news/news/?155301/WWF-opposes-precarious-
ocean-ertilization-project (accessed July 27, 2009)
Zahariev, K., J.R. Christian, and K.L. Denman.2008. Preindustrial, historical, and ertilization
simulations using a global ocean carbon model
with new parameterizations o iron limita-
tion, calcication, and N2
xation. Progress in
Oceanography 77(1):56–82.