Get a FREE Issue of Earth Island Journal
Sign up for our no-risk offer today.

Go Back: Home > Earth Island Journal > Issues > Autumn 2012 > Temperature Gauge

Temperature Gauge

Notes from a Warming World

graphic of a earth-globe with a thermometer rising from it

Iron Sink

It appears that dumping iron in the sea can help suck carbon out of the air and bury it underwater, like, forever.

New research by a team of international researchers published in the journal Nature shows that spreading iron dust in the sea causes a growth spurt in a certain type of carbon-sucking algae that sink as they die, taking the carbon they have absorbed from the atmosphere with them to the bottom of the ocean floor. The scientists suggest their findings could help control climate change.

For their study, the team dumped seven tons of iron sulfate into the Antarctic Ocean in 2004. At least half of the heat-trapping carbon captured by the resulting bloom of diatoms, a type of algae, sank below 3,300 ft, leading the scientists to conclude that “iron-fertilized diatom blooms may sequester carbon for timescales of centuries in ocean bottom water and for longer in the sediments.”

The process of adding iron in the sea, called “ocean fertilization,” is one of several geo-engineering techniques for slowing climate change that scientists have been researching. There had been doubts about whether the carbon captured by ocean fertilization would stay in the upper ocean layers, where it could mix back into the air. The latest study is the first convincing evidence that carbon absorbed by algae during photosynthesis can sink to the ocean bed.

photo of a microscopic organismphoto Antonio GuillénSprinkling iron dust in the sea causes a growth spurt in a certain type of carbon-sucking algae.

The research, however, failed to answer questions about possible damage to marine life from artificially generated algal blooms. Some types of diatoms known as red tides, for example, can be harmful to underwater ecosystems. When these algae decay in large quantities, they absorb oxygen and release nitrogen into the water, killing off fish, marine mammals, and birds. Red tides can also trigger skin and respiratory problems in humans.

Large-scale experiments with ocean fertilization are currently banned by the London Convention, which restricts dumping at sea. Victor Smetacek, lead author of the Nature study, says that is “a crying shame” because it blocks crucial research that would help us understand “what might happen to species composition” if we were to continuously add iron to the sea.

Fair enough. Though that experiment sort of sounds like adding straws to a bale to see which one will break the camel’s back.

He Would Say That

Ocean fertilization is just the kind of thing that would appeal to ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson, who believes we should focus on engineering fixes to cope with climate change rather than try to reduce fossil fuel use.

“Changes to weather patterns that move crop production areas around – we’ll adapt to that. It’s an engineering problem and it has engineering solutions,” Tillerson said during a recent presentation to the Council on Foreign Relations.

In his speech Tillerson blamed a public that’s “illiterate” in science and math, a “lazy” press, and advocacy groups that “manufacture fear” for misconceptions about the impacts of oil and gas drilling and use. Compared to his predecessor, Lee Raymond, Tillerson is something of a moderate, having publicly acknowledged the fact of anthropogenic climate change.

Tillerson said humanity should focus its efforts on adapting to the effects of a warmer earth. “We have spent our entire existence adapting, OK? So we will adapt to this,” he said. Tillerson evidently believes that adaptation and mitigation are still either/or choices we have the leisure to make. At this point, many climatologists disagree. We need to prepare for the worst and, at the same time, do our best to avoid the most damaging climate dislocations. As Angela Anderson, climate and energy program director at the Union of Concerned Scientists, puts it: “There are effects of climate change that are difficult, if not impossible, to adapt to.”

Depends How You Say It

The ExxonMobil chief’s views are in keeping with how many self-described conservatives approach climate change science. A study by researchers at Yale found that people with generally conservative worldviews often dismiss climate science because they sense that accepting it would lead to restraints on commerce, something they value. But if they are told that there is a technological fix to global warming like geo-engineering, then they are more likely to accept the scientific consensus on human-driven climate change.

So environmentalists could shift the climate change debate in the US by reframing it as a technological issue rather than a regulatory one. The only problem: That could leave us stuck pouring iron into the ocean for the rest of time.

   

Email this article to a friend.

Write to the editor about this article.

Subscribe Today
cover thumbnail EIJ cover thumbnail EIJ cover thumbnail EIJ cover thumbnail EIJFour issues of the award-winning
Earth Island Journal for only $10

 

Comments

It is ironic that after (for some unknown reason) shifting the topic of this post from iron fertilization to the ExxonMobil CEO (of whose opinion of ocean fertilization we know nothing), you accuse him of: “evidently believ[ing] that adaptation and mitigation are still either/or choices we have the leisure to make. At this point, many climatologists disagree. We need to prepare for the worst and, at the same time, do our best to avoid the most damaging climate dislocations.”

That is exactly why we should be researching ocean fertilization and other so-called geoengineering methods. We may not have the leisure to make a mitigation vs. adaptation vs. geoengineering either/or decision. We must have all tools available. Ocean fertilization *may* (or may not) significantly harm marine ecosystem, and such harm may (or may not) be worse than the harm from climate change. That is why research needs to be pursued.

As a final note, you imply that this experiment was contrary to international law. It was not. The resolution of the governing body of the London Convention and London Protocol made an explicit exception for “legitimate scientific research” and have developed a framework for assessing what qualifies for that.

If, in fact, “The latest study is the first convincing evidence that carbon absorbed by algae during photosynthesis can sink to the ocean bed,” it seems both unclear and counterproductive to conclude that the “experiment sort of sounds like adding straws to a bale to see which one will break the camel’s back.”

By J.Q.R. on Thu, September 06, 2012 at 1:46 am

Diatoms do not cause Red Tides, these are caused by dinoflagellates.

By Bhaskar Mallimadugula on Wed, September 05, 2012 at 6:18 pm

Leave a comment

Comments Policy

Please enter the word you see in the image below:

Subscribe
Today

Four issues for just
$10 a year.

cover thumbnail EIJ

Join Now!

 
get tickets to the 15th annual Brower Youth Awards!

0.1333