Submitted on June 13th, 2008 by Toby Reid (not verified)
While the folks at Climos seem well intentioned in trying to make this technology work, we must ask ourselves what the price of experimenting with our oceans is. Climos scientist Ken Buesseler seems to think that since we've already had an impact on the oceans, through our pollution and overfishing, we are granted the right to experiment with it as we see fit. This rationale is not only dangerously reckless but it is another example of humans' ability to look at the small picture, without seeing the effect on the bigger picture.
First of all, when phytoplankton bloom, they absorb C02 and release sulfurs, which eventually get picked up by our clouds. These sulfurs mix with the other gases in the clouds, such as nitrogen, which is where we get acid rain from. So, Iron Fertilization = Acid Rain. The effect on the small picture looks good, until you look at the bigger picture.
Secondly, iron sequestration supporters talk about it only having a 60-90 day effect, since the blooms only last that long. This is shortsighted as it doesn't incorporate the fact that there is an effect on the food chain that lasts much longer. The animals that eat phytoplankton live for much longer than 60-90 days. If the food source for these animals is increased, it favours them, and places other animals who don't eat phytoplankton at a disadvantage. Iron sequestration is altering the evolution and survival of many marine species, and altering the development of our oceans. Iron fertilization is not a short-term fix, its effects echo forever, and since we don't know what those effect on the marine ecosystem will be, iron fertilization is irresponsible.
Lastly, climate change really only gets solved when we deal with the problem at its source, as opposed to trying to treat the symptoms of the problem. Iron fertilization of our oceans is a band aid that may or may not work, and that has unknown consequences to marine ecosystems. While it is being proposed as a 'silver bullet' solution, one must be aware that if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
The answer to climate change is eliminating our carbon emissions from transportation, industry and our communities. We need to address the problem at its source. No other solution will be more effective than this.
Read the blog at http://www.nanosolar.com/blog3/
Their ...
Poll
"I come back and keep reading because you're a unique voice, doing actual investigative reporting, and aren't afraid to question the status quo. The Cleantech Group's reporting has unique perspectives."
Premier sponsors include
Lead sponsors/partners include
All sponsors | All partners
Climos on wrong path
Submitted on June 13th, 2008 by Toby Reid (not verified)While the folks at Climos seem well intentioned in trying to make this technology work, we must ask ourselves what the price of experimenting with our oceans is. Climos scientist Ken Buesseler seems to think that since we've already had an impact on the oceans, through our pollution and overfishing, we are granted the right to experiment with it as we see fit. This rationale is not only dangerously reckless but it is another example of humans' ability to look at the small picture, without seeing the effect on the bigger picture.
First of all, when phytoplankton bloom, they absorb C02 and release sulfurs, which eventually get picked up by our clouds. These sulfurs mix with the other gases in the clouds, such as nitrogen, which is where we get acid rain from. So, Iron Fertilization = Acid Rain. The effect on the small picture looks good, until you look at the bigger picture.
Secondly, iron sequestration supporters talk about it only having a 60-90 day effect, since the blooms only last that long. This is shortsighted as it doesn't incorporate the fact that there is an effect on the food chain that lasts much longer. The animals that eat phytoplankton live for much longer than 60-90 days. If the food source for these animals is increased, it favours them, and places other animals who don't eat phytoplankton at a disadvantage. Iron sequestration is altering the evolution and survival of many marine species, and altering the development of our oceans. Iron fertilization is not a short-term fix, its effects echo forever, and since we don't know what those effect on the marine ecosystem will be, iron fertilization is irresponsible.
Lastly, climate change really only gets solved when we deal with the problem at its source, as opposed to trying to treat the symptoms of the problem. Iron fertilization of our oceans is a band aid that may or may not work, and that has unknown consequences to marine ecosystems. While it is being proposed as a 'silver bullet' solution, one must be aware that if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
The answer to climate change is eliminating our carbon emissions from transportation, industry and our communities. We need to address the problem at its source. No other solution will be more effective than this.