Deep Ecology: An Open-Sea Experiment

The latest carbon scheme involves sinking iron into the ocean.

Illustration: Peter Hoey

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


You might expect enviros to applaud the first large-scale test of an innovative method to combat global warming. But last spring, when Planktos Inc. announced it would seed the growth of CO2-sucking phytoplankton by sprinkling 100 tons of iron sulfate 350 miles off the Galapagos Islands, environmental groups went ballistic. The Natural Resources Defense Council and the World Wildlife Fund denounced the California firm. Friends of the Earth launched an email campaign. Greenpeace petitioned the UN’s International Maritime Organization to address the activity under its 1996 ocean-dumping accord. Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, a maverick operation that harasses whaling vessels, even threatened to intercept Planktos’ ship. In the end, the company had to cancel its expedition due to a lack of cash and outdated research gear. As the final indignity, its stock was de­listed by the Securities and Exchange Commission in December as punishment for late financial filings.

It was an inauspicious debut for iron fertilization, a carbon-sequestration scheme whose commercial boosters see in it the potential to reverse climate change and make money by selling carbon credits to polluting industries. Pioneered in the late 1980s by oceanographer John Martin, who once quipped, “Give me half a tanker of iron and I’ll give you an ice age,” the theory goes like this: Spiking the ocean surface with iron stimulates blooms of phytoplankton, a broad class of tiny organisms that thrive in iron-rich seawater and form the base of the marine food web. These photosynthetic powerhouses suck up CO2 and store it away in their tissues. Most are gobbled by other species, but—and here’s the contentious part—a significant portion decomposes and sinks to depths where currents may trap the carbon for a century or more. “The ocean is a very efficient pump with the potential to store millions of tons of CO2,” says Tony Michaels, director of the Wrigley Institute for Environmental Studies at the University of Southern California. “The big question is how much carbon, and for how long?”

Indeed, while researchers have engineered blooms in at least a dozen open-sea experiments, this basic question remains unanswered. “It’s just as likely that currents would carry the plankton back up to the surface, where they would release the CO2 back into the atmosphere,” says Penny Chisholm, an environmental studies professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In addition, some computer models predict that iron fertilization could bring about the production of greenhouse gases such as nitrous oxide and methane. Other concerns: Seeding may stimulate growth of toxic species, alter the marine food chain, and lead to the depletion of deep-water oxygen. In short, toying with the world’s largest ecosystem would affect the natural balance upon which larger species, including humans, depend.

While many scientists share these concerns, the quickening pace of global warming seems to have tilted the debate away from the timid. Less than a year ago Kenneth Coale, director of California’s Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, told me that iron seeding was like “asking the ocean to become our trash can.” Profit potential, he fretted, could reframe the question “How does the ocean work?” into “How can we make the ocean work for us?”

But following a powwow of the field’s leading minds last September, Coale and others have softened their stance. “The freight train is running full speed over the cliff right now,” he now says, “and the issue is too important to leave any stone unturned in our search for solutions to climate change.”

Contributing to the change of heart is a new company that, unlike the secretive Planktos, has sought to woo marine scientists. San Francisco-based Climos is led by the mother-son team of Margaret Leinen, who left a post as assistant director of geosciences at the National Science Foundation, and Dan Whaley, an entrepreneur whose sale of travel website GetThere for $750 million provided seed money. Last October, the company proposed an international code of ethics to govern iron fertilization. It also has hired an outside company to assess its methodology and is recruiting renowned oceanographers to oversee its first project. “We’re committed to transparency because it’s the only way to build confidence that ocean fertilization is both safe and effective,” Leinen says.

But even for Climos the road to commercialization may prove long and costly. This January in Science magazine, 16 researchers (including Coale) identified daunting scientific hurdles and wrote that commercial projects should only move forward “if society is willing to acknowledge explicitly that it will result in the alteration of ocean ecosystems” with unknown consequences. Still, with Arctic ice disappearing at a rapid clip, many researchers believe we can no longer afford to be finicky. “It’s too late to prevent long-term environmental damage,” Michaels says, “so it’s going to come down to hard choices about what kinds of damage we can tolerate.” Whales vs. polar bears, anyone?

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate