I get email: Iron Fertilization 101

i-b820df4e1706f0c76c507ac688ec8dcb-ocean.JPG

Yesterday, I mentioned iron fertilization and more than one email found my inbox inquiring exactly what that means. So with readers in mind, I've composed a blog post over at CORRELATIONS explaining Iron Fertilization 101.

Phytoplankton take up CO2 in oceans and then go on to die and sink, and drum roll please.... we've got a natural process that helps mitigate lots of the pesky CO2 that's been mucking up planet earth! You see, iron is a limiting factor for phytoplankton growth, so if we were to, say, dump a lot of Fe into the sea - phytoplankton will bloom and carbon would be sequestrated in oceans.

To offset emissions, for-profit corporations want to spread Fe where it currently limits phytoplankton. Investors hope to use this process to earn carbon credits which would be traded through markets or sold as offsets for greenhouse gas emissions.

But WAIT just one second! Before we jump on the iron fertilization bandwagon, there are a few things important things to consider.

Read about the serious risks associated with this process here...

More like this

In the words of Rick at MBSL&S So let's just say you have a couple hundred thousand metric tons of iron filings laying around the house. While in the tub one day, you conceive of a terrific idea of dumping all that iron into the ocean, thus seeding phytoplankton growth (iron is a limiting…
You've got to hand it to John Edwards. He's always trying to do the right thing, or at least appear to be doing the right thing. Last week he announced that his campaign for the White House will be a sustainable one, through the use of the latest fad in environmental circles: carbon offsets. It's a…
A weird one. Planktos is a for-profit company that appears to intend to sequestrate CO2 by causing algal blooms. Anyone with more info on this is invited to comment. And they will sell you CO2 offsets. For example: The average international flight is 9-20 hours long and produces 2 tons of CO2 per…
A Reuters story about startling high levels of carbon dixoide in the air near the North Pole caught my eye this week. Levels of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas from human activities, rose to 392 parts per million (ppm) in the atmosphere in Svalbard in December.... 392? That seems awfully…

I think another important thing to remember here is that there's a vast difference between "a limiting factor" and "the limiting factor". I realise you've alluded to this in the linked article, but it could perhaps use being clearer. Eliminating a GLF rarely produces astounding results, as any gardener will tell you (unless you're really short on macronutrients, anyway).