This is interesting, and a clever allegory. But I'm confused by a few things. I have an open mind about ocean fertilization (OF) as a safe way of stimulating growth of phytoplankton. But there are so many other things going on in the ocean as well.
First, by now some of the changes in fisheries are matters of ocean physics: because of ocean heating, certain currents and the points where they turnover and upwell nutrients are moving poleward, such as off Japan's coast. What is the time frame in which OF will reverse these trends -- assuming it will at all? Because if the timeframe is too long, then many countries might not see their coastal fisheries recover at all, despite OF.
Similarly, you've mentioned in other posts that OF will improve the Earth's albedo: but how much of the ice caps at the poles will have melted by the time OF starts to reverse ice cap loss, if ever? How much will ocean circulation have changed by that time because of the fresh water introduced into the system, and how much will sea levels have risen, potentially ruining the coastal communities you say OF will save?
Second, the notion of using ocean fertilization to grow feed for livestock doesn't sound like a winner. Shouldn't we concurrently be reducing dependence on livestock -- on grounds of CH4 emissions, deforestation, human health, biodiversity loss, etc.?
Third, there isn't anything in here about "ocean abundance" for the sake of non-humans. E.g., whales aren't just for tourists to ogle at: they were living in the ocean long before we started exploiting it, and are part of important food chains from the surface to the deep oceans.
If one takes the position that extreme anthropocentrism like in this piece is the only "realistic" philosophy, you'll have a self-fulfilling prophecy; and all non-humans will be in essence either farm animals or zoo animals (food or entertainment). Is that the kind of planet people want to live on?
More generally, what evidence (published, peer-reviewed) is there that OF will have all these knock-on benefits, and no drawbacks?
Those are all excellent questions. There are no sure things, and there's no way to answer these questions without fundamental research. The best time to start that is 20 years ago, the second best time to start is now.
I like the questions you are asking AJ. You and I might agree that the single best way to solve the rate of climate change that humans have accelerated, is Thanos. Or a double dose of Thanos. Since that isn't real, we are stuck with the composite moral, intellectual, theoretical, research and development test that no human generation in our brief evolutionary time has been burdened with. And that is how do we "solve" this massive problem ineptly termed "climate change" before it does things we really don't want.
First thing to understand is that no single solution will suffice (no silver bullets) and likely, if we can slow down the rate of change to normal holocene parameters, it will be done with thousands of minor solutions, many dozens of medium impact solutions, and a couple handfuls of larger more impactful solutions.
Secondly, whether ocean fertilization is both safe and is a small, medium or large impact solution (which will correlate to the size of the potential co-benefits), will be dependent on multiple factors, some of which are not about the physics but rather about the human societal factors (like money, regulatory, education, etc)
Your question about OF's impact on ocean physics (currents, upwelling, etc): indirectly and only as part of the aggregate of solutions, and not soon enough and by itself no. Those are the answers, I think. But your closing concern on that question is a concern I do not share. Fisheries will most likely see an increase in fish populations relatively soon (2-4 years). It's just an increase in food, in simple terms.
Your question on albedo: the DMS phytoplankton produce is not enough by itself in the short term to contribute to increased cloud cover and albedo increase. And OF will not reverse what is happening with EEI. Can it contribute in a small way with other solutions? Possibly to probably.
Your statement on feed for livestock and reducing animal food dependence: humans have always done this and as long as there are fish in the ocean, humans will use some species for feedstock for animals. And as long as humans have independence over their choices of protein, there will be those who choose eating critter meat (we can solve the methane burps in other ways).
Regarding co-benefits and scientific papers... there is a fair amount of scientific understanding about plankton but more research needed and more focused research (via field trials) on the ecological effects. The ecological risks are real concerns, but some take a long time (hundred plus years) to manifest to a level of significance to a localized area, and that is outside the time window where OF is needed (at least at a scale it might evolve to for CDR purposes). Keep in mind that OF can't or shouldn't be done everywhere in the ocean. It can be effective in certain places under certain conditions (a whole bunch of factors to this).
No drawbacks? That isn't possible. Everything (just about) has a drawback. It's always about the evaluation of tradeoffs. No free lunch.
This is interesting, and a clever allegory. But I'm confused by a few things. I have an open mind about ocean fertilization (OF) as a safe way of stimulating growth of phytoplankton. But there are so many other things going on in the ocean as well.
First, by now some of the changes in fisheries are matters of ocean physics: because of ocean heating, certain currents and the points where they turnover and upwell nutrients are moving poleward, such as off Japan's coast. What is the time frame in which OF will reverse these trends -- assuming it will at all? Because if the timeframe is too long, then many countries might not see their coastal fisheries recover at all, despite OF.
Similarly, you've mentioned in other posts that OF will improve the Earth's albedo: but how much of the ice caps at the poles will have melted by the time OF starts to reverse ice cap loss, if ever? How much will ocean circulation have changed by that time because of the fresh water introduced into the system, and how much will sea levels have risen, potentially ruining the coastal communities you say OF will save?
Second, the notion of using ocean fertilization to grow feed for livestock doesn't sound like a winner. Shouldn't we concurrently be reducing dependence on livestock -- on grounds of CH4 emissions, deforestation, human health, biodiversity loss, etc.?
Third, there isn't anything in here about "ocean abundance" for the sake of non-humans. E.g., whales aren't just for tourists to ogle at: they were living in the ocean long before we started exploiting it, and are part of important food chains from the surface to the deep oceans.
If one takes the position that extreme anthropocentrism like in this piece is the only "realistic" philosophy, you'll have a self-fulfilling prophecy; and all non-humans will be in essence either farm animals or zoo animals (food or entertainment). Is that the kind of planet people want to live on?
More generally, what evidence (published, peer-reviewed) is there that OF will have all these knock-on benefits, and no drawbacks?
Those are all excellent questions. There are no sure things, and there's no way to answer these questions without fundamental research. The best time to start that is 20 years ago, the second best time to start is now.
I like the questions you are asking AJ. You and I might agree that the single best way to solve the rate of climate change that humans have accelerated, is Thanos. Or a double dose of Thanos. Since that isn't real, we are stuck with the composite moral, intellectual, theoretical, research and development test that no human generation in our brief evolutionary time has been burdened with. And that is how do we "solve" this massive problem ineptly termed "climate change" before it does things we really don't want.
First thing to understand is that no single solution will suffice (no silver bullets) and likely, if we can slow down the rate of change to normal holocene parameters, it will be done with thousands of minor solutions, many dozens of medium impact solutions, and a couple handfuls of larger more impactful solutions.
Secondly, whether ocean fertilization is both safe and is a small, medium or large impact solution (which will correlate to the size of the potential co-benefits), will be dependent on multiple factors, some of which are not about the physics but rather about the human societal factors (like money, regulatory, education, etc)
Your question about OF's impact on ocean physics (currents, upwelling, etc): indirectly and only as part of the aggregate of solutions, and not soon enough and by itself no. Those are the answers, I think. But your closing concern on that question is a concern I do not share. Fisheries will most likely see an increase in fish populations relatively soon (2-4 years). It's just an increase in food, in simple terms.
Your question on albedo: the DMS phytoplankton produce is not enough by itself in the short term to contribute to increased cloud cover and albedo increase. And OF will not reverse what is happening with EEI. Can it contribute in a small way with other solutions? Possibly to probably.
Your statement on feed for livestock and reducing animal food dependence: humans have always done this and as long as there are fish in the ocean, humans will use some species for feedstock for animals. And as long as humans have independence over their choices of protein, there will be those who choose eating critter meat (we can solve the methane burps in other ways).
Regarding co-benefits and scientific papers... there is a fair amount of scientific understanding about plankton but more research needed and more focused research (via field trials) on the ecological effects. The ecological risks are real concerns, but some take a long time (hundred plus years) to manifest to a level of significance to a localized area, and that is outside the time window where OF is needed (at least at a scale it might evolve to for CDR purposes). Keep in mind that OF can't or shouldn't be done everywhere in the ocean. It can be effective in certain places under certain conditions (a whole bunch of factors to this).
No drawbacks? That isn't possible. Everything (just about) has a drawback. It's always about the evaluation of tradeoffs. No free lunch.
Sorry for the long response.