When the entire reason for being for most green groups is essentially that there is a “Big Oil” conspiracy, then most environmental things are reflexively done in opposition.
Same on the skeptic side- everything is just an anti-conspiracy against the overreaches of the greens. So both sides are just rolling around in conspiracy inspired mud.
Nobody is going to stop conspiracy theorists from arguing with each other- let’s just get on with fixing it.
Really compelling piece. The framing of phytoplankton as both carbon sinks and ecosystem keystones is well done, and the dual benefit of ocean fertilization is a critical point more people need to hear.
That said, I’d caution against dismissing scientific objections as merely ideological. Research has raised valid concerns about unintended ecological effects, including harmful algal blooms, deoxygenation, and disruptions to food webs. The LOHAFEX experiment (2009) and EIFEX trial (2004) both showed that while iron fertilization can stimulate phytoplankton blooms, the resulting carbon export to the deep ocean is highly variable and context-dependent. The controversial Haida Gwaii experiment (2012), conducted without international oversight, further highlighted the need for strict governance frameworks.
As the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) noted in its 2021 report on ocean-based carbon removal, iron fertilization remains “promising but uncertain” and urgently needs more controlled, large-scale field studies with ecological monitoring and public transparency.
Still, I agree with your core argument: ocean fertilization may be one of the few tools that addresses climate and biodiversity simultaneously. It’s not a silver bullet, but it’s worth serious, science-guided exploration—not premature rejection.
Some of the OIF experiments didn't result in the sinking of phytoplankton because the phytoplankton was consumed by zooplankton. The that carbon moved up the food chain with some of it being sequestered through excrement, respiration and deadfall. The experiments show that adding iron grows phytoplankton but zooplankton might eat the phytoplankton and in the process, prevent it from sinking.
Second, you definitively state that adding minerals is not a silver bullet but the science isn't there to make such a statement because the science hasn't looked at how massively increasing diatom production over the growing season will sequester carbon through the foodchain. It also hasn't looked at how artificial dusting as a means to add minerals will increase floculation and the sinking of both phytoplankton and zooplankton excrement (see research by Dr. Mukul Sharma).
As far as I can find in the literature, now negative impacts were identified in the years after the Haida experiment occured. Salmon populations in future year returned to record levels. Given there was no harm identified and good fish results, why is the evidence for 'strict governance framework"? It only needs a framework if the carbon secquestion the experiment create attempts to be compensate with carbon credits.
Most HABs occured (e.g. dinoflagellates with red tide or Pseudo Nitzchia with domoic acid) occur when large diatom populations fall because they lack enough minerals to grow. The these problematic phytoplankton can take over because they don't need as much minerals to grow. Adding minerals to extend the season of large diatom dominance by default reduces the chance of HABs. But if mineral additions are done to grow any phytoplankton and not large diatoms, HABs certainly could result. But Ocean Abundance Restoration (not OIF) would add minerals to grow large diatoms. The would be the objective of the applications.
Kevin Wolf
Co-chair Ocean Abundance Restoration Alliance (formerly the OIF Alliance)
Why you need a governance framework: Short answer: because, as much as technologists may dislike it, the oceans belong to everyone. Ethics and justice call for there to be some consensus to act when the long-term impacts are not so well-known. Things that work on smaller scales, observed for a few years, don't necessarily work on larger geographic scales over a longer term. Individual mad scientists, even if they are right (which is not knowable a priori), ought not be dumping things into the ocean when the ocean doesn't belong to them. Another operative concept here is humility, both individual and collective (where it's known as the precautionary principle).
This is leaving aside some other possible reasons for governance frameworks, e.g., what you do HERE may have unwanted impacts THERE. If "here" is the high seas, "there" might be in territorial/EEZ waters. And conversely: if "here" is territorial/EEZ waters, "there" may be the high seas or the territorial/EEZ waters of another country.
AJ is correct on the importance of a governance framework, because the oceans are dynamically in motion and they belong to nobody which is then default a commons. But stating that "mad scientists ought not to be dumping things into the ocean" is an under considered and dare I say under educated statement, perhaps born reflexively and without more careful consideration. Right now we 8 billion humans on earth are dumping massive amounts of chemicals and gas pollutants into the ocean intentionally and unintentionally every single day. The 4 decade decline in pH is one of many resultancies of that dumping. Doing nothing is not an option and there are no free lunches. Everything we stupid apes do has some consequence. Climate change will be much worse for biodiversity and ocean biome health in general than adding controlled amounts of nutrients into the surface waters (even at scale will only be ~1% of the world ocean if the governance frameworks work the way they should and we are 10 years away from scaling due to a considerable pile of qualified reasons including the need for a whole lot of research). Also consider that thermocline suppression of deep water nutrients have been reducing pelagic upwelling at different times and places through out the past 2-3 decades which has reduced phytoplankton growth overall. Lastly AJ, the scientists and others that support research into mCDR techniques (like OIF and others) do not lack prudence and thoughtful, measured, stepwise protocols. They love the ocean and extraordinary biodiversity there in, so your knee jerk characterization that they "mad" for wanting to research how to perform this mCDR methodology safely and correctly is not coming from a place of exposure to these people.
Thank you, and my apologies. I certainly didn't mean to impugn all researchers in this field as "mad scientists," and in fact my initial skepticism about ocean fertilization has given way at least for the moment to cautious agnosticism. I was thinking more about people or companies who, convinced that they are right, might unilaterally take some more large-scale and irreversible action without getting consensus from other stakeholders. I don't have anyone specifically in mind for this, though Elon Musk and Sam Altman are becoming archetypes for this sort of intervention generally.
The precautionary principle should not stop experiments. Just like we should do human trials for new drugs, we should do experiments before doing large scale applications but we should rapidily proceed on that path as if a desease deadlier than Covid was threatening humans. Ten square mile experiments should lead to 100 then 1000 square mile and then 10,000 square mile applications and testing. Nature periodically "dumps" minerals in un fertilized parts of the ocean and produce large unexpected phytoplankton blooms (eg 2019-2020 bloom off of Madagascar and the large bloom following the Australian fires or the many Alaskan volcanic eruptions. No secondary harm has been identified from those events. The time for aggressive testing is now, not ten years from not when the tippling point on climate change has past.
Thanks. I appreciate the urgency of the situation, but I suspect the question of application of the precautionary principle to testing is more nuanced than you suggest, and depends a lot on the time, place and manner of the test in question. Regarding the manner specifically, if the manner of deposition will be essentially the same as airborne dust, deep sea vents, or other natural sources, that would be probably weigh more favorably than being dumped at higher concentrations from a ship.
The experiments we are proposing a relatively small (e.g. 100sq km) and with minute trace amounts of clay dust or other sources of minerals being added. The conceptual model is strong that the minerals will extend the life of the large diatoms and delay the time that harmful algal species take over the bloom. These are experiments to stop bad things from happening as well as cause good results (e.g. feed fish). The experiments will be designed to minimize risk and maximize learning opportunities. This method fits within the precautionary principle of how to advance new knowledge.
Our organization, the Ocean Abundance Restoration Alliance (currently in the process of changing over from the OIF Alliance) is composed of environmental activists who are attempting to move the science from adding minerals to sink phytoplankton to adding minerals to grow fish and let the fauna in the ocean be the primary driver of carbon sequestration. The core of the problem is that ocean scientists and institutes need money to do research and see the money coming from carbon credits and not from making the ocean healthier, more productive and by raising more fish.
I would call ocean fertilization a trifer or threefer, not just a twofer. Perhaps even more important for saving the planet in the short term is the increased albedo of an ocean surface that has been brightened from dark blue to turquoise by the presence of additional phytoplankton, in addition to the direct cooling effect provided by the marine cloud resulting from phytoplankton emissions of DMS.
I mean I wasn’t around in the dinosaur age to compare, but yes there is indeed quite a lot of high quality research showing plant life becoming more abundant due to excess CO2 concentrations. Some of this research was published in Nature in the last couple of years, so, you know, not some fly-by-night unheard of journal:
Note, that the Nature article refers only to an increase in terrestrial photosynthesis. Marine biomass has been shown to have been savagely reduced since pre-industrial times and the ocean is more than twice the size of the land surface.
When the entire reason for being for most green groups is essentially that there is a “Big Oil” conspiracy, then most environmental things are reflexively done in opposition.
Same on the skeptic side- everything is just an anti-conspiracy against the overreaches of the greens. So both sides are just rolling around in conspiracy inspired mud.
Nobody is going to stop conspiracy theorists from arguing with each other- let’s just get on with fixing it.
Really compelling piece. The framing of phytoplankton as both carbon sinks and ecosystem keystones is well done, and the dual benefit of ocean fertilization is a critical point more people need to hear.
That said, I’d caution against dismissing scientific objections as merely ideological. Research has raised valid concerns about unintended ecological effects, including harmful algal blooms, deoxygenation, and disruptions to food webs. The LOHAFEX experiment (2009) and EIFEX trial (2004) both showed that while iron fertilization can stimulate phytoplankton blooms, the resulting carbon export to the deep ocean is highly variable and context-dependent. The controversial Haida Gwaii experiment (2012), conducted without international oversight, further highlighted the need for strict governance frameworks.
As the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) noted in its 2021 report on ocean-based carbon removal, iron fertilization remains “promising but uncertain” and urgently needs more controlled, large-scale field studies with ecological monitoring and public transparency.
Still, I agree with your core argument: ocean fertilization may be one of the few tools that addresses climate and biodiversity simultaneously. It’s not a silver bullet, but it’s worth serious, science-guided exploration—not premature rejection.
Thanks for a thought-provoking article.
Some of the OIF experiments didn't result in the sinking of phytoplankton because the phytoplankton was consumed by zooplankton. The that carbon moved up the food chain with some of it being sequestered through excrement, respiration and deadfall. The experiments show that adding iron grows phytoplankton but zooplankton might eat the phytoplankton and in the process, prevent it from sinking.
Second, you definitively state that adding minerals is not a silver bullet but the science isn't there to make such a statement because the science hasn't looked at how massively increasing diatom production over the growing season will sequester carbon through the foodchain. It also hasn't looked at how artificial dusting as a means to add minerals will increase floculation and the sinking of both phytoplankton and zooplankton excrement (see research by Dr. Mukul Sharma).
As far as I can find in the literature, now negative impacts were identified in the years after the Haida experiment occured. Salmon populations in future year returned to record levels. Given there was no harm identified and good fish results, why is the evidence for 'strict governance framework"? It only needs a framework if the carbon secquestion the experiment create attempts to be compensate with carbon credits.
Most HABs occured (e.g. dinoflagellates with red tide or Pseudo Nitzchia with domoic acid) occur when large diatom populations fall because they lack enough minerals to grow. The these problematic phytoplankton can take over because they don't need as much minerals to grow. Adding minerals to extend the season of large diatom dominance by default reduces the chance of HABs. But if mineral additions are done to grow any phytoplankton and not large diatoms, HABs certainly could result. But Ocean Abundance Restoration (not OIF) would add minerals to grow large diatoms. The would be the objective of the applications.
Kevin Wolf
Co-chair Ocean Abundance Restoration Alliance (formerly the OIF Alliance)
Why you need a governance framework: Short answer: because, as much as technologists may dislike it, the oceans belong to everyone. Ethics and justice call for there to be some consensus to act when the long-term impacts are not so well-known. Things that work on smaller scales, observed for a few years, don't necessarily work on larger geographic scales over a longer term. Individual mad scientists, even if they are right (which is not knowable a priori), ought not be dumping things into the ocean when the ocean doesn't belong to them. Another operative concept here is humility, both individual and collective (where it's known as the precautionary principle).
This is leaving aside some other possible reasons for governance frameworks, e.g., what you do HERE may have unwanted impacts THERE. If "here" is the high seas, "there" might be in territorial/EEZ waters. And conversely: if "here" is territorial/EEZ waters, "there" may be the high seas or the territorial/EEZ waters of another country.
AJ is correct on the importance of a governance framework, because the oceans are dynamically in motion and they belong to nobody which is then default a commons. But stating that "mad scientists ought not to be dumping things into the ocean" is an under considered and dare I say under educated statement, perhaps born reflexively and without more careful consideration. Right now we 8 billion humans on earth are dumping massive amounts of chemicals and gas pollutants into the ocean intentionally and unintentionally every single day. The 4 decade decline in pH is one of many resultancies of that dumping. Doing nothing is not an option and there are no free lunches. Everything we stupid apes do has some consequence. Climate change will be much worse for biodiversity and ocean biome health in general than adding controlled amounts of nutrients into the surface waters (even at scale will only be ~1% of the world ocean if the governance frameworks work the way they should and we are 10 years away from scaling due to a considerable pile of qualified reasons including the need for a whole lot of research). Also consider that thermocline suppression of deep water nutrients have been reducing pelagic upwelling at different times and places through out the past 2-3 decades which has reduced phytoplankton growth overall. Lastly AJ, the scientists and others that support research into mCDR techniques (like OIF and others) do not lack prudence and thoughtful, measured, stepwise protocols. They love the ocean and extraordinary biodiversity there in, so your knee jerk characterization that they "mad" for wanting to research how to perform this mCDR methodology safely and correctly is not coming from a place of exposure to these people.
Thank you, and my apologies. I certainly didn't mean to impugn all researchers in this field as "mad scientists," and in fact my initial skepticism about ocean fertilization has given way at least for the moment to cautious agnosticism. I was thinking more about people or companies who, convinced that they are right, might unilaterally take some more large-scale and irreversible action without getting consensus from other stakeholders. I don't have anyone specifically in mind for this, though Elon Musk and Sam Altman are becoming archetypes for this sort of intervention generally.
The precautionary principle should not stop experiments. Just like we should do human trials for new drugs, we should do experiments before doing large scale applications but we should rapidily proceed on that path as if a desease deadlier than Covid was threatening humans. Ten square mile experiments should lead to 100 then 1000 square mile and then 10,000 square mile applications and testing. Nature periodically "dumps" minerals in un fertilized parts of the ocean and produce large unexpected phytoplankton blooms (eg 2019-2020 bloom off of Madagascar and the large bloom following the Australian fires or the many Alaskan volcanic eruptions. No secondary harm has been identified from those events. The time for aggressive testing is now, not ten years from not when the tippling point on climate change has past.
Thanks. I appreciate the urgency of the situation, but I suspect the question of application of the precautionary principle to testing is more nuanced than you suggest, and depends a lot on the time, place and manner of the test in question. Regarding the manner specifically, if the manner of deposition will be essentially the same as airborne dust, deep sea vents, or other natural sources, that would be probably weigh more favorably than being dumped at higher concentrations from a ship.
The experiments we are proposing a relatively small (e.g. 100sq km) and with minute trace amounts of clay dust or other sources of minerals being added. The conceptual model is strong that the minerals will extend the life of the large diatoms and delay the time that harmful algal species take over the bloom. These are experiments to stop bad things from happening as well as cause good results (e.g. feed fish). The experiments will be designed to minimize risk and maximize learning opportunities. This method fits within the precautionary principle of how to advance new knowledge.
Thanks. Can you suggest any references that might present in more detail the proposed experiments and the rationale/conceptual model you describe?
how do we get these two groups talking together!?
Our organization, the Ocean Abundance Restoration Alliance (currently in the process of changing over from the OIF Alliance) is composed of environmental activists who are attempting to move the science from adding minerals to sink phytoplankton to adding minerals to grow fish and let the fauna in the ocean be the primary driver of carbon sequestration. The core of the problem is that ocean scientists and institutes need money to do research and see the money coming from carbon credits and not from making the ocean healthier, more productive and by raising more fish.
I would call ocean fertilization a trifer or threefer, not just a twofer. Perhaps even more important for saving the planet in the short term is the increased albedo of an ocean surface that has been brightened from dark blue to turquoise by the presence of additional phytoplankton, in addition to the direct cooling effect provided by the marine cloud resulting from phytoplankton emissions of DMS.
Good point. Well said. We should just do this at scale.
If CO2 was so overabundant would we not have incredible overgrowth of all plant life? Like the dinosaur age.
I mean I wasn’t around in the dinosaur age to compare, but yes there is indeed quite a lot of high quality research showing plant life becoming more abundant due to excess CO2 concentrations. Some of this research was published in Nature in the last couple of years, so, you know, not some fly-by-night unheard of journal:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-023-01867-2?utm_source=chatgpt.com
for instance estimates there was 13.5% additional photosynthetic biomass in 2020 compared to 1981…
Note, that the Nature article refers only to an increase in terrestrial photosynthesis. Marine biomass has been shown to have been savagely reduced since pre-industrial times and the ocean is more than twice the size of the land surface.