I've often wondered why this isn't being looked at more thoroughly. It does seem like a no-brainer to at least do the research. Given the push to grow energy production it seems that environmentalists and climate activists could come around to seeing the benefits of ocean carbon sequestration, just as they have on nuclear.
There is no proper use of the precautionary principle! Using that kind of logic leads to stagnation and death, and in fact any kind of technology that has the ability to partially solve an environmental problem (e.g Nuclear, Ocean Seeding, Cloud Brightening, Enhanced Weathering, CCUS, etc.) are all vilified using it.
The only “appropriate” solution for that crowd is to cry and scream about Exxon Mobil and “end capitalism”. We must all suffer until impossible perfection is achieved.
Anthony, it is being seriously investigated by a consortium of five, international research teams, including two from the global South. It is called the Marine Biomass Regeneration (MBR) consortium. There is also the Exploring Ocean Iron Solutions (ExOIS) group https://oceaniron.org that is doing something similar.
What’s status on current research? Is it truly dead in the water hoping for a resurrection or just substantially restrained?
What are the regulatory restraints? Who enforces illegal research in international waters? There is a lot of sovereign coastline. No country is receptive? How much of the ocean is suitable for upcoming research projects? Are you looking for very particular conditions adjacent to existing thriving phytoplankton areas or can you try to start a bloom anywhere?
What are some of the valid concerns about negative impacts of ocean fertilization? How do future projects seek to address and mitigate these, both at the individual research level and in the case of widespread adoption?
How would you quantify carbon absorption?
I had read an old article linked to by a researcher in one of your previous posts about the potential benefits of increasing albedo through surface foams in ocean waters. Any thoughts on the viability of this?
What are the next steps for you in your new job to get some of these research projects approved and underway? Who are some of the key players and what are their specific research goals?
Jeffrey - You're asking a lot of good questions. There are many people (including myself and Sev Clarke) that could answer these. Feel free to reach out for a detailed email session (or just use Perplexity). anton@paradigmclimate.com
I'm pretty cynical about this. If ocean fertilization works it kills almost all the reasons to switch to solar/wind and all the other expensive boondoggles that a large fraction of environmental activists rely on for a paycheck either directly or indirectly. Therefore they have extremely strong incentives to kill it.
The fear of undermining the entire environmental industrial complex probably looms largest in the motivation of the opposition. It’s akin to what some critics claim about cancer researchers secretly undermining any real potential cure.
That means emission reduction advocacy by the renewable energy industry is corrupt, both financially and morally. It means their claims to care about climate change are just lies to conceal their financial interests. As Upton Sinclair famously said, you cannot make a man care about something when his paycheck depends on not caring about it.
I can tell you directly: It was never about the climate. It was about controlling you.
Specifically, it was about mobilising 3.5% of the population into permanent revolutionary protest in order to trigger a Communist revolution. (Per Trotsky, Sharp, Hallam, Mao)
This was told to me directly by some of the leaders of the organisation. I tried to organise some programs to help businesses lower their carbon footprints without lowering profit margins or impacting the GDP, and I was told in no uncertain terms that *solutions* were counter to the goals of the movement and that I should stop.
The trouble is, as Quico noted, that this conversation is simply dismissed as crank, thereby deflecting any substantive engagement on the political assumptions. The climate action movement regards gaining political power to shut down the fossil fuel industry as much more important than slowing dangerous climate change.
Excatly. A combination of this and nuclear power (another greeny no-no) would solve all the global warming issues way cheaper that the current systems. It's either inability to do basic sums (which is possible for some activists) or deliberate choice of a subptimal solution for other reasons than the claimed ones
Jonathon, furthermore when those proteins and carbohydrates derived from photosynthetic phytoplankton are consumed several times up the food chain, a goodly portion of the resulting biomass is either respired as CO2 or excreted by diel vertically migrating species, often at considerable depth, thereby sequestering the carbon for long periods. The CO2 reaching the seabed, or being metabolised there, will then slowly react with seabed carbonates (shells, bones and limestone) to form benign, dissolved bicarbonate which, on average, lasts over a millennium.
It would be cool if some individuals went rogue and filled an old tuna boat with iron filings and distributed them over a swatch of ocean. It could probably be done for a few million dollars for scrap iron and leasing a boat and crew. When the effects show up in the temperature and CO₂ data the next year, watching the climate activists try to explain the anomalies would be hilarious.
Buzen, Your suggestion is exactly what the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation did in 2012, producing data showing massive increase in next year's salmon population correlated to their targeting of iron fertilization to the ocean feeding stage of the salmon fingerlings. The power of Greenpeace and The Guardian meant that what you call "anomalies" were simply ignored through political dismissal. Misinformation about the alleged "moral hazard" of removing CO2 completely overwhelmed all scientific discussion. Tragic not hilarious. Note that 'iron filings' is not an effective deployment method. The best ways to add iron are likely to be iron salt aerosol produced by burning ferrocene as advocated by Franz Dietrich Oeste et al, or buoyant flakes proposed by Sev Clarke, with numerous co-benefits including fisheries restoration, GHG removal and albedo restoration.
Would probably need to be a bit better though out- filings will drop to the bottom of the ocean pretty fast… but some kind of micro or nano particle colloids that stay in the circulation and controlled release over time would work well. Lots of pharma drug delivery tech could be useful for this type of thing.
Would probably need to be a bit better though out- filings will drop to the bottom of the ocean pretty fast… but some kind of micro or nano particle colloids that stay in the circulation and controlled release over time would work well. Lots of pharma drug delivery tech could be useful for this type of thing.
Table 5.1 of OceanIron’s paths forward document has a good investigation of this. I particularly like buoyant rice hulls coated in iron https://oceaniron.org/our-plan/#whitepaper
The anti-science sentiments often associated with the far left are not surprising. Many conspiracy theories about modern medicine and agriculture, including anti-vaccination views, have roots in this political spectrum. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an environmental lawyer, exemplifies this trend with his skepticism towards established scientific consensus in various fields.
Environmentalists have selectively embraced science when it aligns with their agenda, particularly in the context of climate change. This strategic adoption allows them to advocate for radical policies under the guise of benefiting marginalized communities, such as those in Africa, while fundamentally opposing industrial civilization.
At its core, environmentalism views industrial progress as a mistake that humanity should regret. This perspective is evident in initiatives aimed at restoring animal populations to 19th-century levels. However, environmentalists paradoxically reject efforts to resurrect ancient species like the woolly mammoth, deeming such endeavors as humanity "playing God."
This ideology seeks to subjugate humanity to the natural world, positioning humans as mere stewards rather than masters of their environment. It is particularly concerning that this perspective has gained traction within the progressive movement, shaping policies and public discourse.
The emerging eco-modernism movement, while addressing some anti-science sentiments, still suffers from foundational pathologies that hinder its potential to drive meaningful change. It is unlikely to salvage the broader environmental movement from its inherent contradictions.
In response to these challenges, I propose an ideology of human supremacy. This framework would prioritize addressing climate change, air pollution, and plastic contamination in food systems without the encumbrances of commitments to endangered species, biodiversity, or animal rights. Under this ideology, modern industrial humanity would be recognized as a demigod, with all species pledging allegiance through their utility as food or entertainment.
This shift would reorient environmental efforts towards pragmatic solutions that enhance human prosperity and technological advancement, unburdened by the moral and philosophical constraints of traditional environmentalism.
From that article I can't estimate his view on abolishing biodiversity and endangered species protection. This is what separates me from eco modernists who are usually pro GMO and lithium mining etc.
Well that’s the camp I’m in. GMOs are good because the land footprint goes way down, and we are going to have to mine lots of stuff. Lower impact means lower biodiversity loss anyway.
I'm pro these things as well. But if the lower land footprint from agriculture opens up the land for other applications I have no interest in stopping that in the name of biodiversity.
This is a really good, but wholly incomplete write up. You are correct about Viktor's field trial in the Southern Ocean that Greenpeace and others sued him for, but that is not why all research ended in 2012 and hasn't returned. Nowhere in your story do you touch on Russ George. The combination of the lawsuits and Russ George's arrest and bad press basically caused all the research funding sources (Moore Foundation, etc) to shut down all funding for OIF.
This was a fascinating read, and I agree that dismissing ocean fertilization out of ideological rigidity is a mistake—especially given how emissions reductions alone have failed to curb CO₂ levels. The moral hazard argument is flawed; we need every tool available to fight climate change.
That said, the article oversimplifies the opposition. Environmental groups played a role, but scientists also had legitimate concerns—including potential ecosystem disruptions and oxygen depletion. Instead of re-litigating old battles, we should focus on responsible research and governance to ensure ocean fertilization is explored safely and effectively.
If somebody actually did this, they would destroy life on Earth, which depends utterly on the presence of sufficient amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Because you *know* it would be taken to extremes.
At the heart of this is the super crisis taking place in the blue part of this Blue Planet. The attacks on me and my work in Planktos and then the Haida Salmon Restoration Company were/are ruthless and relentless. The clear fact is that our yesterday's CO2 acts first and formost in and upon the oceans. The 2 trillion tonnes of yesterday's CO2 is the problem not this years 38 billion tonnes or the next decades 380 billion tonnes. This diversion from the sales pitches of the Climate Industrial Complex is NOT tolerated and any meaningful scientific progress becomes the target of limitless subterfuge and lies to create FUD - Fear Uncertainty, and Dread. Protecting the dollars and dogma of Climate Change is about making money not restoring our planet to historic levels of health and productivity. Fifty years ago when the late great John Martin, a superb quantitative ocean chemist, did the math and stated that a mere half a shipload of Mother Nature's natural iron would not only stop global warming but had the potential to start another ice age he based this on a lifetime of stunnging science. Today there is a true ocean and fisheries emergency around the world... ONLY ocean restoration via replenishment of the natural iron bearing dust humanity has stopped from reaching the oceans of this blue planet has the proven, by me, capacity to save this Blue Planet. https://russgeorge.net/2025/04/04/understanding-the-cause-of-ocean-fisheries-collapse-is-the-first-step/
Thanks for this! Very illuminating, although alas, not at all surprising.
However, I fear you misunderstand the global situation regarding pharmacovigilance. You're describing an idealised version of how it proceeds. It has not worked this way for quite some time, and it's rather difficult to say for how long its been broken, or even if we ever did it properly (although it looks like there may have been a time when the attempt was sincerely made, somewhen around the 1970s...).
The problem is the regulators. They, well, ceased to regulate. In the UK, where I'm from, they even embarrassingly relabelled themselves as 'facilitators'. The whole field of pharmacovigilance is an absolute mess right now and in urgent need of reform. But as you have discovered in your own field, it is rather difficult to get research traction when it opposes entrenched commercial interests.
As for ocean fertilisation, I would support research in your field if I were in a position to do so, but you know how that goes! As it is, expect to continue to encounter great resistance. The truth eventually comes out on all things... but often, it takes longer than our lifetimes to get there.
I've followed the CDR and related discussion lists since 2017, and the objections to OIF made then are the same ones being made in 2025. Meanwhile, scientists, fully aware of the urgency of the situation, seem content to argue a certain point (often one that aligns nicely with their own "solution" to the problem), to the exclusion of many promising solutions. I haven't seen any scientists putting down their argumentative weapons and saying "let's join forces and figure out how to confirm this OIF hypothesis in a way that is seen as scientifically responsible, even though it will make a good many of us uncomfortable." That would require the scientific community to challenge some sacred cows like 'carbon is only sequestered once it becomes part of the geologic record' (standing biomass be damned).
I've often wondered why this isn't being looked at more thoroughly. It does seem like a no-brainer to at least do the research. Given the push to grow energy production it seems that environmentalists and climate activists could come around to seeing the benefits of ocean carbon sequestration, just as they have on nuclear.
There is no proper use of the precautionary principle! Using that kind of logic leads to stagnation and death, and in fact any kind of technology that has the ability to partially solve an environmental problem (e.g Nuclear, Ocean Seeding, Cloud Brightening, Enhanced Weathering, CCUS, etc.) are all vilified using it.
The only “appropriate” solution for that crowd is to cry and scream about Exxon Mobil and “end capitalism”. We must all suffer until impossible perfection is achieved.
Anthony, it is being seriously investigated by a consortium of five, international research teams, including two from the global South. It is called the Marine Biomass Regeneration (MBR) consortium. There is also the Exploring Ocean Iron Solutions (ExOIS) group https://oceaniron.org that is doing something similar.
I can't find any group supporting Marine Biomass Regeneration. Can you tell us which groups are actively supporting this concept (and not OIF)?
https://www.climaterepair.cam.ac.uk/marine-biomass-regeneration-mbr
What’s status on current research? Is it truly dead in the water hoping for a resurrection or just substantially restrained?
What are the regulatory restraints? Who enforces illegal research in international waters? There is a lot of sovereign coastline. No country is receptive? How much of the ocean is suitable for upcoming research projects? Are you looking for very particular conditions adjacent to existing thriving phytoplankton areas or can you try to start a bloom anywhere?
What are some of the valid concerns about negative impacts of ocean fertilization? How do future projects seek to address and mitigate these, both at the individual research level and in the case of widespread adoption?
How would you quantify carbon absorption?
I had read an old article linked to by a researcher in one of your previous posts about the potential benefits of increasing albedo through surface foams in ocean waters. Any thoughts on the viability of this?
What are the next steps for you in your new job to get some of these research projects approved and underway? Who are some of the key players and what are their specific research goals?
Jeffrey - You're asking a lot of good questions. There are many people (including myself and Sev Clarke) that could answer these. Feel free to reach out for a detailed email session (or just use Perplexity). anton@paradigmclimate.com
I'm pretty cynical about this. If ocean fertilization works it kills almost all the reasons to switch to solar/wind and all the other expensive boondoggles that a large fraction of environmental activists rely on for a paycheck either directly or indirectly. Therefore they have extremely strong incentives to kill it.
The fear of undermining the entire environmental industrial complex probably looms largest in the motivation of the opposition. It’s akin to what some critics claim about cancer researchers secretly undermining any real potential cure.
That means emission reduction advocacy by the renewable energy industry is corrupt, both financially and morally. It means their claims to care about climate change are just lies to conceal their financial interests. As Upton Sinclair famously said, you cannot make a man care about something when his paycheck depends on not caring about it.
See https://xcancel.com/bitcloud/status/1899839906123522127#m for some more on this (I have no idea of the credibility of the Xeeter)
Quote:
I can tell you directly: It was never about the climate. It was about controlling you.
Specifically, it was about mobilising 3.5% of the population into permanent revolutionary protest in order to trigger a Communist revolution. (Per Trotsky, Sharp, Hallam, Mao)
This was told to me directly by some of the leaders of the organisation. I tried to organise some programs to help businesses lower their carbon footprints without lowering profit margins or impacting the GDP, and I was told in no uncertain terms that *solutions* were counter to the goals of the movement and that I should stop.
The trouble is, as Quico noted, that this conversation is simply dismissed as crank, thereby deflecting any substantive engagement on the political assumptions. The climate action movement regards gaining political power to shut down the fossil fuel industry as much more important than slowing dangerous climate change.
Excatly. A combination of this and nuclear power (another greeny no-no) would solve all the global warming issues way cheaper that the current systems. It's either inability to do basic sums (which is possible for some activists) or deliberate choice of a subptimal solution for other reasons than the claimed ones
Ocean fertilisation will also help to feed the world. All that carbon being injected into the food web as proteins and carbohydrates.
Jonathon, furthermore when those proteins and carbohydrates derived from photosynthetic phytoplankton are consumed several times up the food chain, a goodly portion of the resulting biomass is either respired as CO2 or excreted by diel vertically migrating species, often at considerable depth, thereby sequestering the carbon for long periods. The CO2 reaching the seabed, or being metabolised there, will then slowly react with seabed carbonates (shells, bones and limestone) to form benign, dissolved bicarbonate which, on average, lasts over a millennium.
Make that closer to 100,000 years.
It would be cool if some individuals went rogue and filled an old tuna boat with iron filings and distributed them over a swatch of ocean. It could probably be done for a few million dollars for scrap iron and leasing a boat and crew. When the effects show up in the temperature and CO₂ data the next year, watching the climate activists try to explain the anomalies would be hilarious.
Buzen, Your suggestion is exactly what the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation did in 2012, producing data showing massive increase in next year's salmon population correlated to their targeting of iron fertilization to the ocean feeding stage of the salmon fingerlings. The power of Greenpeace and The Guardian meant that what you call "anomalies" were simply ignored through political dismissal. Misinformation about the alleged "moral hazard" of removing CO2 completely overwhelmed all scientific discussion. Tragic not hilarious. Note that 'iron filings' is not an effective deployment method. The best ways to add iron are likely to be iron salt aerosol produced by burning ferrocene as advocated by Franz Dietrich Oeste et al, or buoyant flakes proposed by Sev Clarke, with numerous co-benefits including fisheries restoration, GHG removal and albedo restoration.
Hi Robert! I was an Oceanographic Engineer on the 2012 HSRC project. Ask me anything!
Hi Peter. Did you feel the ocean pasture restoration concept was scientifically and culturally justified?
Would probably need to be a bit better though out- filings will drop to the bottom of the ocean pretty fast… but some kind of micro or nano particle colloids that stay in the circulation and controlled release over time would work well. Lots of pharma drug delivery tech could be useful for this type of thing.
Rice husks coated with nutrient produce buoyant flakes that can enable iron and other elements to increase surface ocean biomass.
Would probably need to be a bit better though out- filings will drop to the bottom of the ocean pretty fast… but some kind of micro or nano particle colloids that stay in the circulation and controlled release over time would work well. Lots of pharma drug delivery tech could be useful for this type of thing.
Table 5.1 of OceanIron’s paths forward document has a good investigation of this. I particularly like buoyant rice hulls coated in iron https://oceaniron.org/our-plan/#whitepaper
The anti-science sentiments often associated with the far left are not surprising. Many conspiracy theories about modern medicine and agriculture, including anti-vaccination views, have roots in this political spectrum. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an environmental lawyer, exemplifies this trend with his skepticism towards established scientific consensus in various fields.
Environmentalists have selectively embraced science when it aligns with their agenda, particularly in the context of climate change. This strategic adoption allows them to advocate for radical policies under the guise of benefiting marginalized communities, such as those in Africa, while fundamentally opposing industrial civilization.
At its core, environmentalism views industrial progress as a mistake that humanity should regret. This perspective is evident in initiatives aimed at restoring animal populations to 19th-century levels. However, environmentalists paradoxically reject efforts to resurrect ancient species like the woolly mammoth, deeming such endeavors as humanity "playing God."
This ideology seeks to subjugate humanity to the natural world, positioning humans as mere stewards rather than masters of their environment. It is particularly concerning that this perspective has gained traction within the progressive movement, shaping policies and public discourse.
The emerging eco-modernism movement, while addressing some anti-science sentiments, still suffers from foundational pathologies that hinder its potential to drive meaningful change. It is unlikely to salvage the broader environmental movement from its inherent contradictions.
In response to these challenges, I propose an ideology of human supremacy. This framework would prioritize addressing climate change, air pollution, and plastic contamination in food systems without the encumbrances of commitments to endangered species, biodiversity, or animal rights. Under this ideology, modern industrial humanity would be recognized as a demigod, with all species pledging allegiance through their utility as food or entertainment.
This shift would reorient environmental efforts towards pragmatic solutions that enhance human prosperity and technological advancement, unburdened by the moral and philosophical constraints of traditional environmentalism.
Alex Trembath wrote a great article on the Breakthrough Journal Substack on exactly this subject today. Worth a read!
From that article I can't estimate his view on abolishing biodiversity and endangered species protection. This is what separates me from eco modernists who are usually pro GMO and lithium mining etc.
Well that’s the camp I’m in. GMOs are good because the land footprint goes way down, and we are going to have to mine lots of stuff. Lower impact means lower biodiversity loss anyway.
I'm pro these things as well. But if the lower land footprint from agriculture opens up the land for other applications I have no interest in stopping that in the name of biodiversity.
Read that. Thanks anyways.
https://open.substack.com/pub/thebreakthroughjournal/p/the-era-of-the-climate-hawk-is-over?r=kpbxf&utm_medium=ios
The article noted above
This is a really good, but wholly incomplete write up. You are correct about Viktor's field trial in the Southern Ocean that Greenpeace and others sued him for, but that is not why all research ended in 2012 and hasn't returned. Nowhere in your story do you touch on Russ George. The combination of the lawsuits and Russ George's arrest and bad press basically caused all the research funding sources (Moore Foundation, etc) to shut down all funding for OIF.
This was a fascinating read, and I agree that dismissing ocean fertilization out of ideological rigidity is a mistake—especially given how emissions reductions alone have failed to curb CO₂ levels. The moral hazard argument is flawed; we need every tool available to fight climate change.
That said, the article oversimplifies the opposition. Environmental groups played a role, but scientists also had legitimate concerns—including potential ecosystem disruptions and oxygen depletion. Instead of re-litigating old battles, we should focus on responsible research and governance to ensure ocean fertilization is explored safely and effectively.
great analogy to drug development... test safety, then efficacy, then scale
I support Climate Restoration. I found this from Peter Fiekowsky link-post on LinkedIn. I am betterworldadvisors.net
If somebody actually did this, they would destroy life on Earth, which depends utterly on the presence of sufficient amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Because you *know* it would be taken to extremes.
At the heart of this is the super crisis taking place in the blue part of this Blue Planet. The attacks on me and my work in Planktos and then the Haida Salmon Restoration Company were/are ruthless and relentless. The clear fact is that our yesterday's CO2 acts first and formost in and upon the oceans. The 2 trillion tonnes of yesterday's CO2 is the problem not this years 38 billion tonnes or the next decades 380 billion tonnes. This diversion from the sales pitches of the Climate Industrial Complex is NOT tolerated and any meaningful scientific progress becomes the target of limitless subterfuge and lies to create FUD - Fear Uncertainty, and Dread. Protecting the dollars and dogma of Climate Change is about making money not restoring our planet to historic levels of health and productivity. Fifty years ago when the late great John Martin, a superb quantitative ocean chemist, did the math and stated that a mere half a shipload of Mother Nature's natural iron would not only stop global warming but had the potential to start another ice age he based this on a lifetime of stunnging science. Today there is a true ocean and fisheries emergency around the world... ONLY ocean restoration via replenishment of the natural iron bearing dust humanity has stopped from reaching the oceans of this blue planet has the proven, by me, capacity to save this Blue Planet. https://russgeorge.net/2025/04/04/understanding-the-cause-of-ocean-fisheries-collapse-is-the-first-step/
Oh! On your pitch to Alaska, you said this...
I quote.
OPR World applied its unique technologies in 2012
Can you fixate the 'unique technologies' you applied?
Just curious...
This pitch...
https://www.akleg.gov/basis/get_documents.asp?session=33&docid=66177
Hi Russ! Peter Gross here!
Can you elaborate on this please?
Especially the 'by me' statement. Curious......
has the proven, by me, capacity to save this Blue Planet.
"By Me". :-)
Thanks for this! Very illuminating, although alas, not at all surprising.
However, I fear you misunderstand the global situation regarding pharmacovigilance. You're describing an idealised version of how it proceeds. It has not worked this way for quite some time, and it's rather difficult to say for how long its been broken, or even if we ever did it properly (although it looks like there may have been a time when the attempt was sincerely made, somewhen around the 1970s...).
The problem is the regulators. They, well, ceased to regulate. In the UK, where I'm from, they even embarrassingly relabelled themselves as 'facilitators'. The whole field of pharmacovigilance is an absolute mess right now and in urgent need of reform. But as you have discovered in your own field, it is rather difficult to get research traction when it opposes entrenched commercial interests.
As for ocean fertilisation, I would support research in your field if I were in a position to do so, but you know how that goes! As it is, expect to continue to encounter great resistance. The truth eventually comes out on all things... but often, it takes longer than our lifetimes to get there.
Good luck!
Chris.
I've followed the CDR and related discussion lists since 2017, and the objections to OIF made then are the same ones being made in 2025. Meanwhile, scientists, fully aware of the urgency of the situation, seem content to argue a certain point (often one that aligns nicely with their own "solution" to the problem), to the exclusion of many promising solutions. I haven't seen any scientists putting down their argumentative weapons and saying "let's join forces and figure out how to confirm this OIF hypothesis in a way that is seen as scientifically responsible, even though it will make a good many of us uncomfortable." That would require the scientific community to challenge some sacred cows like 'carbon is only sequestered once it becomes part of the geologic record' (standing biomass be damned).