Save the whales - fertilize the ocean? Not so fast.

Now that the LOHAFEX iron fertilization project has produced only modest results, proponents have turned to a new argument: iron fertilization will create more food for blue whales. By stimulating the growth of algae, the theory goes, there will be more food for the krill upon which blue whales feed. Not so fast: according to ASOC's own Sian Prior, "The reduction in great whale numbers has not been attributed to lack of food. Rather it is due to over-exploitation of the whales."

So what exactly did happen as a result of the LOHAFEX experiment? Not much. The six tons of iron dumped into the Southern Ocean did not take up very much carbon dioxide. The experiment succeeded in inducing a large algal bloom, but the bloom was quickly devoured by copepods, who themselves were eaten by amphipods. For fertilization to work, it is assumed that the algae, having taken up CO2, will die and sink to the ocean floor. Since more of the bloom was eaten than scientists expected, the end result was that very little CO2 was absorbed and sent to the ocean floor. Scientists aren't quite sure why LOHAFEX failed to live up to expectations; however, they seem determined to continue exploring ocean fertilization. Hence the emergence of the "it's good for the whales" argument. While there can be little doubt that removal of CO2 from the atmosphere would be a good idea, interfering with ecosystems on such a large scale merits extreme caution, not unsupported claims of helping whales.

Ocean Acidification Gets More Attention

The groundswell of scientific and environmental concern over the increasing problem of ocean acidification gained further urgency today with the release of the Monaco Declaration. The Declaration, with a preface by Prince Albert of Monaco, was produced by over 150 scientists from 26 countries and expresses concern over the following problems:

-Ocean acidification is underway
-Ocean acidification is already detectable
-Ocean acidification is accelerating and severe damages are imminent
-Ocean acidification will have socioeconomic impacts
-Ocean acidification is rapid, but recovery will be slow
-Ocean acidification can be controlled only by limiting future atmospheric CO2 levels.

Interestingly, the declaration also mentions ocean fertilization and asserts that it would "enhance ocean acidification in some areas while reducing it in others still in its infancy." This statement should give those still pushing for further exploration into fertilization as a solution for atmospheric CO2 significant pause.

The Declaration proposes some common-sense solutions for the acidification problem, namely, that links between scientists and economists should be created so that the costs of action now and the costs of the impact of an acidified ocean can be adequately considered. We often hear about how "expensive" environmental solutions are as if there are no costs associated with pollution. For example, acidification could wreck most coral reefs by 2050, ruining tourism and fishing industries, not to mention altering a natural method of erosion control.

It's time to take ocean acidification seriously.

Ocean fertilization project is going ahead

LOHAFEX, the joint German-Indian project to dump twenty tons of iron sulfate into the Southern Ocean over a 300 square kilometer area, is going forward after a whirlwind environmental impact assessment (EIA). ASOC and the environmental community are disappointed to say the least, and you can read ASOC's press release here. The German Ministry of Research approved it even though the German Ministry of Environment strongly objected, citing that the project was probably in violation of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), to which Germany is a signatory. The German Environment Minister, furthermore, was chair of a CBD conference that passed a resolution discouraging ocean fertilization projects. In an English language press release following the Research Ministry's approval, the Environment Ministry stated that it believes LOHAFEX to be in violation of the CBD. It also states that it is unclear whether previous fertilization experiments have had any effectiveness, and that the risks to ecosystems are unknown. Without evidence of effectiveness, and uncertainty over impacts, it is hard to see why the project is going forward.

The Research Ministry's speed-EIA process has done little to allay the concerns of the environmental community and the Environment Ministry. ASOC first heard that belated environmental impact assessments would be performed (belated because they should have been done before the project's ship set out for the experiments site and were not) around January 15. The Research Ministry received and reviewed these assessments and issued a decision by January 26. Hardly enough time for the assessors and the Ministry to gather enough information. Also upsetting is the apparent position of the project's director, who has indicated that he believes that the project will pave the way for future fertilization projects to mitigate climate change. This is despite the clear international consensus (at least in the fora where such issues have been discussed) that any fertilization projects that DO go through after extensive EIAs should be small-scale and only for basic research at this point. Even if the project doesn't cause any environmental harm, the lack of consideration of potential impacts, and the desire to conduct rather hastily a project that could drastically alter an ecosystem are extremely troubling.

Ocean Fertilization is Risky Business

It seems that the numerous lessons learned over the years about the riskiness of human attempts to re-engineer the natural environment by introducing new species or substances have not yet sunk in for some people. Last week, ASOC learned of plans by the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research of Germany and the National Institute of Oceanography of India to conduct a large-scale ocean fertilization experiment in the Southern Ocean.

Ocean fertilization is proposed as a way to combat global warming. During fertilization, the ocean is seeded with large amounts of something that would engender the growth of large amounts of phytoplankton, which would absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, die quickly, and then sink to the ocean floor, essentially sequestering large amounts of carbon. For this experiment, the scientists would use iron sulfate to "fertilize" approximately 300 square kilometers of ocean.

However, there is considerable international opposition to the widespread use of these projects. Not only has the Convention on Biological Diversity urged signatories to delay implementation of ocean fertilization until their is clear scientific evidence in their favor, but the London Convention and the London Protocol, which concern marine dumping, have also urged that scientific projects be assessed on a case-by-case basis until a comprehensive framework could be developed. While the researchers involved in the current project have asserted that their experiment does not violate the CBD, they do not appear to have undertaken any sort of environmental impact assessment. Nor have the governments of Germany or India undertaken any review.

In fact, the German Environment Minister, Sigmar Gabriel, who chaired the CBD conference that passed the resolution on fertilization, has asked the Science Ministry to withdraw its support of the project. The Science Ministry has apparently asked the researchers to halt their experiment pending review - not a moment too soon, as the ship carrying the iron sulfate is already en route to the Southern Ocean.

A 2007 study cast doubt on the scientific basis for ocean fertilization. Given that the implications on ecosystems or marine organisms are also unclear, it seems that we need to hold off on interfering with the oceans until we better understand what could happen when we do so.