The Treehugger article “Anti-Science Environmentalism: Iron Seeding Experiment Protested... Again” makes some strong claims. The author, John Laumer explains that we are being putting iron into our oceans to help combat against carbon dioxide emissions in our atmosphere. It is not clear however, if this experiment will have negative implication in the future of our waters.
The experiment involves spreading 20 tonnes of iron sulphate over 300 square kilometres near the South Georgia Islands in the southern Atlantic. The hope is for the introduction of iron to boost the population of phytoplankton to absorb greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. While this theory has the potential to make great progress in climate control, there are many contributing factors that Laumer seems to ignore. An example of Laumer’s bias is:
“Keep in mind that ambient iron levels in the deep oceans have fallen off since the 1970's, and that iron is a naturally present micro-nutrient, perennially deposited to the ocean from the air. Iron replenishment, which is what these field experiments aboard the Polarstern are about, is in no way exposing organisms to an unnatural condition.” (Laumer, 2010)
While it is easy to believe Laumer’s confidence in this situation, it is not such an open and shut case. 
Reagan Payne argues that, “If the phytoplankton consume the CO2 and then sink to 500 meters, then the carbon could be sequestered for hundreds of years. If it sinks below 1000 meters it could rest undisturbed for millenia. Proponents of ocean seeding point out that in the last 25 years the level of phytoplankton in the ocean fell be 6%. Because phytoplankton absorb about half the planets CO2 a year, or 50 billion tons, a continued decrease in the population would be catastrophic. Also ocean water that contains higher concentrations of algae would reflect more sunlight limiting the warming of oceans from light absorption.” (Payne, 2008)
Reagan Payne argues that, “If the phytoplankton consume the CO2 and then sink to 500 meters, then the carbon could be sequestered for hundreds of years. If it sinks below 1000 meters it could rest undisturbed for millenia. Proponents of ocean seeding point out that in the last 25 years the level of phytoplankton in the ocean fell be 6%. Because phytoplankton absorb about half the planets CO2 a year, or 50 billion tons, a continued decrease in the population would be catastrophic. Also ocean water that contains higher concentrations of algae would reflect more sunlight limiting the warming of oceans from light absorption.” (Payne, 2008)Laumer suddenly jumps into defence-mode, scoffing at the comparison of iron seeding to geo-engineering. “Earth-resuscitating technologies commonly included in the "Geo-Engineering" category include the use of artillery to shoot heat-reflecting mirrors into orbit around the earth; or, use of rockets to blast up sulfur compounds to accomplish the same, volcano-like heat shunning function. Both these interventions would be billion dollar projects involving defense departments tools - no doubt. Potentially, the reaction of many nations to efforts to control the earths' climate by militaristic means will not be peaceful either.” (Laumer, 2010)
It is hard to disagree with the opposition, the thought of dumping mass amounts of any nutrient into our ocean sounds risky. This quick fix may have dire consequences. Michael Reilly (2008) says, “In the wake of a UN moratorium on the practice, the latest research suggests that seeding will trigger the build-up of an acid that can be lethal to marine organisms and humans.”
Laumer’s argument is based on the premise that climate change is of ultimate importance, above marine life, ecosystem, and potentially even human health. While it is imperative for the author to be passionate about the subject in question, it is negligent to disregard any other opinion, especially when the information is so easily accessible. He claims that there are many opposing opinions being thrown around just to muddy public understanding. After feeding the readers a one-sided story, he ends with a jab to the oposition, “I have no problem with voices loudly opposing iron seeding experiments- if those voices present an ethical position and do not masquerade as scientists speaking of measured risk. But, to pre-suppose the experimental outcome, and to exaggerate the risk to defend a narrowly constructed ethical position is...well it's Bush-like.” (Laumer, 2010)
References:
Laumer, J. (2010). Anti-science environmentalism: iron seeding protested..again. Treehugger, Retrieved from http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/03/anti-science-environmentalism-iron-seeding-experiment-protested.php
Payne, R. (2008). Ocean seeding: the good, the bad, the moratorium. Celsias, Retrieved from http://www.celsias.com/article/ocean-seeding-good-bad-moratorium/
Reilly, M. (2008). Ocean seeding fails the acid test. The New Scientist, Retrieved from http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826603.700-ocean-seeding-fails-the-acid-test.html
By: Kacie Weber
No comments:
Post a Comment