Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiDump Dirt in Oceans to 'Fertilise' Them
BONN, Germany - When some multinational companies dump chemicals into the sea, they call it 'ocean fertilisation'. This practice is near the top of the agenda at the UN conference on biological diversity in Bonn.
"'Ocean fertilisation' simply means dumping into the ocean particles of iron, nitrogen or urea allegedly to transform the ecological balance of particular marine habitats, to encourage additional phytoplankton growth, and increase absorption of carbon dioxide (CO2)," Saskia Richartz, ocean expert at Greenpeace told IPS.Practically all developing countries want the UN conference to approve a global moratorium on 'ocean fertilisation' until scientific evidence can prove that the practice does not bring new pollution risks. But some industrialised countries, led by Australia, want to avoid a strong ban.
Phytoplankton collectively account for half of the CO2 absorbed annually from the earth's atmosphere by plants. Through photosynthesis, plankton capture carbon and sunlight for growth, releasing oxygen into the atmosphere.
The supposedly scientific hypothesis behind ocean fertilisation is that dumping "nutrients" such as iron, nitrogen and urea into seawater would lead to growth of new phytoplankton that would absorb more CO2, thus reducing the main cause of global warming and climate change.
"The problem is, there is no sound scientific evidence that this would actually happen," Richartz told IPS. "On the contrary, ocean fertilisation could have negative side effects that would lead to further loss of marine biodiversity."
Since 1978, 12 international projects have tried to prove the hypothesis of 'ocean nourishment' with no success, Silvia Ribeiro, environmental researcher with the Canada-based Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC) told IPS.
According to ETC research, most of the additional CO2 absorbed by phytoplankton appears to be re-released back into the environment when the plankton die, or are eaten by marine creatures.
Other risks include reduction of oxygen levels beneath the sea surface caused by the degradation of plankton, resulting in excess production of methane, another strong greenhouse gas responsible for global warming and climate change.
'Ocean fertilisation' could also modify marine ecosystems in uncontrollable ways by inducing changes in the food chain in localised marine biological habitats.
"One consequence of iron-induced blooms could be the consumption and depletion of other vital nutrients, that would reduce plankton productivity and carbon absorption in other areas of the seas, with unknown effects in other ecosystems," Ribeiro said.
Yet another risk is the artificial growth of harmful algae, which produce toxins associated with the poisoning of fish and other sea life.
Richartz told IPS that the debate at the UN conference has been controversial. "Brazilian delegates have been cooperating with Australia in order to avoid a moratorium on 'ocean fertilisation'," Richartz said.
On May 26, the Brazilian delegation "presented an extreme unacceptable proposal on the moratorium, with the only ostensible objective of making the Australian position appear moderate," Richartz told IPS.
But within hours, Brazil withdrew the proposal. "The debates within the Brazilian delegation were very loud," Richartz said. This was confirmed to IPS by Brazilian non-governmental organisation representatives.
Ribeiro told IPS that "what Australia wants on 'ocean fertilisation' is obvious. It wants that the UN convention on biological diversity does not touch the subject, and transfer it instead to the London convention" on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter.
One reason for Australia to want that is that the UN convention would approve a global binding set of rules ratified by 191 countries, while the London convention has 88 parties.
In addition, the London convention is being updated through the London Protocol, which will eventually replace the former. Under the new protocol, all dumping is prohibited except for acceptable waste on the "reserve list". But this protocol has been ratified by still fewer countries, 34.
The leading global company in the business is the Australia-based Ocean Nourishment Corporation (ONC). The Australian government's support for the company and for 'ocean fertilisation' has won it the Greenpeace nomination for the Golden Chain Saw Award for the worst polluters.
ONC is currently planning to dump hundreds of tonnes of industrially produced urea, most likely into the Sulu Sea between the Philippines and Borneo. The dumping of urea could imperil the local marine environment -- the main source of livelihood for the poor fisher population in the Philippines.
Besides ONC, a handful of private companies, all registered in the U.S., are planning to launch 'ocean fertilisation' projects in unregulated high seas after specific projects in the Philippines, Ecuador, Oman, and Morocco provoked a storm of complaints from civil society groups.
Environmentalists say the UN conference should approve a global moratorium, and also ban the granting of carbon credits for ocean carbon sequestration, tradable at the carbon exchange mechanisms created by the Kyoto protocol on climate change.
Copyright © 2008 IPS-Inter Press Service
19 Comments so far
Show AllIf there is that much extra nitrogen, then surely they can find a way to compost it and make something useful out of it.
Big_Geek: I don't understand why they are "dumping" urea and nitrogen instead of reusing it for agriculture. Does anyone know?
I know! Because reusing urea and nitrogen for agriculture would actually HELP Mother Nature! And the powers-that-be don't want that!
This is interesting, but I don't understand why they are "dumping" urea and nitrogen instead of reusing it for agriculture. Does anyone know?
Australia already dumps iron rich dirt into the ocean.
The central parts of Australia are often called 'the red heart' because of the red colour of the iron rich soil. These fragile soils in areas of regular drought are used for cattle grazing which damages the soil and removes most of the hardy ground cover. The first big wind storms and large amounts of ancient top soil is blown into the Tasman Sea and the Pacific Ocean creating fertile fishing grounds around New Zealand.
We've been perfecting the technique for years.
As a scuba diver I can tell you first hand that the seas are dying. Man has been dumping things into the ocean for years trying to help and trying to save a buck on dumping and running.
Remember the 70's in Florida, LETS MAKE MORE REEF PROGRAM. Well after 30+ years all those tires the dumped into the ocean didn't support life. Things didn't grow in the rubber with oil made tires so now they are dragging them up and recycle them as used tires. If someone says they have an answer I first look at who they work for, who signs their pay check then look at what they say.
Past experiences with such proposals show that they are ovten counter productive or even destructive-- especially when they are presented under the desguise as enviroinmental friendly by multinational companies.
Experiences show that measures for dealing with crucial issues such as ocean acidification are are too serous to be managed and manipulated by those who benifit from them.
"When some multinational companies dump chemicals into the sea, they call it 'ocean fertilisation'"
ARE THEY F++KING KIDDING???
Here's an idea. Dump a load of dirt and urea over George W's head. Maybe it'll fertilize his brain.
WHERE does Australia want to do their dumping?
Is it within their territorial waters?
No.
Marine dead zones are all over the world and increasing in size and number. The largest of them all is the one off the American gulf coast. It is supposed to be larger than Texas. One explanation for dead zones is the excess nitrogen from fertilizers running off fields and lawns.
Nitrogen?
Hmm...
Just what is it that Australia and others want to dump? Nitrogen and Urea (whose main ingredient is Nitrogen).
look its simple.............when they say something, spin it 180 deg. so if they say its good, ITS PROBABLY BAD. use the BULLSHIT METER that we were born with, the one weve all been distracted away from. IT WORKS!! ....ask me how!!
After the first sentence "When some multinational companies dump chemicals into the sea, they call it 'ocean fertilisation'", I am already highly suspicious. Why would anyone 'dump' anything? Obvious, because it is surplus to requirements. Why dump it in the sea? Ditto, it is cheap, and out of sight, out of mind.
Now there may be a few grains of truth in there somewhere, but -- there MAY be -- but it sounds more like they have run out of rivers to dump it in.
Too much algae kills corals.
It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature.
If you want to read some really scary stuff about the future of the oceans, try googling "ocean acidification" with "coral".
Solving the hypoxia problem by pumping O2 into deep water may not be very practical--better to limit inputs of nitrogen to coastal waters.
keeping in mind the large oxygen depleating "dead zone" off the Oregon Coast, and bans on catching wild and hatchery salmon, and the killing of sealions up @Cascade Locks................this still doesnt sound like a very good idea.
Pump oxygen into the ocean depths next to polluting countries, particularly near river mouths. The cure is cheap, the value is priceless!
Global warming is causing stratification of the ocean waters, starving the fish and shellfish, causing massive dieoffs. Megatons of fertilizers are also contributing to the hypoxic effect. Seeding the oceans would only make oceans more hypoxic.
The pesticides and industrial chems come along for the ride, killing, polluting, changing sexes. The Sargasso Seas of floating plastic are also a toxic mess.
At the very least, pump air into your own local rivers. You will clean some of the nitrogen out of them, and they will turn more carbon dioxide in the air into living carbohydrates for the mud.
Yes, Elly, phytoplankton (free-floating algae), like all plants, "eat" nitrogen (urea is a form of N) and iron. The essential plant nutrients are: C,H,O,P,K,N,S,Ca,Fe,Mg,Cl,Mo,B,Cu,Mn,and Zn (and maybe a couple of micronutrients that have been added since I went to school). In much of the Southern Ocean, the supply of available iron (Fe) is limiting to algae growth (primary productivity). There have been experiments to add iron in order to increase phytoplankton growth, with limited success. As a method of carbon sequestration, this approach has a lot of problems and issues, but I don't think it should be completely ruled out just yet. You can probably find articles on-line, if want to learn more.
- When some multinational companies dump chemicals into the sea, they call it 'ocean fertilisation'
wow i'm impressed...maybe i've been brainwashed but didn't that used to be called polution??
wait what's that knock at the door...i'm sorry officer why are you putting that bag over my head!!
talk about re-branding....aah the banality of evil
does phytoplankton eat iron, nitrogen or urea?? or does it get its food from carbon d and sunlight.? is there a shortage of carbon d and sunlight?? or just an abundance of iron, nitrogen and urea biproduct waste that needs to " go away"?
Want to sequester carbon? Ban the plough and ban biocides.
I mention the plough as it is used to overturn the earth, which not only releases carbon from the soil, it destroys mycorrhizal fungi. Mycorrhizae are important as the Glomus species are producers of glomalin - a resilient carbon molecule that comprises 27% of soil carbon. If you want to sequester carbon, don't kill off the fungi.
I mention biocides because they, too, kill off mycorrhizal fungi.
While it is unclear whether or not the 'iron in the ocean' approach will work, we know one thing that will help: do nothing. Or more specifically, do not plough and do not apply biocides.
[For the effects of some biocides on mycorrhizal fungi see Estok, D., B. Freedman, and D. Boyle. 1989. Effects of the herbicides 2,4-D, glyphosate, hexazinone, and triclopyr on the growth of three species of ectomycorrhizal fungi. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 42:835-839; Chakravarty, P. and S.S. Sidhu. 1987. Effects of glyphosate, hexazinone and triclopyr on in vitro growth of five species of ectomycorrhizal fungi. Eur. J. For. Path. 17:204-210; Bayne, H.F. et al. 1995. Colonization of Orchis morio protocorms by a mycorrhizal fungus: effects of nitrogen nutrition and glyphosate in modifying the responses. Can. J. Bot 73:1128-1140.]
When I read articles like this,I sometimes think there must already be alien pod people living on this planet. These pod people cannot stand Earth's natural ecosystem and have devoted themselves to getting into positions of power to transform the earth into a place that supports creatures who are more comfortable with barren landscapes, and food, air, and water, that are saturated with chemicals and minerals in quantities that will eventually kill the rest of us off... similar to what invaders did in the lands of native peoples using communicable diseases...