Download Iron Fertilization Bad

Consumption/Fossil Fuels turns
This leads to a MASSIVE solvency deficit CCS won’t be enough if consumption trends
continue, and too many cost and infrastructure barrios for private investors to fund
Lohani, 20 Nov. 2009Bindu N. "Sign In." Global Journal of Emerging Market Economies. Sagepub,. Web. 03 July 2014.
52.
Carbon Capture and Storage: Efficiency measures would not be sufficient if coal use continues . These
have to be complemented by other LCTs such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) that will eliminate the CO2 emissions. Its development is still
at an early stage and it has been deployed mostly during natural gas production and for increasing recovery from low-yield oil wells. CCS
is
expected to provide large CO2 reduction potential in the longer term, albeit at a cost and lowering of
net efficiency. The basic technology already exists to capture the gas, transport, and store them permanently in geological formations.
However, it is very energy intensive and expensive and technical, economic, and legal barriers remain to
more widespread use of CCS. There are presently four large-scale CCS projects in operation—two in Norway, one in Canada (with
CO2 sourced from the US) and one in Algeria. Huge efforts in research and development are presently ongoing in CCS in power generation.
Around 20 demonstration projects are planned or currently under construction which would lead to lower unit costs and improved operational
performance. ADB has already approved US$1.5 million of technical assistance to help China carry out some initial site investigations and a
regional study to look into the legal and financing needs of CCS. ADB has also an agreement with the Global CCS Institute of Australia to manage
a trust fund of about US$17 million for promoting CCS in developing countries. In carbon sequestration and transport, the size of infrastructure
presents huge opportunities and is likely to reach US$80 billion by 2030. Transport of CO2 will exceed US$15 billion by 2030. However, the
current knowledge leadership in Asia is weak in carbon sequestration. There
also needs to be a strong global legal
framework. This is an area where the policy makers and the private sector, and the donor partners
can collaborate to strengthen the knowledge and legal environment.
CCS promotes fossil fuel use—makes all the case impacts worse
Herzog, Howard, and Dan Golomb Apr. ‘6. "Carbon Capture and Storage from Fossil Fuel Use." Carbon Capture and Storage from
Fossil Fuel Use (n.d.): n. pag. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Laboratory for Energy and the Environment, Web. 2 July 2014.
Carbon sequestration can be defined as the capture and secure storage of carbon that would otherwise be emitted to, or remain, in the
atmosphere. The
focus of this paper is the removal of CO2 directly from industrial or utility plants and
subsequently storing it in secure reservoirs. We call this carbon capture and storage (CCS). The rationale for carbon
capture and storage is to enable the use of fossil fuels while reducing the emissions of CO2 into the
atmosphere, and thereby mitigating global climate change. The storage period should exceed the estimated peak periods of fossil fuel
exploitation, so that if CO2 re-emerges into the atmosphere, it should occur past the predicted peak in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Removing CO2 from the atmosphere by increasing its uptake in soils and vegetation (e.g., afforestation) or in the ocean (e.g., iron fertilization),
a form of carbon sequestration sometimes referred to as enhancing natural sinks, will only be addressed briefly.
Acidification Turn
The “S” in CCS means to dump massive amounts of CO2 in the ocean, causing rapid
acidification
Herzog, Howard, & Dan Golomb. Apr. ‘6. "Carbon Capture and Storage from Fossil Fuel Use." Carbon Capture and Storage from
Fossil Fuel Use (n.d.): n. pag. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Laboratory for Energy and the Environment, Web. 2 July 2014.
By far, the ocean represents the largest potential sink [storage spot] for anthropogenic CO2. It already
contains an estimated 40,000 GtC (billion metric tons of carbon) compared with only 750 GtC in the atmosphere and 2200 GtC in the terrestrial
biosphere. Apart from the surface layer, deep ocean water is unsaturated with respect to CO2. It is estimated that if all the anthropogenic CO2
that 7would double the atmospheric concentration were injected into the deep ocean,
concentration by less than
it would change the ocean carbon
2% , and lower its pH by less than 0.15 units. Furthermore, the deep waters of the ocean are not
hermetically separated from the atmosphere. Eventually, on a time scale of 1000 years, over 80% of today’s anthropogenic emissions of CO2
will be transferred to the ocean .
natural process
Discharging CO2 directly to the ocean would accelerate this ongoing but slow
and would reduce both peak atmospheric CO2 concentrations and their rate of increase.
Cross-Apply our Atrill et al evidence from climate change. This is another internal link
into our biodiversity and ocean health impacts that end in extinction
Iron Fertilization Bad
Fails / Counterproductive – Doesn’t reduce warming/CO2
Despite studies, there’s no clear evidence it could reliable sequester carbon. At best
it’s 10% of CO2, while increasing acidification
Global Ocean Commission, November ‘13, prepared for the third meeting of the Global Ocean Commission, Policy Options
Paper # 2: Climate change, ocean acidification and geo-engineering, http://www.globaloceancommission.org/wp-content/uploads/GOCpaper02-climate-change.pdf, Accessed 6/15/2014
One of the most actively researched CDR technologies is iron fertilisation. This seeks to increase CO2 uptake from
the atmosphere into the ocean. In areas where the growth of phytoplankton (marine plants) is limited by low availability of iron, extra iron is
placed into the ocean. This stimulates plant growth, resulting in a net increase in photosynthesis and hence carbon uptake into the ecosystem.
In principle, some of this extra carbon should end up in the deep ocean, carried there in the bodies of dead
organisms. Twelve large-scale experiments have been undertaken, mainly in the Southern Ocean, with mixed
results. Overall, they have produced little evidence that the technique will reliably sequester carbon. In
addition, modelling studies suggest that even if deployed widely across the Southern Ocean, iron
fertilisation could only absorb about 10% of CO2 emissions. It is also likely that large-scale iron
fertilisation would increase acidification in the deep ocean.
Iron fertilization spurs zooplankton that increases CO2 release
Hugh Powell, January ‘8, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, “Fertilizing the Ocean with Iron,” Oceanus Magazine, Vol. 46, No. 1,
http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/fertilizing-the-ocean-with-iron, Accessed 6/20/2014
In certain regions, including the equatorial and north Pacific and the entire Southern Ocean,
a simple iron addition does cause
phytoplankton to grow rapidly. But tiny zooplankton, known as “grazers,” eat much of the bloom
almost as soon as it starts. This begins a chain of recycling that ensues from the sea surface to the
seafloor as grazers, krill, fish, whales, and decomposers feed upon each other. Much of the immense
carbon prize won by the iron addition quickly leaks back into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide gas.
Studies prove iron fertilization is a failed approach to carbon sequestration
The Institute of Physics, the Royal Society of Chemistry, and the Royal Academy of
Engineering, October ‘9, “Geoengineering: Challenges and global impacts,” http://www.rsc.org/images/geoengineering_tcm18179077.pdf, Accessed 6/20/2014
Experiments with iron fertilisation have already been carried out in iron-starved ocean regions, the
Equatorial Pacific, North Pacific and Southern Ocean, and have been shown to stimulate blooms of phytoplankton. “While these results
are important for our understanding of the oceans, they do not translate directly into carbon sequestration,” said Prof.
Watson. The amount of carbon sequestered is variable and unpredictable. Because the CO2 is taken
from the surface ocean rather than directly from the atmosphere, the net atmospheric carbon fixed is
difficult to assess. Furthermore, the effectiveness depends on how much of the biomass sinks, how far it sinks and whether the material
is eaten – which all depends on the alga species. The efficiency of iron fertilisation also seems to depend on location,
working well in the Southern Ocean but not in the Equatorial Pacific.
Iron fertilization doesn’t store carbon enough to affect climate change
The University of Sydney, December 12, ‘12, “Ocean Fertilization is Too Costly for Carbon Capture,” Laboratory Equipment
News, http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/2012/12/ocean-fertilization-too-costly-carbon-capture, Accessed 6/15/2014
Daniel Harrison, a postgraduate researcher and author of a paper published in this month's International Journal of Global Warming, says
while iron fertilization of high-nutrient, low-chlorophyll regions of the ocean captures and stores
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, it does not store carbon long enough to be an attractive
contributor to climate management. Iron fertilization is more expensive than carbon capture and
storage (CCS) and is much more expensive than the Australian carbon price, which is currently charged at $23 per ton of carbon dioxide, says
Harrison.
Fails / Counterproductive – Acidification
Acidification undermines biodiversity and reutilization won’t solve
Long Cao and Ken Caldeira, January 20, ’10, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution, “Can ocean iron fertilization
mitigate ocean acidification?,” Climatic Change, 99:1-2, DOI 10.1007/s10584-010-9799-4, pp. 303-311.
There are a few speculations in the literature that ocean iron fertilization could help to mitigate
anthropogenic ocean acidification, a process referring to the increase in ocean acidity as a result of the ocean’s absorption of
anthropogenic CO2. Ocean acidification would affect marine organisms and ecosystems in a variety of ways.
For example, a decrease in the saturation state of seawater with respect to carbonate minerals (including both calcite and aragonite) would
weaken the ability of corals and some other calcifying organisms to build their skeletons and reefs, posing a risk to their ecological
sustainability. A
decrease in ocean pH would also impact the growth, respiration, and reproduction of
some marine organisms, altering the biodiversity of marine ecosystems.
Even in extreme cases, iron fertilization doesn’t reduce acidification
Long Cao and Ken Caldeira, Jan. 20, ‘10, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution, “Can ocean iron fertilization mitigate
ocean acidification?,” Climatic Change, 99:1-2, DOI 10.1007/s10584-010-9799-4, pp. 303-311.
Our simulations show that ocean
iron fertilization, even in the extreme scenario by depleting global surface macronutrient
a minor effect on mitigating CO2-induced acidification at the surface
ocean (Table 2, Figs. 2c, d and 3). When iron fertilization is implemented to mitigate atmospheric CO2
concentrations, it diminishes near-surface ocean acidification by delaying changes in global surface
ocean chemistry by about a decade. By year 2100 in the simulation with iron fertilization, global surface pH decreases by 0.38
concentration to zero at all time, has
units from a pre-industrial value of 8.18, compared with a decrease of 0.44 units in the scenario without fertilization. On the other hand, when
iron fertilization is implemented to generate carbon credit, it has a negligible effect on surface ocean chemistry.
Fails / Counterproductive – Toxic algal bloom turns
Phytoplankton blooms cause domoic acids that cause deadly neurotoxins that infect
the food chain
Lauren Schenkman, March 15, ‘10, “Carbon-Capture Method Could Poison Oceans,” New Scientist, http://news.sciencemag.org/brainbehavior/2010/03/carbon-capture-method-could-poison-oceans, Accessed 6/15/2014
But too
many phytoplankton can be a bad thing, especially when it comes to members of the
genus Pseudonitzschia. This alga produces domoic acid, which it spews into the surrounding seawater to
help it ingest iron. Domoic acid also happens to be a potent neurotoxin that travels up the food chain
into shellfish and small fish. In 1987, three people died and 107 fell ill from amnesic shellfish poisoning
after eating mussels that fed on Pseudonitzschia blooms off Prince Edward Island in Canada. The poison has also killed sea lions
off the coast of California, and coastal regions such as Seattle, Washington, and Vancouver, Canada,
often close beaches and fisheries because of Pseudonitzschia blooms.
Fertilization causes toxic algal blooms that deplete oxygen
Quirin Schiermeier, July 18, ‘12, “Dumping iron at sea does sink carbon,” Nature, Accessed 6/13/2014,
http://www.nature.com/news/dumping-iron-at-sea-does-sink-carbon-1.11028
Some advocates of geoengineering think that this cooling mechanism might help to mitigate present-day climate change. However, the
idea
of deliberately stimulating plankton growth on a large scale is highly controversial. After noting that
there were gaps in the scientific knowledge about this approach, the parties to the London
Convention — the international treaty governing ocean dumping — agreed in 2007 that ‘commercial’ ocean
fertilization is not justified (see 'Convention discourages ocean fertilization'). The finding that ocean fertilization does
work, although promising, is not enough to soothe concerns over potentially harmful side effects on
ocean chemistry and marine ecosystems, says Smetacek. Some scientists fear that massive ocean fertilization
might produce toxic algal blooms or deplete oxygen levels in the middle of the water column.
Iron fertilization produces deadly neurotoxins
Lauren Schenkman, March 15, ‘10, “Carbon-Capture Method Could Poison Oceans,” New Scientist, http://news.sciencemag.org/brainbehavior/2010/03/carbon-capture-method-could-poison-oceans, Accessed 6/15/2014
To help cool a warming world, some
scientists have suggested fertilizing the oceans with iron. The idea is to stimulate
vast blooms of phytoplankton, which sequester carbon dioxide. But such an approach could have deadly consequences.
Experiments in the northern Pacific Ocean show that phytoplankton in waters far from land produce a
molecule called domoic acid, a neurotoxin that has killed wildlife and people in coastal areas.
Fails / Counterproductive – Diatom hogging turns
Diatom blooms are short-term and siphon the iron away from other phytoplankton
which reduces carbon absorption
Francie Diep, June 14, ’13, Argonne National Laboratories, Georgia Tech, “Greedy Algae May Thwart Ocean Fertilization Efforts,” Popular
Science, http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-06/greedy-diatoms-may-thwart-ocean-fertilization-efforts-study-finds, Accessed
6/13/2014
This could mean that if
someone were to dump iron into the ocean, much of it would be taken up by
diatoms. That might be fine at first. Diatoms are photosynthetic, so they absorb carbon dioxide. When they die and fall
to the bottom of the ocean, however, they take the iron they ate with them, trapped in their silica shells. After
an initial bloom from iron fertilization, diatoms may leave other plankton types with less iron,
reducing the size of carbon dioxide-absorbing plankton blooms, according to Argonne National Laboratory. Argonne
scientists worked on this study by analyzing diatom silica structures for their iron content. Studies like this help scientists understand the
consequences of ocean fertilization without having to actually dump anything into the water, which is controversial among conservationists and
may violate international law.
Diatoms are iron hogs. They trade off with CO2-absorpting phytoplankton and starve
marine life
Science Daily, June 12, ’13, “Iron fertilization, process of putting iron into ocean to help capture carbon, could backfire,”
DOE/Argonne National Laboratory, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130612144833.htm, Accessed 6/15/2014
Because of this iron-hogging behavior, the process of adding iron to surface water -- called iron fertilization or
iron seeding -- may have only a short-lived environmental benefit. And, the process may actually reduce
over the long-term how much CO2 the ocean can trap. Rather than feed the growth of extra plankton,
triggering algal blooms, the iron fertilization may instead stimulate the gluttonous diatoms to take up
even more iron to build larger shells. When the shells get large enough, they sink to the ocean floor,
sequestering the iron and starving off the diatom's plankton peers. Over time, this reduction in the
amount of iron in surface waters could trigger the growth of microbial populations that require less
iron for nutrients, reducing the amount of phytoplankton blooms available to take in CO2 and to feed
marine life.
Even massive iron fertilization won’t make a dent in climate change
ETHZ News, March 20, ‘14, Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule Zurich (an international technical institute), “Iron fertilization cools
ice age climate,” https://www.ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/eth-news/news/2014/03/eisenduengung-kuehlt-eiszeitklima.html, Accessed
6/15/2014
Although Martin had proposed that purposeful iron addition to the Southern Ocean could reduce the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide, Daniel
Sigman, Princeton's Dusenbury Professor of Geological and Geophysical Sciences and a co-leader of the study noted that the
amount of
carbon dioxide removed though iron fertilization is likely to be minor compared to the amount of
carbon dioxide that humans are now pushing into the atmosphere. "The dramatic fertilization that we
observed during ice ages should have caused a decline in atmospheric carbon dioxide over hundreds
of years, which was important for climate changes over ice age cycles," Sigman said. "But for humans to duplicate it today
would require unprecedented engineering of the global environment, and it would still only
compensate for less than 20 years of fossil fuel burning.
Iron will be quickly removed by diatoms
Gayathri Vaidyanathan, June 17, ‘13, “Iron Fertilization Develops a New Wrinkle,” Discovery News,
http://news.discovery.com/earth/oceans/iron-fertilization-develops-a-new-wrinkle-130617.htm, Accessed 6/15/2014
The loss of iron through diatoms is a natural process in the oceans off Antarctica, the study finds. The loss happens
at four times the rate at which new iron gets added into the ocean by dust deposition or the melting of ice. The
implication of this study for iron fertilization experiments is this: the iron we add into the oceans will
probably be removed quickly by the diatoms, said Ellery Ingall, the author of the study and a professor in Georgia Tech’s
College of Sciences, speaking to DNews while vacationing in France. How quickly the diatoms remove the iron is unknown, but this could well
be a new wrinkle in geo-engineering.
Diatoms will overuse the iron and offset CO2 benefits
Science Daily, June 12, ’13, “Iron fertilization, process of putting iron into ocean to help capture carbon, could backfire,”
DOE/Argonne National Laboratory, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130612144833.htm, Accessed 6/15/2014
A new study on the feeding habits of ocean microbes calls into question the potential use of algal
blooms to trap carbon dioxide and offset rising global levels. These blooms contain iron-eating
microscopic phytoplankton that absorb CO2 from the air through the process of photosynthesis and provide nutrients for
marine life. But one type of phytoplankton, a diatom, is using more iron that it needs for photosynthesis
and storing the extra in its silica skeletons and shells, according to an X-ray analysis of phytoplankton conducted at the
U.S. Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory. This reduces the amount of iron left over to support the carbon-eating plankton.
"Just like someone walking through a buffet line who takes the last two pieces of cake, even though
they know they'll only eat one, they're hogging the food," said Ellery Ingall, a professor at the Georgia Institute of
Technology and co-lead author on this result. "Everyone else in line gets nothing; the person's decision affects these other people."
Diatoms will hog all the fertilization and undermine other forms of phytoplankton
Francie Diep, June 14, ’13, Argonne National Laboratories, Georgia Tech, “Greedy Algae May Thwart Ocean Fertilization Efforts,” Popular
Science, http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-06/greedy-diatoms-may-thwart-ocean-fertilization-efforts-study-finds, Accessed
6/13/2014
For the newer study, oceanographers from several U.S. institutions studied phytoplankton off the coast of
West Antarctica. There, they found, diatoms take iron from the ocean and put it in their shells at a high rate.
They even seem to take up more than they need. "Just like someone walking through a buffet line
who takes the last two pieces of cake, even though they know they'll only eat one, they're hogging
the food," Ellery Ingall, an earth scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology who went to collect the phytoplankton, said in a statement.
Iron that enters the Antarctic Ocean via snowmelt and dust can barely keep up with the diatoms' appetite, Ingall and his colleagues wrote in a
study they published on Monday in the journal Nature Communications.
Violates International Law
Iron fertilization violates international law and creates a distraction away from
reducing fossil fuels
Tim Worstall, April 28, ‘14, “Iron Fertilisation Of The Oceans Produces Fish And Sequesters Carbon Dioxide. So Why Do
Environmentalists Oppose It?,” Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/04/28/iron-fertilisation-of-the-oceans-produces-fishand-sequesters-carbon-dioxide-so-why-do-environmentalists-oppose-it/, Accessed 6/15/2014
So, given that climate change is, as we’re told, the greatest danger to our civilisation, why
do we get the following kinds of
opposition to it? “It appears to be a blatant violation of two international resolutions,” Kristina Gjerde, a
senior high-seas adviser for the International Union for Conservation of Nature told the Guardian. “Even the placement of iron
particles into the ocean, whether for carbon sequestration or fish replenishment, should not take
place, unless it is assessed and found to be legitimate scientific research without commercial
motivation. This does not appear to even have had the guise of legitimate scientific research.”
Silvia Ribeiro, of the international anti-technology watchdog ETC Group, also voiced her horror at any development that might allow
humanity to escape from the need for carbon rationing. “It is now more urgent than ever that governments
unequivocally ban such open-air geoengineering experiments,” she said. “They are a dangerous distraction providing
governments and industry with an excuse to avoid reducing fossil-fuel emissions.”