Will the proposal to 'fertilize' the oceans with iron to increase the growth of phytoplankton that will eat the iron and absorb the carbon dioxide, be helpful or harmful?
According to surveys and studies published recently, water around the South Pole is warming faster than the rest of the oceans. The warming allows species that were not in the Antarctic to penetrate and establish themselves in a new environment. These new species will cause changes in the composition of the marine population.
The continent of Antarctica "settled" on the pole about 50 million years ago and since then dominates the waters around it in an ice age. (Cold) conditions caused specialization and adaptation of biodiversity. Warming allows "new" species to penetrate large areas. As an example, two species are given: sharks - which will be a new super predator in the field, and occasionally crabs with "steel-pincers" that specialize in cracking shells. These and others will cause unpredictable changes, all because of global warming.
Therefore, ideas and initiatives to stop the warming are emerging: the ideas to slow down the warming are based on the reduction of greenhouse gases, the absorption of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, one of the ideas that has been circulating for a long time is: spreading iron dust over the oceans, the iron is used as an ingredient in the food of the phytoplankton, those tiny plants that For assimilation they absorb carbon dioxide. Naturally, the oceans are enriched with iron as a result of drift in the rivers and mainly by dust storms that transport minerals from the deserts to the seas. Some claim that "adding iron to the ocean water will increase the growth of phytoplankton, more phytoplankton equals more assimilation, which means absorbing more carbon dioxide."
Following the Kyoto Convention, which allows trading in greenhouse gas emissions, "green" ventures arise and flourish when the drive for a clean environment is an acceptable and correct "excuse" for making profits, the most accepted and well-known method is planting forests, calculating the amount of gases absorbed by the forests allows the entrepreneur/planter to sell a "right" Emissions to factories whose emission level is higher than agreed.
In a similar way, ideas and initiatives are growing to fertilize the seas with iron. To this day there is no consensus among the scientists studying the subject. It is not clear what the long-term and overall effect of "fertilizing with iron" will be, yet there are a number of business ventures with the stated goal of "fertilizing the sea".
One of the projects is "Planktos", a company based in California and according to its founder's statement "its activity will help prevent the increase in the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the seas". The bad news (for Planktus) is that the company was unable to raise enough resources to continue its operations, a ship from which they were supposed to spread the iron powder was not given permission to dock in a number of ports throughout the Atlantic Ocean, and since December the ship has been disabled in Madeira.
According to the entrepreneurs, the reason for their failure to raise resources is the lack of scientific support and negative publications. Bad news for entrepreneurs, good news for many scientists and researchers, yes: various oceanographers claim that there is not enough data to determine the positivity of "Fertilization" and therefore it is advisable to wait until receiving data that will allow a positive determination, at the same time other entrepreneurs in Australia and the USA continue to check the possibility of " Fertilization", where the intention is to carry out experimental "fertilization" on a larger scale already in 2009.
Even if there are those who think that the "fertilization" may cause environmental damage, there is no legal possibility to prevent the continuation of the activity, since in international conventions iron is not defined as poison, waste, or as a prohibited substance. One of the concerns is that "fertilization" will cause an algae bloom on a larger scale than desired, a bloom that causes the release of toxins and hypoxia -
hypoxia (deprivation of oxygen - from the water), a bloom that is known as "red tide" and appears mainly in the mouths of rivers that carry fertilizers from agricultural fields into the sea. The "red tide" causes the death of fish and other sea inhabitants, a death that causes the emission of greenhouse gases, and thus it is possible that "fertilization" will cause damage, therefore many researchers claim that until the issue is studied, until it is clear what the quantities in which fertilizer can be applied, it is better to wait.
Dr. Assaf Rosenthal, ecologist,
Tour guide/leader in Africa and South America.
For details: Tel. 0505640309 / 077-6172298,
Email: assaf@eilatcity.co.il
6 תגובות
Legal c
First of all, thank you for reading and caring,
As for the "audit", you are welcome to spend a week, two or three weeks
And so on and see my references to the problems in our country.
As for the "off-road vehicle" ... the data you present on weight, fuel consumption, control, etc. ... are not correct.
See in one of my lists an extensive reference to the positive and the negative
A multi-purpose vehicle / "off-road vehicle".
Undoubtedly an interesting topic that will spark many debates in the future.
Is it possible to add a legend to the illustration?
Dr. Assaf Rosenthal:
Why are you mostly concerned with the trawling fishing nets at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, the state of the plankton in the Pacific or the destroyed ecology of Africa? Why are you no longer needed in your backyard - the Land of Israel and its problems, some of which can be solved much more easily? True, the importance of these problems is great and they are also extremely interesting, but why not add and deal with our ecological issues as well?
For example, it is possible to refer to the problem of the metal monsters that broke into our land with uncontrollable speed, destroying every good part, to the problem of off-road vehicles, which are affectionately called by their owners "off-road vehicles" in a linguistic error.
I will not refer here to the psychological reasons that make people drive such vehicles (mainly because I am not an expert in psychology) but only to the physical damage caused by them.
First, the weight of this type of car reaches 3.5 tons and more, 4 times more than a medium-sized private car. As a result, the amount of fuel they require is very large (every owner of such a car will check its fuel consumption and see!). The result of the increased fuel burning is an increased emission of pollutants into the atmosphere (many times more than a normal car) and a serious damage to the quality of the environment.
Secondly, traveling in these cars causes the destruction of the natural environment (which still remains) and serious damage to the habitats of animals: these escaped from the environment of man in his settlements - for the benefit of both sides, the man and the animals - and the man returned and broke into their living areas, and did not do so as befits a guest at home Not to him, but to the predatory, noisy and polluting machines that destroy every good part - the off-road vehicles. What does the driver of such a monster who sits at a height of about one meter above the ground feel, understand and know about the damage it causes to the animals? How many of them does he prey on, how many of them does he destroy their nests and how many tender offspring or eggs does he harm? What percentage of these animals sprang from fear and fled for their lives forever or under the wheels of the neighbor's car?
The reality described here may sound rare or not so common, but with the amount of off-road vehicles roaming our country, it is probably the daily bread of the animals in the wild.
We still haven't talked about the difficulties in controlling such a vehicle that some ordinary drivers have and the resulting danger, about the height of the vehicle required for off-road movement, which greatly reduces its stability when driving on the road, about the severe damage to other vehicles in the event of an accident, about the blatant attitude of such drivers towards others (perhaps derived from the sense of superiority they have) and the fact that at least some of these vehicles are based on the chassis of vehicles intended for cargo and therefore their stability when traveling fast on the road is questionable.
I would advise every owner of an SUV to do a real soul-searching with himself as to the need he has for such a car. In addition, it may be appropriate for the authorities to require those who drive such a vehicle to have a special license, the issuance of which will require a comprehensive study of the problematic nature of using such a vehicle.
Of course, the treatment of the oceans and other measures to prevent global warming are not done just to save the ecology of the polar and the connection of the issues is a little strange to me.
Is iron sowing beneficial or harmful?
As mentioned, there is a dispute, but I see no reason to fear that if the conclusion of science is that it is harmful, someone will still try to continue sowing iron, and this is because no one will benefit from it and therefore he himself will lose.
And regarding the trade in credits - when in medicine there is a drug that improves the patient's chances of survival by even five percent - it is adopted with love. It should be remembered that the trade in credits was not invented to be a mechanism for doing justice but as a mechanism for improving the ecological balance.
Furthermore - paying people for what they would do so and so does not even seem to me to be a problem of justice.
I, for example, am paid for solving mathematical and algorithmic problems even though I enjoy it so much that it is clear to me that I would do it anyway (and I do do it as a hobby as well).
The trade in credits is problematic in itself. There is much criticism of the effectiveness of this tool and its true ability to achieve the environmental goals for which it is intended.
For example, a comprehensive report published by the WWF organization in November 2007 regarding the trade in credits indicates that 20% of the credits for greenhouse gas emissions under the CDM would have happened even without investment in them.
That is, 20% of the credits have no real value and do not create real savings in greenhouse gas emissions, but are at most a subsidy to the producers of the credits. There are also experts who believe that this estimate is conservative and the actual situation is much worse.