7/23/15 2:44 AMWhy Dumping 100 Tons of Iron Dust In the Ocean To Save the Planet May Not Be Such a Good Idea | StateImpact Texas

Page 1 of 5https://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2012/10/18/why-dumping-100-tons-…-dust-in-the-ocean-to-save-the-planet-may-not-be-such-a-good-idea/

OCTOBER 18, 2012 | 2:26 PM

BY TERRENCE HENRY

PHOTO BY HO/AFP/GETTY IMAGES100 tons of iron dust were dumped intothe Pacific in a misguided effort to combatclimate change by fostering the growth ofplankton. In this NASA satellite image, anenormous bloom of phytoplankton areseen off the coast of Norway in 2004.

Why Dumping 100 Tons of Iron Dust In theOcean To Save the Planet May Not BeSuch a Good Idea

A California environmentalist is in hot water afterdumping over a hundred tons of iron sulfate intothe cold currents of the Pacific.

Russ George is described as an “entrepreneur” bysome and as something of a charlatan by others.(The New Yorker calls him “The First GeoVigilante.”)

George spent part of July in a fishing boat off theHaida Gwaii islands of British Columbia, scatteringthe red dust in an effort to cause a growth ofplankton and help reverse climate change,according to various media reports. The story wasfirst published in The Guardian.

The eco avenger justified the caper to the NewYork Times by saying that the iron dust was used

as a “fertilizer” to cause plankton growth, which can help eat up carbon in theatmopshere. (And he also noted that plankton could help salmon recover in theregion.)

So did it work?

Yes and no.

The Guardian says that satellite images “appear to confirm the claim” by George thathe engineered an algae bloom that stretched for nearly 4,000 square miles.

But several scientists told the Times that the plankton growth that did occur is aregular occurrence in the region and couldn’t be tied to the infusion of iron dust.

“Marine scientists and other experts said the experiment, which they learned about

Learn More » Support StateImpact Texas »

ABOUT STATEIMPACT TEXAS

StateImpact Texas is a collaboration of localpublic radio stations KUT Austin and KUHFHouston. Reporters Mose Buchele, TerrenceHenry and Dave Fehling travel the state toreport on how energy and environmental issuesaffect you. Read their reports and listen to themon NPR member stations.

SUPPORT FOR STATEIMPACT TEXAS IS PROVIDED BY:

MULTIMEDIA

DATA: Interactive: Confronting the TexasDrought

FEATURED POSTS

What a Ban on Fracking inDenton Could Mean For theRest of Texas

Are Drilling Waste Pits aThreat to TexasGroundwater?

StateImpact A reporting project of member stations

TEXAS

Energy and Environment Reporting for Texas

7/23/15 2:44 AMWhy Dumping 100 Tons of Iron Dust In the Ocean To Save the Planet May Not Be Such a Good Idea | StateImpact Texas

Page 2 of 5https://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2012/10/18/why-dumping-100-tons-…-dust-in-the-ocean-to-save-the-planet-may-not-be-such-a-good-idea/

Climate Global Climate Change

only in news reports this week, was shoddy science, irresponsible and probably inviolation of international agreements intended to prevent tampering with oceanecosystems under the guise of trying to fight the effects of climate change,”the Times reports. The project reportedly cost $2.5 million, with a significant portion ofthat coming from native villagers.

(Some in-depth investigations of George’s schemes can be found here.)

But if the idea of climate engineering strikes you as far-fetched and better left to folksin tin foil hats, think again. Scientists at major research institutions (including theUniversity of Texas at Austin) are considering geoengineering as a way to turn theclimate back absent a significant reduction in worldwide carbon emissions. Some ofthe ideas include shooting tiny particles of sulfur dioxide into the sky to block outsome of the sun (much like a volcanic eruption does) and reduce earth’s temperature,carbon sequestration and even using giant mirrors to reflect the sun.

And iron fertilization isn’t off the table. There’s even a consortium dedicated to theidea, but they say it should be controlled and done for the public good, not for profit.

“This is extremely unhelpful for those of us wanting to do some serious work on ironfertilisation,” Richard Lampitt of the UK’s National Oceanography Centre tells NewScientist.

Michael Specter of the New Yorker says that while Russ George’s heart might be inthe right place, his methods are deplorable, and potentially dangerous:

“This idea may eventually prove useful or at least necessary (and so might the notion ofseeding the stratosphere with particles that can block light.) Many scientists are exploringthese and other approaches to our growing climate crisis. And nearly all agree that we needto move with great deliberation when altering the ecosystem of the ocean. (A sudden influxof oxygen could harm bacteria that are an essential part of the food chain. Too much ironcould result in an increased production of nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas more powerfulthan carbon dioxide. And sequestering enormous amounts of CO could, conceivably alsocause danger.)

George’s unilateral action was deplorable, premature, and violated several internationallaws and United Nations covenants. (Well, unilateral may be harsh. He apparently convincedthe council of an indigenous village to approve the project.) There was no scientificassessment attached to the experiment, which does carry potential risks.”

TOPICS

COMMENTS

15 Comments StateImpact Texas B456

Share⤤ Sort by Oldest

Join the discussion…

Robert • 3 years ago

Recommend 1

As Texas Towns Shake,Regulators Sit Still

RECENT POSTS

Hard Times Come to the ‘Hotel Capital’

Keeping Houses Out of Texas FloodwatersCould Cost Billions

After HB 40, What’s Next for Local DrillingRules in Texas?

A Strange El Niño Is Bringing Rain To Texas

As EPA Pushes For Cleaner Air, RefineriesPush Back

2

7/23/15 2:44 AMWhy Dumping 100 Tons of Iron Dust In the Ocean To Save the Planet May Not Be Such a Good Idea | StateImpact Texas

Page 3 of 5https://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2012/10/18/why-dumping-100-tons-…-dust-in-the-ocean-to-save-the-planet-may-not-be-such-a-good-idea/

• Reply •

Robert • 3 years ago

I have come to the conclusion that geo-engineering will be the only solution toclimate change. The only way to reduce emissions is through a multi-lateralframework (IE Kyoto Protocol), but those only work if everyone participates. Sincethere will always be holdouts to that (China, the US), it will take unilateral action toavoid climate change's most destructive consequences--and the only unilateralsolution is geo-engineering. I imagine that sometime in the next 30 years, once thenegative impacts of climate change really get under way, we will see a country (orperhaps a coalition of the willing) employ the sulfur dioxide method mentionedabove.

4△ ▽

• Reply •

thinkoutsidethebox • 3 years ago> Robert

I have learned in my studies that global warming is part of a larger climatecycle. Anthropogenic (i.e., human-caused) climate change is moremythology than fact. Several other planets in our solar system are alsoexperiencing 'climate change', unusual warming, tremendous weatheranomolies, etc, without the benefit of human CO2 emissions. This trend, toa large extent, is not humanities' fault. Our attempt to 'control' what'shappening are only going to make things worse (it is utter hubris to think weknow better than the planet itself how to establish equilibrium over time).Buckle your seatbelts. The next several years are going to be a very bumpyride.

5△ ▽

• Reply •

notarepublican • 3 years ago> thinkoutsidethebox

i'm sorry, "other planets... are experiencing 'climate change'"?please show me the long-term record this statement is based on orcite a source... because you are obviously an intelligent scientist. :-p

8△ ▽

• Reply •

a libertarian • 3 years ago> notarepublican

Remember that regardless of what is happening, there arethose who wish to take advantage of the circumstance.Sustainability is a very pressing issue, but Democrats have nomore interest in saving the environment than Republicans do;they simply see an opportunity to use coercion againstpeople (just like Republicans do). Look at Al Gores' Ranch foran example of how concerned Democrats are with honestsustainability (I am no apologist for right-wing oil subsidieseither). The only way to fix all of this is for people tovoluntarily make efforts to waste less.

1△ ▽

• Reply •

steveo1111 • 3 years ago> a libertarian

The voluntary approach does not seem to be working. Ifthings get very bad with the climate under business as usualand the voluntary approach you will see far more governmentintervention than now needed to manage CO2 emissions. I'msure you don't want that.

△ ▽

• Reply •

steveo1111 • 3 years ago> thinkoutsidethebox

keep studying- cast the net very wide △ ▽

Tom L • 3 years ago

Every zealot will want to do his own pet project to seat himself on a higher moral

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

7/23/15 2:44 AMWhy Dumping 100 Tons of Iron Dust In the Ocean To Save the Planet May Not Be Such a Good Idea | StateImpact Texas

Page 4 of 5https://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2012/10/18/why-dumping-100-tons-…-dust-in-the-ocean-to-save-the-planet-may-not-be-such-a-good-idea/

• Reply •

Every zealot will want to do his own pet project to seat himself on a higher moralperch than the rest of us. Environmentalism has become the New Paganism. Thezealots will stop at nothing to try to glorify their moral superiority to the rest of us.They are as crazy as the Salafi Moslem extremists.

3△ ▽

• Reply •

iuoiu • 3 years ago> Tom L

Tom, do you also equate religion as the new paganism when you take intoconsideration all of the fringe cooks who do violent and destructive things inthe name of their religion?

2△ ▽

• Reply •

Dangitscold • 3 years ago> iuoiu

What does Gordon Ramsey have to do with it? 2△ ▽

• Reply •

steveo1111 • 3 years ago> Tom L

Do not judge the truth of the message by your judgements of themessengers.

1△ ▽

• Reply •

Sam • 3 years ago

1991 Mount Pinatubo erupted sending around 40,000 tons of iron powder into theoceans leading to a significant drop in atmosphere CO2. We need to pursue this,starting at a small scale, observing, and then if the results are good we can scale itup. The risk of not pursing this is much greater than the small controlled risk oflong-term, sustained testing. Good for Russ George

2△ ▽

• Reply •

BDH • 3 years ago> Sam

There's an error in your presumption. Correlation does not equal causation.Basic science, that.

△ ▽

• Reply •

cdgraves • 3 years ago

Messing with the environment in any way is the problem. We have polluted it withindustrial waste chemicals, and the only way to correct for that is to reduceindustrial waste. Compensating with shortsighted manipulation will not turn out anybetter than plain old pollution.

6△ ▽

• Reply •

Elaine-theRainbow • 3 years ago

Don't what to say, but hey, some people just addicted to do some stupid thing inthe name of their gods and in the reason of 'save the planet', on the expenses ofPeople's rights/liberty and Earth's resources. Addiction is addiction, period.

△ ▽

farmrdave • 3 years ago

It sounds to me that this was paid for as an experiment intended to cause habitatrecovery for local fishery. As for global climate change it might be favorable to thatby absorbing greater amounts of carbon dioxide from the air. But not the centralpurpose.

Anyone who has read the studies available on the internet should see that theclimate alarmists are spreading doom and gloom about results of a warmer climate.The same groups are claiming the climate is warming due to actions of man. Everyaction has a reaction that effects everything else to a degree.

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

7/23/15 2:44 AMWhy Dumping 100 Tons of Iron Dust In the Ocean To Save the Planet May Not Be Such a Good Idea | StateImpact Texas

Page 5 of 5https://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2012/10/18/why-dumping-100-tons-…-dust-in-the-ocean-to-save-the-planet-may-not-be-such-a-good-idea/

NEXT POSTHow to See the Orionid Meteor Shower ThisWeekend in Texas →

PREVIOUS POST← Happy 40th Birthday, Clean Water Act

• Reply •

see more

Studies show a warmer climate is more natural for our earth than what we shortlived humans generally believe. This is likely considering that our history is varyshort (human recorded history) compared to geologic history read in the fossilizedremains of previous inhabitants of our earth. Studies show that increased carbondioxide levels in the atmosphere trail the increases in temperature of past timesindicating that it is caused by warmer temperatures rather than being the cause ofclimate warming. Others who participate in the study of effects of climate as theirmain function in life say that a higher level of carbon dioxide is a vary good thing forseveral reasons. That a warmer climate will cause fewer, milder storms and greater

△ ▽

Subscribe✉ Add Disqus to your sited Privacy)

Share ›

TEXAS

SUPPORT

REPORTERS

Terrence HenryReporter

Mose BucheleReporter

Dave FehlingReporter

PARTNERS

KUTAustin, TexasKUHFHouston, Texas

ARCHIVES

Select Month

View All Topics »

© 2015 KUT Comments Policy Terms of Use Privacy Policy A reporting project of member stations.