The risky idea of dumping iron into the ocean to promote plankton growth has been around for a long time. The reasoning: more algae blooms, more CO2 absorbed. But many scientists think that by the time the algae dies, rots, and release methane and nitrous oxide, it will worsen the greenhouse effect. Even most supporters think it should be studied before being tried. The IPCC is expected to dismiss this particular idea as speculative and probably counterproductive.
But Planktos corporation, backed by Silicon Salley, has decided to go full speed ahead experimenting with it -- to hell with possible side effects. They are simply going to dump iron into a 10,000 square kilometer patch in the Galápagos -- one of the most delicate and important ecosystems on the planet.
The hope is that they will be able to document long-term carbon sequestration and sell it at $5 a ton or more. (They are betting on the price of carbon rising.) If it fails, well, the money is risk capital, and the investors and executives won't bear any of the costs for net emissions or damage to the ecosystems that helped shape Darwin's thinking. No harm, no foul.
I don't think they have thought out whether this is aimed at the official Kyoto markets or the voluntary ones. I get the feeling that their business plan was designed by the underpants gnomes. But the sole incentive for it is the existence of carbon markets; without such markets, they might have devoted their capital to something less harmful, like selling cocaine.
Why the ‘SuperFreakonomics’ global-warming chapter is worth your time
Comments
View as Threaded
Delay And Deny Posted 4:21 am
02 May 2007
Kids...I want you to get your money...I support education, but these bags are terrible! They always tear when I lift them out of the wastebasket and when I tighten the drawstring it rips the rim off the top!
Leave tall kitchen bags to the experts...don't get mad, get Glad.
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 4:43 am
02 May 2007
Farming Sargasso weed wouldn't be a bad idea and it is completely natural, no ironite fertilizer required. Not only does the weed take in CO2 and release oxygen, is becomes the host for bazillions of micro-invertibrates and phyto-plankton that can really absorb some serious CO2. It can reproduce very quickly and I think it is actively being farmed off the waters of Japan. Not only is it good for the planet, any extra Sargasso weed can be used for food additives, cosmetics, bio-fuels, and all kinds of cool stuff.
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Billhook Posted 4:57 am
02 May 2007
Aren't the Galapagos considered among the highest ranking of designations
for official international conservation status ?
So where are the enforcement capacities of such conservation bodies ?
Also, since there is clear international Law against dumping at sea,
and this scam would open a precedent for much grot to be dumped "for research purposes"
surely the US Govt could be encouraged to constrain its potentiallly criminal corporations
when the latter threaten so photogenic a target as the Galapagos ?
Any thoughts ?
Regards,
Billhook
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:20 am
02 May 2007
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060804-gl ...
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 6:13 am
02 May 2007
"We don't have to quit polluting. We can buy the right to pollute from poorer people."
Of course the idea will lead to a die-off that makes the Holocaust look like a rough cricket match but it sells great to rich folks.
After all for most of us flying to Hawaii or Thailand for a month would be a once in a lifetime dream. Giving it up is not such a hassle. For some people it's a given. It would be like giving up ice cream for the rest of us. We talk about it but it's not going to happen as long as ice cream is for sale.
Permalink
BernardBrown Posted 6:19 am
02 May 2007
Part of me thinks we're just going to see more of these types of sketchy solutions as the market turns its sights on Global Warming, and that with the European bio deisel/SE Asian palm oil debacle as the scariest example, we should just give up on market solutions and regulate, regulate, regulate.
Part of me, though, is still trying to think of a way of actually selling people emissions-reducing-alternatives. We have to be able to think of something better than this (and better than assuaging pollution guilt by planting trees and hoping that works in 40 years).
Bernard Brown
Change the world one lunch at a time. Find out how at http://www.pbjcampaign.org
Permalink
davidk Posted 6:39 am
02 May 2007
(The knock-on effects of this decline are immediate and tragic. The phytoplankton-dependent krill populations in the Southern Ocean which are the staple food of all the great baleen whales are now down by 80% and the shortfall is now also starving local fish species, penguins and seals.)
Restoring open ocean plankton populations to known 1980 levels of health would not only annually sequester at minimum 3~4 billion tons of atmospheric CO2 (or half our global warming surplus today), it would regenerate tens of billions of tons of missing nourishment for fisheries, seabirds and marine mammals.
And this restoration can be quickly and affordably accomplished, just by replenishing missing iron micronutrients to the sea. The iron was traditionally delivered to the open ocean in wind-borne dust from arid lands which has now been depleted by 30% or more by modern agricultural practices and the increased levels of atmospheric CO2 (which allow grasses to live longer, spread further, and anchor more iron-rich topsoil dust).
Each molecule of iron returned can fix over 100,000 molecules of CO2 and generate a proportionate amount of nutritive biomass. While nearly 80% of that is recycled in the marine food web, 20% or more disappears into the deep ocean for centuries or millennia.
In other words, at maximum efficiency it would only take several hundred thousand tons (or about two supertankers full) of iron dust to restore the lost plankton to 1980 levels and solve half our global warming surplus, too. More likely until the technology is perfected, it will take a small fleet of research ships working with several times more dust to accomplish this task, but still we are talking a very feasible challenge that would at most be reseeding less than 2% of surface ocean waters.
If we undertake this for the benefit of sea life and the climate and stop at the known 1980 baseline, where is the harm? Iron restoration simply replenishes a vital micronutrient that human activity has dangerously diminished.
We have caused these crises and to attempt to resolve them in most natural and benign way available is not geoengineering, it's generally known as restitution, healing or just merciful common sense.
It's gratifying that the carbon credit market has arisen to underwrite the needed restoration activity, because no one was lifting a finger or spending a cent to address these die-offs before. If you oppose restoration now simply because it may finally be both possible and profitable, you might as well also oppose the practice of medicine, environmental law and public health.
And by way of full disclosure, I do work with Planktos and came to the firm not for carbon credits, but for all the reasons noted above. And to answer the Galapagos question, we will be conducting our pilot project in international waters, hundreds of miles to the west of the Galapagos, and the iron applications are in parts per trillion concentration so it's far closer to homeopathy that fertilization or amendment addition on an organic farm.
OCEAN PLANT LIFE SLOWS DOWN AND ABSORBS LESS CARBON
NASA News, September 16, 2003
"This research shows ocean primary productivity is declining, and it may be a result of climate changes such as increased temperatures and decreased iron deposition into parts of the oceans. This has major implications for the global carbon cycle," Gregg said. Iron from trans-continental dust clouds is an important nutrient for phytoplankton, and when lacking can keep populations from growing... the amount of iron deposited from desert dust clouds into the global oceans decreased by 25 percent over two decades. These dust clouds blow across the oceans. Reductions in NPP in the South Pacific were associated with a 35 percent decline in atmospheric iron deposition.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2003/2 ...
[IRON STRESSED] PLANKTON FOUND TO ABSORB LESS CARBON DIOXIDE, BBC, 08/30/06
The amount of carbon absorbed by plant plankton in large segments of the Pacific Ocean is much less than previously estimated, researchers say. US scientists said the tiny ocean plants were absorbing up to two billion tonnes less CO2 because their growth was being limited by a lack of iron.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5298004.stm
ANEMIC PHYTOPLANKTON ABSORB LESS CARBON THAN THOUGHT
By JR Minkel, Science News
Phytoplankton in the Pacific Ocean are starved for iron, and as a result these microscopic plants soak up less of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide than was previously thought, researchers have found.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&article ...
PLANKTON KILLED BY OCEAN WARMING
SYDNEY: Plankton - the vital first link in the food chain of the seas - will be hugely affected by global warming, a new U.S. study suggests. Plankton forms the main food of many ocean species, and fisheries could be badly hit by the loss of these micro-organisms as a result of warmer waters, according to the paper, published this week in the British journal Nature... Other factors that influence phytoplankton growth include [iron] dust blown from the land, and variations in solar radiation.
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/908
EFFECT OF NATURAL IRON FERTILIZATION ON CARBON SEQUESTRATION IN THE SOUTHERN OCEAN
Nature, Vol 446|26 April 2007| doi:10.1038/nature05700
The efficiency of fertilization, defined as the ratio of the carbon export to the amount of
iron supplied, was at least ten times higher than previous estimates from short-term blooms induced by iron-addition experiments. This result sheds new light on the effect of long-term fertilization by iron and macronutrients on carbon sequestration, suggesting
that changes in iron supply from below--as invoked in some palaeoclimatic and future climate change scenarios11--may have a more significant effect on atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations than previously thought.
OCEAN GOBBLES CARBON AT DIFFERENT RATES
NewScientist.com news service
26 April 2007
Dead plankton does not sink at the same rate everywhere in the Pacific Ocean, say researchers. The new findings will boost our understanding of the supply chain to the world's biggest carbon sink - the bottom of the ocean. [Shows 20~50% of dying plankton take their carbon below 1000 meters into the millennial sequestration zone.]
http://environment.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn11725 ...
Permalink
SoggyInSeattle Posted 7:08 am
02 May 2007
Even if we could create a world-wide carbon free economy (which we can't any time soon), it would be worthwhile to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Whether fertilizing the seas with iron is a good idea remains to be seen, but I don't understand the reluctance to see how well it works.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:14 am
02 May 2007
http://www.bbm.me.uk/FeFert/safe.htm
I don't know who the guy is, but he raises many many questions about dumping iron into the oceans. No point in reiterating them here. I suggest perusing bits of his website -- it is rather detailed in places -- and deciding for yourself whether it is a good idea to move forward with dumping iron into the oceans. There are potential advantages and potential disadvantages, the bottom line being that nobody knows whether it will be a net plus for the environment. Most likely... NOT.
I was particulary alarmed by the suggestion that adding iron to the system and triggering a phytoplankton bloom results in depleting other important nutrients that go into other food webs! This seems like a no-brainer, but that particular hazard never crossed my mind the first time I heard of this solution to global warming. Anyway... there is a phytoplankton bloom and then a bunch of other food webs, deprived of important elements, collapse. Yippee. Oh... and the decaying phytoplankton might release a chemical that depletes the ozone layer!
Forward!
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 7:23 am
02 May 2007
Also there are real questions about the capacity of the oceans to absorb further carbon At some point they will become saturated and turn from a carbon sink to a carbon source. Assuming new plankton bloom does not overshoot and prove a net emitter due to methane and nitrous oxide production they could still prove the final domino in the oceans as emitter scenario. Also ocean acidification is playing a major role in destruction of the ocean biosphere. Adding carbon to them certainly will increase that.
BTW, the "organic farming" quote came from one of your guys. (Unless the NY Times reporter made it up.) I don't think the "Homeopathic medicine" you tried to replace it with does you better service. Although I know people who swear by it, most doctors and scientists consider Homeopathy pure quackery.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 7:30 am
02 May 2007
Then fertilize that area, and watch to see what happens. Follow it along for a few years. And that still won't answer the question of saturating the ocean's carbon capacity or acidification. But then at least we'd know what kind of micro-effects we wer weighing against possible macro-affects.
Permalink
jimsnail Posted 7:43 am
02 May 2007
There's a lot of agreement that Plankto's expedition is highly irresponsible.. the world's leading climate scientists at the UN IPCC are likely to speak out against ocean fertilisation for one.. see news release below.
best
Jim Thomas
ETC Group
http://www.etcgroup.org
--------
News Release
ETC Group
May 3rd, 2007
http://www.etcgroup.org
Geo-engineers to Foul Galapagos Seas - Defying Climate Panel Warning.
As the UN's top climate science panel, the IPCC, prepares to criticise the idea of geo-engineering, one maverick geo-engineering company, Planktos Inc, has announced it is about to dump several tonnes of tiny particles into the waters around the Galapagos Islands, covering an area larger than Puerto Rico. Doing so, they claim, will re-engineer the atmosphere, win them commercial carbon credits and perhaps a shot at the $25 million prize for greenhouse gas reduction put up by Richard Branson. Mainstream scientists are sceptical and environmental and social justice groups are crying foul.
"In a sensible world geo-engineering fanatics like Planktos would have their license to operate taken away." says Jim Thomas of ETC Group. "Instead, they are being allowed to pollute the high seas and are even being considered for a prize! Climate change is a real threat but common sense should not be its first victim."
On May 4th the International Panel on Climate Change, a body of the world's leading climate scientists will publish policy recommendations to governments on how to mitigate global warming. According to an article from Agence France Presse (AFP) who have seen a leaked draft of that report, the panel gives the "thumbs down" and "pours scorn" on a clutch of wacky plans to intentionally re-engineer large scale ecosystems, referred to collectively as geo-engineering: "Geo-engineering options...remain largely speculative and with the risk of unknown side-effects" claims the IPCC draft according to AFP (1). The US government has reportedly been lobbying the IPCC to more prominently support geo-engineering technofixes in order to sideline the Kyoto Protocol(2).
However, even as the UN report becomes public this Friday in Bangkok, one commercial enterprise, California based Planktos Inc, will be sailing from Florida to carry out a large-scale geo-engineering experiment. Planktos, a self-styled `eco-restoration' firm that also doubles as a nuclear fusion company(3), intends to dump tens of tonnes of tiny iron particles over 10,000 square kilometres of ocean around the Galapagos Islands at the end of May 2007. By stimulating a massive growth of plankton, called a bloom, Planktos claims to be able to draw millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere into the deep oceans over the next year. Eleven smaller iron fertilization experiments have already taken place.
"The Iron Hypothesis" is the theory first put forward by oceanographer John Martin in 1990. He believed you could cool the climate by growing extra plankton in the oceans, a process that also gives rise to cloud formation. Martin once famously declared: "Give me a half tanker of iron, and I will give you an ice age." From drafts of the forthcoming IPCC report seen by ETC Group the UN body is expected to highlight the potential negative impacts of such iron seeding. These include increased production of nitrous oxide and methane, unintended changes in the plankton that could result in production of toxic blooms and effects on the ocean food chain. Local and international environmental groups are furious at this risky gamble with sensitive marine ecosystems spurred by the profit-making incentive of market-based carbon trading.
"This is an irresponsible and unpredictable venture by purely profit-driven individuals," said Elizabeth Bravo of Ecuador-based Acción Ecológica "It threatens our climate, our marine environment and the sovereignty of our fisherfolk and it should be stopped." The Galapagos Islands are a UNESCO world heritage site under the sovereignty of Ecuador.
"Climate change should to be tackled by reducing emissions, not by altering ocean ecosystems," said Dr Paul Johnston, Head of Greenpeace International's Science Unit, "Planktos is intending to conduct this reckless experiment in waters around the Galapagos Islands which are globally significant in biological terms and should be designated as fully protected marine reserves.'
Last week the science journal Nature published a study on iron seeding authored by forty-seven ocean scientists.(4) They concluded that such attempts to artificially seed the ocean were unlikely to sequester much carbon dioxide. Their results, they say, "mean the end of the 'geo-engineering' utopia that consists of artificially seeding the oceans with iron."(5) As one of the scientists, Ulf Riebesell, a biological oceanographer at the Liebniz institute of Marine Sciences in Kiel Germany told Nature bluntly, "You just can't achieve nature's efficiency. That's why geo-engineering the ocean won't work."(6) This scientific reality hasn't deterred Planktos, which hopes to convince the market that they can sell plankton-powered carbon `offsets' to consumers to salve guilty consciences. As Planktos CEO Russ George admitted in a 2003 radio interview with National Public Radio in the USA, "It's really more of a business experiment than a scientific experiment."(7)
As worrying, Planktos boasts on their website that the iron they dump will be in nanoparticle form because nanoparticles float longer than normal particles.(8) (although Planktos have given contrary information in person). If this is true, then the Planktos experiment may be the largest intentional release of engineered nanoparticles ever undertaken. The last four years have seen a growing scientific consensus that the altered properties exhibited by nanoparticles could have negative toxicity effects on the environment and for human health. In 2004 the UK's Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering issued a recommendation that environmental applications of nanoparticles should be prohibited,(9) a call echoed by many environmental groups. Planktos claims they will be dumping their particles in international waters and so are not bound by international treaties or permit requirements.
In a further twist of the ridiculous, Planktos has also invited airline billionaire Richard Branson, Chairman of the Virgin Group, to join them in the Galapagos(10). In March Branson announced The Virgin Earth Challenge, a US $25 million prize to whoever could commercially develop a working geo-engineering technology (See http://www.virginearth.org) Unfortunately, Planktos is not the only company competing to technologically alter the climate. In February ETC Group published a report, "Gambling with Gaia", describing a clutch of companies pursing geo-engineering business plans.
For more information contact:
Jim Thomas, ETC Group (Montreal, Canada)
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[21]='\"';l[22]=' 103';l[23]=' 114';l[24]=' 111';l[25]=' 46';l[26]=' 112';l[27]=' 117';l[28]=' 111';l[29]=' 114';l[30]=' 103';l[31]=' 99';l[32]=' 116';l[33]=' 101';l[34]=' 64';l[35]=' 109';l[36]=' 105';l[37]=' 106';l[38]=':';l[39]='o';l[40]='t';l[41]='l';l[42]='i';l[43]='a';l[44]='m';l[45]='\"';l[46]='=';l[47]='f';l[48]='e';l[49]='r';l[50]='h';l[51]='a ';l[52]='';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[21]='\"';l[22]=' 103';l[23]=' 114';l[24]=' 111';l[25]=' 46';l[26]=' 112';l[27]=' 117';l[28]=' 111';l[29]=' 114';l[30]=' 103';l[31]=' 99';l[32]=' 116';l[33]=' 101';l[34]=' 64';l[35]=' 99';l[36]=' 116';l[37]=' 101';l[38]=':';l[39]='o';l[40]='t';l[41]='l';l[42]='i';l[43]='a';l[44]='m';l[45]='\"';l[46]='=';l[47]='f';l[48]='e';l[49]='r';l[50]='h';l[51]='a ';l[52]='';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[21]='\"';l[22]=' 103';l[23]=' 114';l[24]=' 111';l[25]=' 46';l[26]=' 112';l[27]=' 117';l[28]=' 111';l[29]=' 114';l[30]=' 103';l[31]=' 99';l[32]=' 116';l[33]=' 101';l[34]=' 64';l[35]=' 111';l[36]=' 106';l[37]=' 107';l[38]=':';l[39]='o';l[40]='t';l[41]='l';l[42]='i';l[43]='a';l[44]='m';l[45]='\"';l[46]='=';l[47]='f';l[48]='e';l[49]='r';l[50]='h';l[51]='a ';l[52]='';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[21]='\"';l[22]=' 103';l[23]=' 114';l[24]=' 111';l[25]=' 46';l[26]=' 116';l[27]=' 108';l[28]=' 108';l[29]=' 97';l[30]=' 114';l[31]=' 64';l[32]=' 111';l[33]=' 118';l[34]=' 97';l[35]=' 114';l[36]=' 98';l[37]=' 101';l[38]=':';l[39]='o';l[40]='t';l[41]='l';l[42]='i';l[43]='a';l[44]='m';l[45]='\"';l[46]='=';l[47]='f';l[48]='e';l[49]='r';l[50]='h';l[51]='a ';l[52]='';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[28]='\"';l[29]=' 107';l[30]=' 117';l[31]=' 46';l[32]=' 99';l[33]=' 97';l[34]=' 46';l[35]=' 114';l[36]=' 101';l[37]=' 116';l[38]=' 101';l[39]=' 120';l[40]=' 101';l[41]=' 64';l[42]=' 110';l[43]=' 111';l[44]=' 116';l[45]=' 115';l[46]=' 110';l[47]=' 104';l[48]=' 111';l[49]=' 74';l[50]=' 46';l[51]=' 80';l[52]=':';l[53]='o';l[54]='t';l[55]='l';l[56]='i';l[57]='a';l[58]='m';l[59]='\"';l[60]='=';l[61]='f';l[62]='e';l[63]='r';l[64]='h';l[65]='a ';l[66]='
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 8:15 am
02 May 2007
So the problem is that you can't control these Frankenstine species not to grow - what happens will happen. Dump a bunch of iron and nitrate "and see what happens" is not the right way to do things. Are you aware of the huge algal bloom between San Diego and San Francisco that is killing hundreds of not thousands of marine creatures? Same dynamics.
Such hubris and megalomania must be cut off at the pass before these whacko engineers go nuts and kill everything. I hope that Ecuador holds a gun to their heads.
/sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
birdboy Posted 8:56 am
02 May 2007
Is there no authority that can stop this?
a liberal in redsville
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 9:24 am
02 May 2007
or dumping dust onto the sea
Only way to go guys.....
Best solution I know of, and it will work
either that or extinction !
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 9:30 am
02 May 2007
In any other field of science, stationary source air emissions is stationary source emissions, and mobile source emissions are mobile source emissions, and other kinds such as biogenic were never swapped, traded, or even considered in terms of reductions and credits. In fact, while the Republican Movement of the 1990's created mobile source to stationary credit transfers, the system never got more than a handful of takers. So no offsets is what I say; just reduce your stack emissions and let's get some reasonable CO2 standards for motorized vehicles. Got some methane or nitrous sources, we can work on them as well.
No inter-trading among the media, I am very serious about this. It could ruin the entire deal. We're already tarred and feathered by this bunch of geo-engineers with scary opinions and from what I hear, deep pockets. They are the same as the railroad Robber Barons of the 1850's or the subdivisions developers of today, just in it for the bucks.
Let me close by saying I'm worried about Brazil and Thailand. These are two areas dominated by biogenic sources, namely forests in Brazil and rice paddies in Thailand. During the low rainfall and high burning season, the Amazon actually ADDED CO2 to the atmosphere, when it was thought to be the world's largest "sink" to intake CO2 and release oxygen. Thailand concerns me because it is the world's largest rice exporter, if recent newswires are correct. They leave the fields flooded and in the process of anaerobic decomposition, many tons of methane are released. Flooding that much CO2 and CH4 in the global equatorial belt just doesn't sound very good to me.
But no, there is nobody who has any oversight at all. THe EU and IPCC and those guys would like to think so, but they have absolutely no authority except for approving these embarrasing "offsets."
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 10:39 am
02 May 2007
=========
Dear Gar
Not being a scientist can be an advantage I think.
I wonder if these guys have considered just how much iron is finding its way into the oceans via shipwrecks, metal waste dumped at sea, garbage dumped into rivers that run into the sea, old iron piers and harbour structures that are all relatively new and additional sources of the metal.
Also, the claim that wind-born dust has been reduced is very hard to swallow. If anything it is greater than ever before. With vast areas of land deforested and ploughed to death, and with ever-growing desertification and wind-storms, there must be more dust (soil particles) blowing around than ever before in human history.
If plant plankton is really dying off then perhaps we should be looking for the real causes, and what immediately comes to mind is the vastly increased use of herbicides in agriculture over recent years.
Despite industry claims that there are no long term residual effects from most herbicides, I think that recent research has shown that even those considered most 'safe' are now being found to harm aquatic organisms, especially frogs.
It all sounds like a bit of a con to me, and it is not really clear what their motive is
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 10:40 am
02 May 2007
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 1:08 pm
02 May 2007
yes real cause, BUT the die-off has nothing to do with atmospheric CO2 and global warming.
LOL, sometimes misguided efforts will bring the results required.
Tis ironic.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 4:36 pm
02 May 2007
Those plumes represent far more nutrients than you could possibly place in a supertanker full of iron and other minerals. No noticable cooling there.
Permalink
davidk Posted 8:09 pm
02 May 2007
Just can't understand the persistent resistance to recognizing what havoc we have caused in the sea by depriving it of vital micronutrients and the unwillingness to make the relatively minor effort it would take to make it whole again. Except for the bacteria, absolutely everything living in the sea depends on these little guys as well as nearly 60% of our oxygen. You kiss them off at your/our eternal peril...
And while we support CO2 source reductions as ardently as anyone, anyone looking clearly at the evidence knows it just cannot happen fast enough to make the difference that we desperately need. This is an all-hands-on-deck emergency and every effective benign solution must be invoked right now!
And plankton restoration (if you hold it to that) is benign. "Robbing" nutrients to feed plankton will not impoverish any other food webs, because plankton are the base of the only ocean food web there is.
As for a 10,000 sq km pilot project bloom being too large: it is exactly the size many veteran ocean scientists have been calling for. Previously the largest seeded bloom was nearly 1000 sq km in size, but oceanographers claimed it was an order of magnitude too small to understand the real trajectory of speciation and bloom dynamics (for one thing many of these smaller blooms were quickly "grazed" by other critters into near extinction). 10,000 sq km sounds like a lot of territory in terrestrial terms, but it is actually only about 2~3% the size of a natural wind-borne dust seeded bloom.
Most of these questions are the result of honest misunderstandings of what the current state of the oceans is and what we are proposing to do in this pilot project series. Most, I say, because Mr. Thomas' press release is willfully dishonest in the extreme and contains countless charges he himself knows are untrue, but apparently thinks you won't recognize their falsity and they will help to sell his argument. Examples:
Outed deception #1 - Nothing will be occurring in "Galapagos waters" as I pointed out above before he even posted the accusation. The Galapagos islands have their own coastal shelf iron sources and thus harbor one of the healthiest ecosystems in the Pacific. It is the open ocean or pelagic waters that are anemic and lifeless and in need of a little help.
Outed deception #2 - We don't use nano-scale anything. I told him directly and correctly that our iron hematite dust is ground to between 0.7 and one micron sizes, approximately the same dimensions of the iron oxide molecules in your standard red pigments in the art supply store and equally scary. (The four-year-old quote he pulled from our old website was using the word loosely and colloquially just meaning really really small. Thomas' knew that but it was just too good a scare word to let go.)
Outed deception #3 - Thomas loves to wield provocative bs buzzwords like "foul" and "pollute" though he knows perfectly well that we are adding the same material and in roughly the same quantity that Mother Nature had been delivering for the past few million years. Besides if parts per trillion iron dust additions to the sea are called "pollution" adding parts per million lime amendments to organic farm fields would constitute apocalyptic blizzards of toxicity.
Outed deception #4 - Ulf Riebesell, the one naysaying voice Thomas quotes regarding the Nature iron fertilization report (the same report I recommended above by the way), is not "one of the scientists" as Thomas claims. Ulf had no connection whatever with the experiment and was just included to impart a negative spin. For more on this particular flavor of bullshit, see: http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2007/05/the_iron_shore_. ...
Outed deception #5 - Thomas also tries to smear Planktos CEO Russ George as involved in "nuclear fusion" and thus part of the dread eternal radioactivity cartel, when he or anyone who reads the D2Fusion.com website understands that this company is part of the ongoing rebirth of "cold fusion" which is both totally harmless and promises one of the few truly hopeful supply-side solutions to our climate and energy crises today. For those brainwashed by the early "voodoo science" media smears, would like to point out that tinfoil hat groups like the American Chemical Society ("the world's largest scientific society") are also now signing on: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-03/acs-fr0312 ...
Outed deception #6 - Thomas then goes on to recruit misinformed allies like the Ecuadorian woman who is led to believe we are doing this in her waters and that bringing the plankton back will harm fisheries when exactly the opposite is the case. In fact, Japanese fishermen set up a grapevine alert system to alert them to the location and harvest the fishing bounty that appeared when blooms where conducted near Hokkaido back in 2002. Indeed fishermen's logs throughout the last century regularly note the plentiful catches when they were fishing near large plankton blooms.
Outed deception #7 - he even then apparently deceives Greenpeace's Dr Paul Johnston about our plans because the latter blurts "Planktos is intending to conduct this reckless experiment in waters around the Galapagos Islands which are globally significant in biological terms and should be designated as fully protected marine reserves." We couldn't agree more about the latter part of course. We are concerned with the deep seas beyond which have recently and perilously become totally biologically insignificant. And there is just nothing reckless in attempting a pilot project to restore a relatively small number of plankton in an area where they have been literally decimated five times over.
Outed deception #8 - Finally Thomas says we are simply trying to win Branson's $25 million CO2 reduction prize when he knows full well that we issued a press release the day that Branson issued the challenge that said, "we ask him to pass the prize money on to any charity that will help the world's disadvantaged kids learn new ways to preserve, protect and restore our planet when their turn comes." This isn't really all about money, but that's where Thomas seems fixated.
In short, Thomas' and etcgroup's deceit-ridden argument has nothing to do with science, truth or integrity, let alone a sincere desire to solve our climatic and ecological woes. It is the ecological equivalent of the anti-intellectual faith-based rants that one hears from fundamentalists for whom the only acceptable answer to AIDS, teen pregnancy and the population explosion is abstinence pure and simple. Birth control is an evil technical fix that prolongs abhorred behavior. Similarly planting forests or healing the seas are morally unacceptable because they may lessen the punitive pain inflicted on sinful human polluters. You cannot even discuss the ocean facts with him, because all his crowd cares about are their own dread-building/donation-attracting campaigns and damn the global consequence.
Nevertheless in the spirit of comity, Mr. Thomas, we shall offer you a chance to defend your fabrications in an open public debate. How about it, Mr. Thomas? The ball is in your court...
Permalink
Danothebaldyheid Posted 9:19 pm
02 May 2007
Don't get me wrong - we have to make sure things are done right, but anyone who refuses to listen to ideas for a way out of this hole is condemning nearly every living thing to at least severe hardship and possibly death. Good luck out there....
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 1:33 am
03 May 2007
For each ton of "iron dust"... how much CO2 will be permanently removed from the atomophere?
Since there are industry represantives here, it should be easy to get staight answers to these questions.
Thank you for any information you can provide.
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 1:44 am
03 May 2007
Let's assume this is correct for now...
The dumping of iron is still hazardous in that it will remove not only CO2, but other nutrients from ocean food webs. The project described will supposedly work only if the plankton rapidly sink below the level of the ocean inhabited by zooplankton. Otherwise, the plankton will be consumed and the CO2 return to the atmosphere. Well, this means that not only CO2, but all other nutrients used by the phytoplankton will also be permanently removed from circulation. As we dump the iron into the ocean and remove CO2, we will slowly remove all other nutrients essential for supporting the ocean ecosystems.
Let me say that one more time... if the project works, if it removes CO2, then it must also be permanently reducing levels of other nutrients. Has anyone determined whether there is a surplus or constant influx of ALL other elements required for phytoplankton growth?
If other nutrients are not replenished as fast as they are removed due to additional iron, this scheme -- deployed on a larger scale -- will a one-time shot to remove a certain amount of CO2 from the atmosphere. Eventually, another nutrient will become limiting.
Forward!
Permalink
thomasrex Posted 3:48 am
03 May 2007
The plankton stuff is interesting science, and important ecology as well. Maybe we could actually take some time to think about it and debate it like civilized beings, instead of just launching verbal missle attacks.
That and a cup of coffee will perk up the day.
Permalink
SteveK Posted 4:26 am
03 May 2007
They're starting on a small scale (for those of you who don't know this, 10,000 sq km is small by oceananic standards, and by the standards of this type of experiment.)
They're collecting data for several years...a good long time. Very important to understand the underlying processes.
As for the commercial/carbon credit connection...well, that's pretty much the norm for most ecological restoration. The hard realiy is, our government leaders in their infinite wisdom choose not to provide sufficient funds for ecological work. Therefore we have to find ways to work with the commercial sector. This is true for 90% of the ecological work done on land. So there's nothing especially dreadful about Planktos applying that same model at sea.
Personally I plan to support Planktos in their work but also watch them very, very carefully to make sure they keep their noses clean. I'd invite other thoughtful greens and eco-citizens to do the same.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 5:55 am
03 May 2007
Give it a chance
Global warming is too big and too immediate for this not to be given a shot. We have accidentally engineered ourselves into a serious (and probably even worse that Al Gore suggests) crisis. Latest reports show that even the worst models don't show as much warming as we are now experiencing.
Don't get me wrong - we have to make sure things are done right, but anyone who refuses to listen to ideas for a way out of this hole is condemning nearly every living thing to at least severe hardship and possibly death. Good luck out there....
The one concept that gets almost no press is treating the climate/energy crisis like World War II. We could shut down every car plant in the US and start producing solar-thermal power units.
The frames and mirrors are little harder to make than car bodies. The stirling engines are piston engines. Should the stirling engines fail they could be replaced with improved versions or PV units. Install enough units and you can start shutting down coal plants permanently.
Improving our rail system is a complete nonstarter in Congress even while we fight a war to keep our cars running. Why was that idea discarded?
Humans seem to be too stupid to survive as a species.
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 6:01 am
03 May 2007
Go Guys, you have my full support
After studying all options, seeding the oceans is the ONLY way to save humanity.
Remember if civilisation is undermined by conflict, the capacity to effect a solution such as this will be totally lost.
This effort maybe our last chance.
Pray to the GODS... I thought that this idea would be too "out there" for people to accept... I though it would be years away, and therefore come too late to save civilisation ...
We still need all countries to participate, all ships (all airlines maybe)
Seeding the oceans will have to be carried out over many decades ....
Australia has mountains of iron rich dirt, just the thing to use.
I do wonder though how much dirt will it take to cover the ocean many times over.
One seeding will not be enough.
omegafour.com
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 6:41 am
03 May 2007
"Australia has mountains of iron rich dirt, just the thing to use."
Given the drought conditions, perhaps Australia is already trying this strategy for reducing CO2 in the atmosphere. Now if we can just get South America on board... oh... they probably will be contributing iron-rich dirt soon enough... just a few more tree to cut down.
It's a shame we have to destroy the planet to save it.
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 6:42 am
03 May 2007
Forward!
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 9:37 am
03 May 2007
If we procrastinate... nuclear war will do far more damage to LIFE.
The proposal is only an experiment.
If it was for real .. and it should be set in motion NOW in a big way
Commercial ships (aircraft) could just mist dust onto the ocean as they crisscross the planet... It doesn't need to be more than a light sprinkling.
Over 10-20 years our world would be green, blue and white again. Our climate would be better than it has been in 200 years.
omegafour.com
Permalink
Lives per gallon Posted 12:08 pm
03 May 2007
Give Planktos a shot. We may reach the point of ecological triage... Maybe we are already there...
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 3:29 pm
03 May 2007
Bottom line: all the models suggest the plankton will grow, but the net carbon won't be sequestered. In addition, carbon sequestration as opposed to plankton growth is going to be hard to measure. So after the experiment is done we will still be arguing about whether it did any good or not. Which of course means Planktos will be able to sell carbon credits to someone on the unregulated voluntary market.
I understand the impulse many people have to "just give planktos a chance" in hope that they will supply an easy solution to save the planet. It is the same impulse that lets generation after generation of cancer quacks sell worthless schemes to cancer patients. I had a relative who chose herbal brews over conventional treatments to fight his lung cancer. His choice, and his death six months later.
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 5:22 pm
03 May 2007
LOL, this has nothing to do with CO2, absolutely nothing.
As I have stated earlier, the seeding will have a multitude of beneficial effects
and it will save the planet.
There is much more to this than the hype.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 12:12 am
04 May 2007
I am with wiscidea regarding where the iron will come from. So, ummm?
Permalink
jimsnail Posted 1:30 am
04 May 2007
On this forum David Kubiak, Planktos Communications Director, posted a blustery (and bizarre!) attack on ETC Group's recent news release about his company's impending iron fertilization experiment in the vicinity of the Galapagos Islands. Yesterday was a busy day for ETC Group because we concluded -- and won -- a 13 year old lawsuit against Monsanto that has led to the rejection of Monsanto's species-wide soybean patent. (see http://www.etcblog.org where we will also post this note). The trial hearing was in Munich and we've been busy. Below however is our response to Planktos.
Firstly, we would like to be clear to Mr Kubiak and others that these are not "Mr Thomas's' arguments (as he characterised them). They are the position of ETC Group. There is no need to personalise this debate.
Secondly, we note that Planktos's vitriolic "rebuttal" actually sidesteps most of what was in the news release - namely that UN IPCC , the most eminent body of climate scientists in the world ,overseen by governments, have decided that geo-engineering schemes - and ocean fertilisation in particular - are unproven, unlikely to work and raise serious risks. This is published today (Friday) but was leaked to the media some days ago.The same message came very clearly from a paper last week in Nature (Blain et al.). signed by 47 internationally-respected ocean scientists. It says just about everything anyone needs to know about this company that Planktos did not address these two scientific reports in its rebuttal but opted, instead, to attack paper tigers and spread invective.
Planktos also invited ETC Group to "an open public debate". Of course we agree and have specific proposals to expedite this debate (see below).
Regardless, Planktos should accept the Precautionary Principle and immediately announce that it will suspend its iron fertilization trial until there is a public debate and, also, pending the results of a transparent technical evaluation of their project conducted by a panel of internationally-respected ocean scientists drawn from the IPCC and including experts from the Pacific region where the experiment is intended. If Planktos is not prepared to do this and does not recognize the Precautionary Principle, the world community should be concerned.
We propose three public debates. The first debate should take place as quickly as possible in Ecuador (which has the sovereign responsibility for the UNESCO World Heritage Site). Dr Elizabeth Bravo of Accion Ecologia can arrange this debate and can also facilitate appropriate discussions with the Ecuadorian government at the same time. It is not necessary for ETC Group to be involved in this debate, Ecuadorians are capable of attending to their own concerns. We'll be happy to forward contact information to Planktos.
ETC Group is quite prepared to participate in the second and third debates. We propose a second debate during the UN Commission on Sustainable Development now taking place (until May 11) in New York City. If we can reach quick agreement on this, it may be possible to arrange a side-event during the CSD to which governments and civil society organizations could be invited. This would allow for a full debate. Time is short, but we are prepared to undertake organizational work for this debate. If the time frame is too short a side-event could also be arranged at the UN in New York the following week at the Permanent Forum on Indigenous issues which commences its 6th session on 14th may 2007.
Finally, we propose a debate before the UN Convention on Biological Diversity and its SBSTTA (scientific subcommittee) when it meets in Paris July 2 - 6. at that time it will be considering teh biodiversity impact of climate mitigation schemes. Again, we believe we can arrange for a side-event that will allow for the debate to be witnessed by governments and civil society.
As to the points which Planktos unhelpfully characterised as "deceptions". Below are some replies. As we already noted - this really did not seem to address the substance of our news release.
- The reference to Galapagos came repeatedly from Planktos who launched their so-called "voyage of recovery" to Galapagos back in March linking it explicitly with Darwins Voyage. Indeed after reading Planktos communications for some time this forum is the first time we have seen a more precise reference of where the dumping site is intended. We are not sure if we share Planktos's view that the deeper waters of the Pacific are "anemic and lifeless".
- ETC Group bears no responsibility for the Planktos website being four years out of date or using the technical word nanoparticles in a non-technical manner. It is true that Mr.Kubiak told us last week that the particles would be at around the micron scale in a telephone conversation. His comment was correctly acknowledge in our news release. He also said the company had never used the term nanoparticle - which is not true. As the company's communications officer, he should perhaps become more familiar with his own website. "Nanotechnology" is not a scare term. Many companies use the term (sometimes incorrectly as here) to exaggerate the "cutting edge" nature of their technology.
- Regarding Nuclear Fusion - Cold fusion is believed to be a form of Nuclear Fusion .We merely stated that Planktos has a mirror company involved in Nuclear fusion. Its hard to see how that is a "smear.". D2fusion describes their work variously as "Cold Fusion" "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions", and "Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reactions,"..
- Ulf Riebesell was not the only critic of iron fertilization quoted in Nature. The forty-seven scientists who co-authored the paper under discussion went out of their way within the paper to say that their paper should not be used to justify iron fertilization schemes. On their own website they also said that they saw their finds as the end of the `dream' of iron fertilization. When we contacted the lead author, Stephane Blain he was particularly emphatic that they did not want geo-engineers to misleadingly use their findings to justify their case - in the way Planktos apparently have.
- It is unfair to both Dr Elizabeth Bravo (of Accion Ecologica) and Dr Paul Johnston (of Greenpeace) to characterize them as `misled'. Both are highly respected and very experienced environmentalists with enviable international reputations. It is also slightly ironic since Greenpeace rather claim that Planktos misled them: - Planktos, having used a personal connection in Greenpeace's US office to borrow an inflatable boat , went on to portray Greenpeace as supportive of Planktos during a PR stunt in Washington DC Harbour recently. Greenpeace USA had to send threatening legal letters to have that misrepresentation removed from the Planktos website.
- ETC are glad to see that Planktos will surrender any prize money to charity.
Nonetheless Planktos own communications has very much emphasised the money that Planktos hope to make - especially to investors who have been invited to buy stock in the company. As we noted in our news release Planktos CEO Russ George has called this more of a business experiment than a scientific experiment.
Permalink
SteveK Posted 3:48 am
04 May 2007
There would be little or no scientific value, and no valid or factual conclusions worth speaking of. The net result it to make the public even more suspicious that global warming advocates aren't interested in real solutions, but just trying to cram their personal agendas down everybody's throats. We have enough of that kind of suspicion already.
Note that this kind of ideological squabbling, which is so poisonous to the free flow of scientific knowledge, as been rampant in the iron fertilization field (see my Open Letter to the Marine Science Community, an expose of the infighting in the area of iron fertilization).
A better approach would be to let Planktos do their study, but make sure that they are including reputable, independant outside marine scientists in the process.
Permalink
jimsnail Posted 4:26 am
04 May 2007
"In my view, the debates proposed by ETC aren't practical"
er... with respect, the notion of an open public debate was proposed by Planktos at the end of David Kubiak's last entry... but ETC would be happy to participate.
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 7:48 am
04 May 2007
Get to it boys, procrastination will cost lives.
The race is not against global climate change .... that is coming a close second
The race is against the destruction of civilization because of all the climate changes that have already happened..
The proposal WILL WORK.. but not for the reasons proposed. The opponents (IPCC, gov, et al) are really really ignorant ... just another aspect of global metal mental poisoning.
Just get your shovels out and start digg'n the climate !!!!!!
Time is short, and aggression and irritability in the world's population is rapidly rising .. much faster than the heat in the atmosphere.
IMO, y'all doomed, but you could at least give it your best shot .... yes I live in dreamland !
omegafour.com
Permalink
davidk Posted 11:07 am
04 May 2007
Regarding etcgroup's disingenuous replies and debate response: so as not to prolong "poisonous squabbling" here, will contact them privately to determine the possibility and utility of such an exercise, but do feel obliged to point out a fourth egregious distortion in the title of their press release "Geoengineers (#1) to Foul (#2) Galapagos Seas (#3) - Defying Climate Panel Warning (#4)
Well, unlike the release's claims that this report would "pour scorn" and "thumbs down" on geo-engineering solutions (which plankton restoration is still sadly and erroneously lumped with): here's all the IPCC finally said:
Summary for Policymakers IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III, Page 20
"17. Geo-engineering options, such as ocean fertilization to remove CO2 directly from the atmosphere, or blocking sunlight by bringing material into the upper atmosphere, remain largely speculative and unproven, and with the risk of unknown side-effects. Reliable cost estimates for these options have not been published (medium agreement, limited evidence)"
The appended "medium agreement, limited evidence" comment was also the lowest consensus/certainty level of any of their evaluations, most of which rated "high agreement, much evidence".
So it's not exactly a ringing endorsement of ocean work, but neither is it a scornful rejection or even a warning. In fact, it pretty fairly defines the challenges we face - to prove out this tech, discover & control possible side-effects, and publish reliable cost estimates. Those are reasonable demands and indeed the prime objectives of our pilot projects...
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 12:06 pm
04 May 2007
I tip my hat to this project.... a heaven sent blessing.
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 1:08 pm
04 May 2007
Good to see you are keeping an eye out for the world.
I must tell you, and I have no affiliations except to LIFE, that your reluctance to accept seeding the micro layer of the oceans is somewhat misguided.
Why, well you should read my website at omegafour.com
where I have been creating a compilation of data/articles on global climate change.
I am a scientist and IMO from a scientific standpoint, the seeding of the ocean is the only way to prevent this planet from going into full Global Drought.
The situation is far more serious than you or most people in the world realise. Sorry, but the cause of the world's woes are really two fold.
(a) The atmosphere has an overpressure of carbon dioxide that is increasing the heat capacity of the atmosphere, but we also have a loss of cloud cover and a reduction in rainfall.
All in all this leads to an apparent but false atmospheric temperature warming. Nothing of real importance here, except the prospect of a Global Drought
(b) There is also a layer of petroleum oil in the micro-layer covering the oceans. This is the culprit that needed addressing decades ago. Sadly this oil pollution has been entirely overlooked by all scientific bodies including the IPCC. NASA knows, and the marine micro-layer biologists know, and the oil companies know
BUT not one of them has come out and alerted the world.
In fact Big Oil has deliberately muddied the waters of truth.
The project to seed the micro-layer is misguided... this is true ... but only because the focus is on carbon dioxide.
However fortunately seeding the microlayer will also encourage the metabolism of this petroleum oil layer. So, it really is a godsend that something can be done NOW.
I urge you to encourage this project, and in fact I urge you to alert all governments to follow suit.
Removing the oil layer will take years, maybe decades... there really is no time to lose.
But, even so it still may not work. Oils ain't oils nowadays, synthetic oils could well be impossible to remove.
I can assure you that if we can not re-mediate the ocean's micro-layer, Global Drought will precipitate WW111 and then all bets are off.
Please read the data on my website that I have collected over many years of study.
I have written a hard science fiction novel detailing the scientific logic, problems and solution.
Title: "The Death of Clouds"
If we can not clear the oceans of oil in the immediate future I really fear for all LIFE on Earth.
Extinction is the most probable outcome, the situation is really that serious.
Good luck with your efforts.
Signed John Caley (microbiologist)
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 3:55 pm
04 May 2007
Wiki on Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion
My understanding is that phytoplankton quickly deplete all nutrients from surface waters in the tropical gyres. Those big areas marked "doldrums" on wind maps. Clear water/no nutrients.
A few hundred meters lower is going to be water with a much higher nutrient level due to lack of pytoplankton activity. Already diffused with proper mineral salt levels and everything.
Turn OTEK plant on, plankton blooms, move OTEK plant away from resulting fish feeding frenzy. Oh, and you get free power too.(and distilled water)
Where did I get this wrong?
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 4:35 pm
04 May 2007
My idea is this.....
You get a lead-bismuth nuclear reactor and hang it in a big deep pipe in cold water. The reactor has to be inside the pipe with water all around it. It works like this solar updraft tower but under water.
Up near the top of the pipe you put some turbine blades to extract electricity. They get power from the heated water from the bottom of the ocean rushing up to the top of the ocean.
The power from the turbine is used to make hydrogen which is combined with coal from Australia and CO2 sequestered from China's coal plants to make methanol for cars.
Now you have enourmous volumes of nutrient rich water coming to the surface providing the basis for a phytoplankton bloom and sequestering CO2. It also feeds your farmed fish operation and keeps the water clean for your mid-ocean sushi farm.
If you don't want to farm fish you can use the nutrient rich water and CO2 to grow algae for biodiesel.
Yep, that's all the climate stupid in one place. Nukes, coal,CO2 sequestration, ocean seeding, species exploitation and biofuels. Did I miss anything? Do I get a grant now?
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 4:42 pm
04 May 2007
Your conclusion is valid IF the assertions you based your conclusion on were correct.
Unfortunately, they were not correct. Sorry, I know the WHOLE world thinks they are, LOL, but they are not.
The problem is all the waters of the world; the surface of the world's ocean; is polluted with petroleum oil in the micro-layer.
ALL the surface waters of the world must be treated, a very very large area. An almost impossible task, but with international support it could be done.
Problem: OIL must be banned, and especially synthetic oil.
BANNED NOW.
omegafour.com
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 6:54 pm
04 May 2007
>> Where did I get this wrong? >>
Your conclusion is valid IF the assertions you based your conclusion on were correct.
Unfortunately, they were not correct. Sorry, I know the WHOLE world thinks they are, LOL, but they are not.
The problem is all the waters of the world; the surface of the world's ocean; is polluted with petroleum oil in the micro-layer.
ALL the surface waters of the world must be treated, a very very large area. An almost impossible task, but with international support it could be done.
Problem: OIL must be banned, and especially synthetic oil.
BANNED NOW.
omegafour.com
I don't know what you think you are contributing other than spamming your own site. Isn't there an area 51 or chemtrails site you can play with?
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 1:36 am
07 May 2007
Forward!
Permalink