If the results are what most oceanographers think they will be, then you get a plankton bloom that drains nutrients elsewhere, and possibly net emissions of methane and nitrous oxide that will make in a net ghg emitter rather than merely accomplishing nothing. So whether public money is involved or not public harm is almost certainly done, significant to risk to our oceans.

The idea that only credible  people can sell on the voluntary market does not seem proven. The constant scandals we see in the voluntary market seems to imply that non-credible people do manage to sell credits. At any rate, the carbon market is the only incentive for this--the reason investors put money into this rather than, say, cocaine futures.

3)In fact I'll make a prediction. If Planktos goes through with this, they will claim success even as most oceanographers dispute their results. Then they will offer credits (either directly or via a fund) emphasizing their controversial nature. They will market to certain types of contrarians who want to believe they are people of vision supporting the unpopular overlooked last hope of humankind. Won't predict the success or failure of this marketing, but they'll try.

There have been a proliferation of blog enteries and posted comments recently about this technology and this company following their exposure in the NY Times this week. What most articles, and most bloogers, fail to mention is the wealth of scientific articles that back up the science behind this experiment.
"A massive phytoplankton bloom induced by an ecosystem-scale iron fertilization experiment in the equatorial Pacific Ocean" published in Nature illustrates the effectiveness of carbon export following addition of low concentrations of iron which triggered a massive phytoplankton bloom thus consuming large quantities of carbon dioxide and providing.
"Phytoplankton bloom on iron rations", also published in Nature, recounts the IronExII experiment in which a 60% increase in CO2 flux was mesured in the center of the bloom.
"Iron seeding creates fleeting carbon sink in Southern Ocean", also Nature, demonstrates that addiiton of each atom of iron to the sea could pull between 10,000 and 100,000 atoms of carbon out of the atmosphere by encouraging plankton groth.
"Open ocean iron fertilization for Scientific Study and Carbon Sequestration" published by one of the leading scientists in this field Kenneth Coale of Moss Landing Marine Laboratories in California references more than two dozen articles in his synthesis of iron fertilization experiments and concludes that there is overwhelming evidence of dramatically increased carbon export when iron is added to induce blooms.
To date, there have been at least 10 experiments conducted by trained and accredited scientists from across the world that have studied the nature of iron-induced plankton blooms, their chemistry, carbon-export efficiency, and potential negative ecosystem effects. All of these experiments have shown conclusive evidence of dramatic, measurable incresae in carbon export to the deep. What all these experiments also have in common, however, is that the duration of their study was too short.
The Planktos experiment is about to undertake the most extensive research mission ever conducted on an artificially induced phytoplankton bloom. Previous studies have lasted at most a month. The Planktos experiment duration is six months, during which time exaustive measurements will be taken and interpreted by leading oceanographers and biologists from around the world who have been invited on the expedition. The full life of a pelagic plankton bloom has yet to be studied. Articles detracting from fertilization experiments speak of eutrophication and anoxia of surrounding bloom areas, and increase in greenhouse gasses like methane which may do more damage than any carbon sequestration. The problem with these claims is that they are based on short term, some times in vitro experiments. There is further scientific evidence that these claims are exaggerated (see Science 296,467 (2002) & Science 300,68 (2003).
The bottom line is that articles who cast the first stone at experiments like this without doing any back research other than reading news articles published by non-academics  have a deleterious and condemning effect on often promising and beneficial projects. The precautionary principle should rule experiments like these, but the fact of the matter is that if commercialization of iron fertilization has potential to be successful then it should be thoroughly explored on a large scale experiment before pessimists simply write it off as another dangerous geo-engineering project.
In the interest of full disclosure, I am a student at the University of California, Berkeley.

Carbon offsetting aside, I take issue with the following, ungrounded statement, "The scheme may or may not be crackpot, but no public funds are at risk".

What about the ocean is NOT a public fund?! It's a common good that is not Russ George's to experiment on.

The world needs to be very wary of extreme, "one-fell-swoop" global fix-it schemes such as this one. This kind of thinking is dangerous and so far from the realm of a systems approach that it's laughable. Everything in moderation...everything in moderation.

...who the hell gave him a permit to do this?

Who would give one of these permits?  If the dumping occurs in international waters there's very little anyone can do to prevent it - at least from a legal angle.  The high seas are not regulated like city municipalities...

Of course, this is in large part why our oceans are - to put it indelicately - fucked.  They're the planet's dumping grounds, there to be exploited without restraint.  The worthless, unenforced pieces of paper international treaties are written upon have been of little help.

As someone here recently suggested, the only solution would be to sink the exploiters.  The dumpers, trawlers, tankers, finners, purse-seine death traps and whalers, all taking the long journey to the ravaged seabeds they helped shape.  

Can you feel the rage?

First off, I'm not of the impression that oceanographers think that this single experiment will result in a significant nutrient drain or methane emissions. As I've said, I'm not a fan of this experiment. But intellectual honesty compels me to admit that it's probably not consequential. The ocean is really, really big. Iron is a natural, non-toxic substance. It is flatly false to suggest that this experiment is a "signficant risk to our oceans." Let's be serious about this. This exact same thing has been done many times before.
There's some delightful irony in your suggestion that the voluntary market is scandal-plagued. Of course, it is not. But you wouldn't know that from reading your posts. It is fair to say that the voluntary market is critic-plagued.
I'll make a follow-on prediction. Even if this scenario comes to pass, it will be immaterial. Planktos can claim whatever they want, but they won't gain access to the regulated market. They will sell very few offsets, and in the meantime, a worldwide carbon market will continue to channel billions of dollars into renewable energy projects, much as it is doing now. Nevertheless, you will attempt to convince Grist readers that iron fertilization and Ugandan tree-planing projects are what undergird the global carbon market.

>>> the wealth of scientific articles that back up the science behind this experiment. >>>

Nice to read opinionated opinions from people with no knowledge.

Yep, y'all have the numbers, and this is a democracy... so y'all have the power of IDIOTS !!!!

This was the Earth's last chance, and it looks like y'all blew it !
:(

omegafour.com

Nope not the end of the world, but 10,000 kilometer is a lot bigger than was done before. It will probably do some local damage.

Yes the offset markets are scandal plagued. The European market dropped to ~$4.00 a ton because of giveaways of excess credit.  At least 20% of CDM credits come from various F5 gases, many of which saw sharp increases in uses just before reductions were put in place--probably to generate those extra reductions. The voluntary market, being smallest has had the fewest scandals, but still plenty of examples like your own methane flaring case. Of course you are currently in the process of investigating yourself.

We'll compare results later to both predictions.

If you look at the history of iron fertilization, you find out that from the very start, before anybody knew anything, before there were any facts whatsoever, there were a good number of people expressing their "rage" (if I may paraphrase one of the posters above) about this idea.

The people hostile to this technology aren't feeling rage because they have hard facts...they don't.  They are feeling rage because they are politically opposed to solutions of this sort.  They will cook up all kinds of objections, invent or inflate risks, whatever it takes, to block Planktos, or anybody who does does this research.  The argument here is political and ideological, not scientific.

The reality is, what Planktos is planning to do is utterly safe.  "Local damage"?  Baloney.  Mother earth routinely "dumps" megatons of iron on the ocean, every year, in the form of iron oxide dust and river run-off.  Mother earth has been doing this for billions of years.  

If Planktos was planning hundreds of thousands of square miles, or millions of tons of iron, then that might be consequential.  If they had a supertanker full of iron, that might be consequential.  But they don't have any of that.  What they have is a rather small research vessel and a multi-year plan.  Perfectly reasonable science.

Here's my prediction, to match Gar's.  After much ranting and raving by the hysterical uninformed masses, eventually cooler heads will prevail.  The great majority of scientists, who are quietly interested in this work, will join in and support the Planktos research, happily collecting data that is paid by private money.  

Despite all the predictions of doom, every study of the Planktos blooms will show, in fact, that side-effects are completely inconsequential.  The little beasties will eat up all that iron without even a hiccup, just as they have been for millenia.  

If Planktos can prove that they have sequestered NET carbon, then they will be able to sell some portion of their carbon credits, slowly, to a few buyers.  If they can't prove net sequestration, they won't be able to sell diddly, and will disappear, losing their shirts.

That's my prediction.

All of this will carry a good lesson for the climate change community as a whole:  Don't waste so much time having screaming matches about proposed solutions before you've even seen any facts.  If somebody had a great idea and they are willing to put up their own money, well them let try it. It's called innovation, folks.  That's how we're going to solve our global crisis.  

Is a ton of carbon avoided from being emitted,
!perfectly equivalent!
to a ton of carbon sequestered in biomass?

And does it avoid the whole issue of "Carbon persists in the troposphere for 100 years"

Since if it takes 100 years for it to come back down, that might put a damper on things :O

If big projects to absorb CO2 are really going to atract cash, at least fund ones that will work.  Fresh water from sea water saves rivers, lakes, and aquifers, heading off drought and fire that releases stored carbon.

And the land irrigated by the fresh water absorbs more CO2.  The resulting economic development makes this scheme pay its own way.

And when these projects take off, electric power production from wind/wave power will also be boosted.  Water is the oil of this century.  And water provided by renewable energy will help reverse the effects on spaceship earth of the oily industrial age, that is coming to a close.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Um, you referred to the "constant scandals we see in the voluntary market." Then as examples you talked about stuff happening in the European markets, which aren't voluntary. It's almost like you have no idea what you're talking about, but that would be crazy. It's more like you'll say anything, as long as it supports your contention that carbon markets are bad, no matter what the merit of the argument. Your only expertise seems to be your ability to frantically Google for evidence that supports viewpoints you're predisposed to have.

Ole Rube would be proud of the shenanigans to put iron into the ocean to stimulate carbon sequestration. Who in the heck teaches those boys science. Certainly not my department.I have seen some schemes to stop the inevitable,but this one almost takes the cake.

Earth Shaman

"Some people greet the shad with groans, complaining of its countless bones..."
                Ogden Nash

Sensible people rightly greet the Planktos proposal with groans, and the entirely self-evident bones are these:

First, it is quite possible this profit-inspired experiment will succeed in showing some small modicum of success in carbon sequestration. At the same time, unwelcome side effects will be covered up or deliberately not noticed.

Second, looking to support its own wishful thinking and deeply resistant to any suggestion of actually reducing carbon emissions in the first place, the business-as-usual political/financial machine will jump on these results uncritically and will reproduce the small experiment on a huge production scale with large amounts of private and public money. Serious scientists will have their attention diverted to challenging this claptrap, but they will be ignored and obstructed by the denialism industry. We have a long tradition of hauling our trash out to sea and dumping it, out of sight and out of mind. Why should carbon be treated any differently?

Third, in production phase the net carbon benefits will ultimately prove to be chimerical and the side effects hugely damaging in ways that had not even been considered at the time of the initial experiment, but the investment of political and financial capital by that time will be so entrenched that backing down will be treated as impossible.

Sound familiar? Sound like the ethanol scam? Please let's call this as it is. The emperor's clothes are in tatters - wait, they're not even there!

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

Very well put, Spaceshaper.

Do you know this, by Edward Gorey?:

<<
The Dowager Duchess of Stout
Collapsed at the height of a rout;
   As they bore her away,
   She found strength to say,
"I should never have taken the trout."
>>

Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!