Fertilizing the Sea Activity

PROS
Establishes fisheries in nutrient-poor waters. Could sequester in the deep ocean 1/4- 1/3 the amount of CO2 that the U.S. puts in the atmosphere. If adverse impacts become evident, operations would stop immediately. Ocean fertilization is an unproved option for boosting food production and averting global warming.

CONS
Gap between science and private enterprises are too big. Systems of Peru have been evolving for hundreds of millions of years, and you cant expect to duplicate that by dumping nutrients into the water. No way to predict which phytoplankton species will be stimulated or what kinds of fish might feed on them. Take a huge fertilization effort to make a sizable dent in the global CO2 problem. Intentional eutrophication has led to deleterious environmental consequences in lakes and coastal zones throughout the world. Adequate monitoring programs would take 3-10 years and would not be economically feasible. Once you kill the reefs in that area, not clear if they would ever come back.

Conclusion: In my opinion, it doesnt seem like ocean fertilization would be a venture to invest in. It sounds like a good idea, but there is a lot that goes along with it. The process is expensive when it only lasts a week. Other experiments similar to this one has led to deleterious environmental consequences. There would be no way to predict which phytoplankton species will be stimulated or what kinds of fish might food on them. And, too much phytoplankton causes some of them to die off, taking oxygen with them, and creating dead zones in the water.