both of these information statements, association of the commercial
interest with leading scientists is acknowledged as being a very
important component of the plan, and I think we can all appreciate
why that association is important.
is a quote from the Carboncorp page: "Plankton, largely diatoms,
sinks out of the ocean euphotic zone within a few weeks on its way
to the seabed, safely sequestering carbon from the atmosphere in
Statements like this require careful consideration by scientists.
A different plan also merits consideration by scientists. Members
of the Ocean Technology Group at the University of Sydney (Australia)
have proposed ocean fertilization with ammonium as a method for
sequestering carbon dioxide in the sea. According to information
provided in a press release, this idea has been proposed to The
World Bank for waters off Chile with partners from Columbia University
and the University of Concepcion in Chile. The idea is to pump four
molar concentrations of ammonium into shelf waters through a diffuser.
This is expected to fertilize four billion square meters. In other
words, fertilization of coastal waters with nitrogen will provide
food (through enhanced fish production) and sequester carbon.
Following on my theme of claims and of possible challenges, there's
certainly another view that exists about putting nitrogen into coastal
environments, or into any part of the marine environment. This is
from the Baltimore Sun, which published a very well researched special
supplement describing the production of nitrogen for fertilization
throughout the world, and the tremendous problems that are associated
with it. The title of the special supplement was, "Feeding
The World, Poisoning the Planet" and there is a big algae bloom
in the background.