John Cullen holds the Killam Chair in Ocean Studies at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia. He spends a lot of time thinking about and investigating the effects of large-scale iron fertilization of the ocean. Together with colleagues, he has published an opinion piece on the topic in the 16 September issue of Nature.
What do you find the most fascinating oceanographic phenomenon?
The global ocean carbon and nutrient cycles — The Cycle of Life and Death in the Sea. It is exquisitely complicated and fundamentally simple at the same time.
If you had unlimited funds for your research — or other activities — what would you do, and why?
I would fund a research group of about 5 investigators for five years at a time (renewable, based on progress and a research plan) to address the key environmental questions of our time. This core funding would allow them to retain staff, train students and compete for additional funding without the stressful and inefficient need to fund research through a patchwork of grants from multiple, inherently uncertain sources.
What is your stance on using ocean iron fertilization as a possible ‘climate mitigation strategy’?
Answer 1: The intention of ocean iron fertilization (OIF) is to move atmospheric carbon dioxide to the deep ocean by fundamentally altering marine food webs and biogeochemical cycles. Vast expanses of ocean would have to be transformed — almost instantaneously compared to what has occurred in glacial-interglacial cycles — for OIF to have a significant influence on atmospheric carbon dioxide. Unwanted downstream effects such as anoxia, reduced primary production and nitrous oxide production have been identified, but their likely extent is unknown. These effects would be cumulative and scale dependent, however, and the only way to test for them would be to alter much of the ocean system, perhaps irreversibly, before crucially important negative effects could be detected with statistical confidence. The risk of doing this does not compare well to even the most optimistic predictions of potential climate mitigation.
Answer 2: For ocean fertilization to have any significant influence on the course of climate change, vast expanses of ocean would have to be fundamentally altered, year after year, for many decades — and marine ecosystems would have to respond like the most optimistic of models. Experiments to date have already shown that the ocean is not so simple and predictable, and we know that we would only be able to assess some of the most worrisome potential side effects after conducting widespread fertilization for years, possibly altering the ocean irreversibly. Ocean fertilization is not worth the risks involved — it’s time to move on.
If you could choose, what would you like to see the grant money that is being spent on iron fertilization experiments being used for instead?
In many countries there are no public sector research funds for iron fertilization, even though fertilization experiments could address fundamental questions about how ocean ecosystems work and interact with the global climate. It is possible that the controversy over commercial iron fertilization has choked funding for such important research. The world needs to know what the relentless increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide and associated climate change is doing to the ocean and the earth’s climate system, and research on iron and ocean productivity will provide key answers. The talented and highly skilled scientists who are focusing on carbon sequestration from intentional iron fertilization should be freed to address fundamental questions about the ocean and climate change.
Do you think that the oceanographic research community has done all they can to communicate real information on ocean fertilization to the public?
Scientists have tried very hard to communicate real information on ocean fertilization to the public. For example:
- Journalists always find knowledgeable scientists willing to comment on the issue for the record. Over the years, dozens of articles have been published in newspapers and magazines, with quotes from more than one side of the issue.
- Scientists have organized international meetings, for example a symposium in 1991 and workshops in Washington D.C. in 2001 and one at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in 2007. Each of these provided summaries for the public and policy makers. An issue of the magazine Oceanus, published by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, is an excellent example.
- Scientists have accepted invitations to speak about ocean fertilization at a variety of meetings, including those attended by policy makers and managers — I have presented a dozen such lectures.
Recently, Aaron Strong, Penny Chisholm and I published a critical review of the ocean fertilization controversy, intended for a broad audience, and the Royal Society issued a policy statement that includes a clear assessment of ocean fertilization.
But it is true that oceanographers have not had much success communicating “real information” on ocean fertilization to the public. In my opinion, this is because the mainstream media must impose a very strong filter on what is presented to the public. They want clear, simple and direct messages that anyone can understand, and generally they want information that makes or supports headlines.
As an example, these are the headlines resulting from a paper by Behrenfeld et al. in Nature:
Tropical seas are threatened by famine as warming quickens (The Guardian)
Global warming killing marine life (Times of India)
The headlines are wildly inaccurate. The real information is much less sensational. The authors studied records for a decade, strongly influenced by El Niño conditions — they claim, with some justification, that their results can provide insight on how future climate change might influence the ocean, but they also make it clear that their study could not distinguish natural variability from human-induced climate change. How did their research results turn into the headlines above?
So my concern is that, to reach the public on the issue of ocean fertilization through media outlets, the message from scientists must either be sensational or highly topical — i.e. coincident with a major newsworthy event. Our challenge as scientists is to report science news with verve and pith. But we must never sacrifice accuracy.
What do you see as the role of editors and science journalists in this?
It is the job of editors and science journalists to push hard for high impact messages. But we must all be mindful that accuracy is the foundation of responsible journalism. When scientists and editors or journalists make the extra effort to work cooperatively, news articles can be informative, entertaining, and accurate. In particular, if a journalist allows the scientist to review text for scientific accuracy, the product can be improved greatly without the author sacrificing control of content. I realize that this is not always possible, but it does work.
One of your current projects involves using phytoplankton – microscopic algae — as a source of biofuel. What are your hopes for this?
To grow marine algae commercially, there is no requirement for farm land. Also, marine algae can be grown without a need for precious freshwater resources, which will become increasingly important in coming decades. The carbon footprint of algal production and consumption will be small.
Because of this, I hope that algae will fulfill their promise in providing a sustainable source of fuel and as a significant source of protein, for example as a feedstock.
What was the most exciting project you were ever involved in?
On a personal level, perhaps it was a project that Patrick Neale from the Smithsonian, Richard Davis and I (with others) pursued for about 10 years. We described the effects of ultraviolet radiation from ozone depletion on photosynthesis of phytoplankton in the Antarctic. It was an immensely challenging project, and I think that we got it right. We neither found that ozone depletion would destroy marine ecosystems, nor that it was harmless, so the work did not make headlines. But the science was sound.
More broadly, it was the Coastal Ocean Observatory that we set up in Lunenburg Bay, Nova Scotia. The project ran from 2002 to 2008. We developed an ocean monitoring and forecast system that provided data to users on the web, through Google Earth (before Google Ocean was conceived), and on cell phones. We also used the data to guide forecasts of weather, sea level, waves, currents, and even biological responses in the bay. More than 100 researchers worked on the project over the years until the successful project was terminated due to lack of funding. We were among the leaders in global development of coastal ocean observing systems. Now we are regrouping.
Concerning your idea about ocean forecasts – do you think news flashes on current oceanographic phenomena would be interesting, for example on current toxic blooms, oxygen minimum zones or, as a recent example, ice shelves breaking off in the Antarctic?
I feel very strongly that the weather channels and other outlets should present regular “Ocean Minute” segments with well illustrated “real” examples of oceanographic phenomena like those you describe. If done well, it would catch on. The ocean is news!
Do you think having these kinds of news items will increase as events accelerate?
People who watch weather channels regularly — and there must be a lot of them out there — almost certainly learn to appreciate weather and weather systems by watching the animations and hearing the explanations. They are fascinated and they ask questions. It will be the same with the ocean, if the material is well presented. Then viewers will start to appreciate how important the ocean is to the Earth and all its inhabitants. As people learn about the many types of events and changes in the ocean, and realize that they affect us all, the importance of reporting will increase.
If we as a society don’t engage with the Earth and the changes we are making to it, we are headed for big trouble. We must get informed and involved. We cannot pretend that everything will be OK with business as usual.
Do you think that OIF may, in many cases, be portrayed as a viable climate remediation option because it’s what people want to hear – along the lines of ‘we can fix it after all’?
I think that it is inherent in human nature to look for creative solutions to big problems. Look at the triumphs in agriculture, architecture, medicine, and communications technology. We are accustomed to thinking that growth can continue indefinitely, fueled by innovation. So it is natural for many to think that this is one more problem that humans can fix.
Evidence is accumulating that there is no easy fix to this one.
Commercial ocean fertilization, which would involve validated carbon credits, must demonstrate that the iron-induced bloom would not have otherwise occurred. This satellite chlorophyll a image shows the LOHAFEX bloom, designated by a red circle. Three other blooms have been circled in black. How would one prove that the human influenced waters, if left alone, would not have bloomed like the neighboring waters. Image source: LOHAFEX weekly report no. 6
(From A. Strong, J.J. Cullen and S.W. Chisholm, submitted to Oceanography)
