Ocean Abundance Restoration (OAR) - FAQ

---

 Climate Restoration means restoring Earth’s atmospheric CO2  to preindustrial levels that humans have actually experienced and survived long term (i.e. below 300 ppm or parts per million). In addition to CO2  emissions reduction, science and the United Nations have told us this "restoration" will require removing massive amounts of CO2 we have already dumped into our atmosphere. 

To that end, AND to help restore depleted fisheries and ocean mammal populations, we need to restore the population of a micro algae called phytoplankton (more specifically diatoms). These organisms form the base of the whole ocean food chain, remove huge amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere through photosynthesis, and provide almost half the world's supply of oxygen. These micro-algae populations need restoring because they have dramatically declined over the last 70 years. We need to better understand why this has happened and increase our knowledge of how to restore them.

 We need to restore our climate because too much atmospheric CO2 is causing the planet to overheat, causing all sorts of climate disruption, rising ocean levels, accelerated species extinction, droughts, floods and myriad other threats to humanity's survival.  We do need to reduce CO2 emissions to “net zero” by 2050 (a stated goal of the Paris Accords and United Nations), but this alone will NOT restore our climate or bring back ocean abundance. Even if this net-zero target is reached, atmospheric CO2  will just level off at around 450 ppm, a level humans have never experienced and that the planet has not seen in at least the last three million years. In fact, until the industrial revolution, the human-friendly CO2 level never exceeded 300 ppm.  

In research  completed so far and evaluated by the National Academy of Sciences in a 2022 report (see link at the end of the "Learn More" page), restoring phytoplankton/diatom populations has emerged as the most promising, natural, safe, and effective way to do this. And this in turn helps restore an abundance of ocean life.

Certain minerals and other  trace nutrients are essential for diatom photosynthesis and many areas of the ocean are deficient in these ingredients. That deficiency, combined with decades of over-fishing and whaling and ocean warming have led to a crash in marine life populations. Thus, adding tiny amounts of these essential ingredients in these deficient areas can help this micro-algae grow.

As the base of the ocean’s food chain, the new diatoms feed all the other lifeforms in the ocean, from zooplankton to whales. When these animals respire, defecate and decay below a few hundred feet deep, the carbon they gained from the diatoms stays in the ocean water for hundreds of years. The more fish the diatoms feed, the more carbon is stored away.  The diatoms that are not eaten by the food chain sink to the ocean bottom, storing away carbon for very long periods of time.  Thus, adding these essential nutrients not only helps restore an abundance of ocean life, it also helps reduce atmospheric CO2 levels and restore our climate.

 Over the last million years, Nature has stimulated diatom growth using essential nutrients provided by things like volcanic eruptions and dust storms that blow over the oceans. The resulting removal of atmospheric CO2 was sufficient to cause 10 ice ages, about one every 100,000 years.  Thus intentional adding of such essential nutrients simply mimics Nature and accelerates this process.  

Various kinds of pollution and warming oceans have contributed to the decline in diatom populations, but the truth is we don't sufficiently understand all the causes. To make matters worse, few if any government agencies and private organizations are paying attention to this problem. Hence the need for more research and action in this area, a primary reason why Ocean Abundance Restoration Alliance exists. We need to fund such research ASAP and learn more about exactly what essential nutrients need to be added, as well as where and when to add them to get optimum results. 

 To be “effective,” a proposed strategy must meet at least 3 key criteria. It must 

          a) remove carbon from the atmosphere for long periods of time; 

          b) it must be deployable on a scale commensurate with the size of the problem; 

          c)  and it must be financeable/affordable. 

So far, adding essential nutrients to stimulate diatom growth is one of the few strategies identified that appears to meet all these criteria. It can remove atmospheric carbon and store it away in the deep ocean for very long periods of time. It can be deployed on a scale adequate to the challenge. Lastly, this strategy would require relatively small amounts of funding to do additional research into environmental impacts and fine tune the logistics of deployment. Thereafter, costs of full deployment are estimated at about $1 billion/year, which will likely be substantially offset by the proceeds from a revitalized fishing industry.

Because adding essential nutrients mimics Nature, it's not surprising that in all 13 tests since 1993, NO negative environmental impacts have been reported. That said, as more is learned, adjustments will of course be made to address any unforeseen negative consequences. Data collection and carefully structured research should always be a key part of this strategy.

Note:  By stimulating the growth of only certain species of phytoplankton (viz. diatoms), harmful algae blooms (HABs) should actually be reduced. Moreover, toxic algae blooms only occur in shallow coastal waters when decomposing algae uses up the oxygen marine life needs. The adding of essential nutrients is only proposed for the deep ocean. Even at full scale, it's use is only contemplated on about 1% of the world’s ocean surface. For perspective, consider that in 1990, Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines erupted and spread much more of these essential ingredients over the surrounding ocean surface than the contemplated research involves, with no known negative effects, and many positive ones. 

The term "geoengineering" is rather loosely applied to various efforts to restore human-friendly climate conditions.  If and when applied, it therefore needs to be taken with a grain of salt. 

M.I.T. has written that some kinds of climate restoration strategies are "controversial" and others are not. They note, for example, that adding certain chemicals to the stratosphere to block the sun's rays are highly questionable and untested, in a word "controversial".  On the other hand, adding  essential nutrients to what have become ocean deserts mimics a natural process, more analogous to fertilizing a farm field.  And  it's been tested and found very promising by respected organizations like the National Academy of Sciences. At a minimum, this strategy merits continued and increased research and carefully monitored field testing to verify its safety and effectiveness, and that's all OAR Alliance is advocating

Note: In stark contrast, the “industrial revolution”  is an ongoing, massive, uncontrolled, unintentional “geo-engineering” experiment which has dumped trillions of tons of pollution into our atmosphere and resulted in warming oceans and widespread climate disruption.  As such, it has proven to be example of "destructive geoengineering", the kind we desperately need to avoid.