SETTING a thief to catch a thief always was a dodgy proposition. And so, we
suggest, is unleashing one form of pollution to neutralise another. That鈥檚 the
problem with an ingenious plan hatched by Australian scientists to fertilise the
oceans as a way of curbing global warming. The idea is to pipe nitrogen-rich
fertiliser into the sea to grow plankton that will soak up carbon dioxide from
the water and, ultimately, the atmosphere
(see p 18).
Even if it works, this is a bad case of tunnel vision. For nitrogen pollution
itself is one of the great human-made threats to the marine environment. It
causes 鈥渄ead zones鈥� off the Gulf of Mexico and red tides from Hong Kong to
Venice. To add more, even to soak up CO2, is folly.
This is not the first madcap scheme we have seen designed to cheat climate
change without going to the bother of moderating our emissions of greenhouse
gases. Like all the rest, it misses the point. There are many more sensible
technologies for tackling the greenhouse problem. Solar panels will do more good
than parasols in space, and fuel cells in cars are more appropriate than
fertilising the ocean.
Advertisement
If William of Occam, the 14th-century English philosopher, were alive today,
he would extend his famous 鈥渞azor鈥�. Alongside the maxim that scientists should
choose the most direct explanations for events, he would surely add that
technologists should choose the least convoluted solutions to problems.