BusinessGreen.com: What is the thinking behind Climos?
Dan Whaley: Climos was founded in 2006 with the goal of exploring geoscale processes for mitigating the effects of climate change. The company represents a genuine partnership between entrepreneurs, primarily from the technology sector, and scientists who are world renowned experts in this field. Our chief scientist is Margaret Leinen, who was the former head of geosciences at the National Science Foundation and one of the world's most respected oceanographers. The aim is to put together a dream team of climate sciences and increase focus on geo-engineering technology that some people regard as controversial, but which growing numbers of scientists feel is definitely worth a second look.

And your primary focus is on ocean fertilisation projects.
Yes. There are 10 to 20 different geo-engineering ideas being discussed that could mitigate the effects of climate change, many of which are interesting, but ocean fertilisation has the greatest research background with 12 open ocean projects having been completed and close to 500 papers written on the topic.

How does ocean fertilisation work?
All plants need nutrients to grow. They need nitrates, phosphates and micro-nutrients such as iron. Iron is highly insoluble in water and studies have shown that where you have high levels of iron in the ocean you get high levels of organic activity. This has a major impact on carbon dioxide levels because the microscopic plants called phytoplankton that are stimulated by the iron particles grow on the surface of the ocean and soak up CO2. When they die, they sink to the bottom of the ocean and sequester the carbon. We know this from both pilot studies and also the sediment record, which shows that this has happened time and again during different climate periods.

And you'd argue that by fertilising areas of ocean with iron p articles you can increase the amount of CO2 that is captured?
There is also a strong rationale as to why it makes sense. Ninety per cent of the carbon on the planet is in the deep oceans in the form of dissolved biocarbonate and it represents the most effective sequestration system on earth. We also know from the sediment records that when dust levels in the atmosphere increased as a result of different climatic periods, plankton productivity also increased. The level of iron in the ocean is one of the primary contributors to both organic activity in the ocean and lower CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Increasing the level of iron particles in the ocean is a natural way of bringing down carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

There have been plenty of vocal critics who claim that geo-engineering projects distract from the need to cut levels of carbon emissions. What would your response be to that charge?
Reducing emissions has to be top priority and countries such as the US that have thus far failed to step up to the plate should do so – and hopefully we are beginning to see that happen now in the current election. But there are other ways out there that we could mitigate the problem of climate change and help take the edge off, and they should be investigated. We've seen from the recent Royal Society studies that more and more scientists are thinking that we have to have these types of options in place.

Some environmental groups have also voiced fears that these projects will disrupt delicate marine ecosystems.
No one is saying not to grow trees because you are changing the balance of the planet, because trees are on land and we understand them better. There is much more trepidation about promoting organic activity in the oceans, but it is exactly the same process as growing more trees, only 40 times more effective as a means of sequestering carbon.

But the fact remains that there is considerable concern about the potential impact of these projects on ecosystems?
People get concerned about what they don't understand and we are certainly seeing a lot of people hear about concerns that are out there and just echo them. There are some scientists who have legitimate questions about the process. The first is does it work, what is the efficacy of ocean fertilisation? All 12 trial projects to date have been shown to be effective. The second question is can you attribute carbon savings to these projects? We believe we can show that can be done. The third question is what is the impact of these projects? People have talked about ocean fertilisation leading to harmful algal blooms, but the blooms that result from ocean fertilisation are exactly the same as those that occur naturally. They are out in the deep ocean and are made up of the phytoplankton that fish eat, they are very different from the toxic blooms that result from fertiliser run off and can be found in coastal areas.

Are there any likely impacts on marine ecosystems besides an increase in organic activity?
There is a concern that as the plankton fall to the bottom of the ocean, they consume oxygen. The question that we haven't yet answered is whether that would have a lasting impact on the deep ocean or whether oxygen levels would recalibrate. If it does not recalibrate, then we would want to know what the impact of lower oxygen levels might be and whether we would be willing to trade lower CO2 levels in the atmosphere for potentially lower oxygen levels in the deep ocean. We know oxygen levels have fallen in the past during the interglacial period, but what was the impact? These are questions that should be asked and attempts to answer them should be supported.

Some groups have been calling for a moratorium on ocean fertilisation projects. Is this a cause for concern?
Contrary to some reports, there is no moratorium and projects are moving forward. The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) issued a statement of concern last year which signalled that it wanted to look into the topic further and as a result, the International Oceanographic Commission has undertaken a scientific review on ocean fertilisation. The review effectively asked oceanographers if projects were justified, on what scale they should be allowed and whether they would be harmful. Our understanding is that the consensus was that projects of up to 200 square km are justified and would not have harmful impacts. The IMO is now scheduled to reconvene in October to discuss the issue further.

What happens if ocean fertilisation projects result in unintended impacts on the climate or marine ecosystems?
People have this idea with geo-engineering that it'll just be turned on like a big switch. Now there are examples of geo-engineering that would work like that, and when people talk about unintended consequences as a result of geo-engineering, they tend to be talking about those types of projects. But with ocean fertilisation, we have something you can turn off. Unlike some of the toxic algal blooms, the blooms we'd create are not self perpetuating. If you stop adding the iron the ocean relaxes back to its previous state – we have six examples of precisely that happening in the last million years.

What are Climos' plans for the future?
Our focus at the moment is on clearing the regulatory pathways – these projects need to be something the world is comfortable with, otherwise it will not get done. We also need to find a location for a pilot project and we have been looking at various potential sites. We then need to identify the scientific team for assessing the effectiveness of the trial.

What would a pilot project focus on?
The effectiveness of the process is the first research question and we need more study on that. The other issue is to assess the impact on oxygen levels.

Do you have a timeline for getting work under way?
We hope to announce the research team over the next year and we think the southern ocean will be the best place for the trial. If that is the case, then the first window for starting the trial would be the end of next year.

Climos is a business. How would you monetise ocean fertilisation projects?
If projects sequester carbon from the atmosphere and we can measure that in a way that is credible and independently verified, then it plays naturally into a carbon market. Carbon is a $70bn global market already and it is built to monetise the removal of carbon from the atmosphere or reductions in emissions that would otherwise have been released.

Which component of the carbon market would you seek to operate in? Could you get approval as a UN-backed Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) project or would you look to sell credits in the voluntary market?
This would not happen as a CDM project, because the CDM aims to transfer funds from developed economies to developing economies and the ocean fertilisation projects would be outside national boundaries. In the short term, it'll play into the voluntary offset market, but if we really want to deliver big reductions in the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide, then these projects need to be on a large scale and will therefore need to part of an official mechanism that sits alongside the CDM.

How soon would you envisage selling carbon credits?
If the results from the first cruise are positive, we will publish our methodology for measuring carbon sequestration, seek independent verification and begin to sell carbon credits arising from that first project.