Evolution of the intensity of the controversy through time
The Ocean Iron Fertilization controversy strongly evolved over time. Beginning in the 1990s' with the iron hypothesis published by John Martin and some first experiments, it broadened and became more vehement during the decade of the 2000s' and seems to calm down again nowadays. We tried to analyse this evolution and measure the intensity of the controversy over time. In order to do so we looked at four parameters which, in our view, combined together reflect the “global intensity” of our controversy.
Method:
As a proxy for the intensity of the scientific debate we used the number of publications containing the key words “Ocean Fertilization” and “Iron Fertilization” per year.
In order to measure the evolution of the media coverage of the controversy we counted the number of articles published every year containing the key words “Iron Fertilization” and “Ocean Fertilization” in English, French, German and Spanish. However, the small number of articles found on factiva makes us doubt about the accuracy of our result. Yet, we consider that if publications are left out in this databank, this is likely to be the case for every year so that the global tendency of media coverage might not be distorted.
Thirdly, we tried to measure the interest into the OIF topic by the inquiry statistics of Google Trends, which reflect the worldwide evolution of key word searches (Ocean Fertilization and Iron Fertilization) through the Google search engine. The numbers encountered do not represent the total number of Google inquiries; rather they are made off of Google’s own indicators of relative importance. This type of data is, however, only available from 2004 on.
Finally, we attempted to assess the diversity of actors involved in the controversy over time. By dividing actors into the classical groups of scientists, commercial enterprises, governance institutes, civil society and the media we assessed their participation for each year. This assessment naturally bases on our own subjective perception and limited knowledge of the controversy. However, we think that it is important to include this element into our graph, as the involvement of many different actors increased the scope and the controversial nature of the Ocean Iron Fertilization debate.
Observations:
Media coverage and scientific publications:
Comparing, at a first stage, the evolution of media coverage and scientific publications over time we can observe.
1. Both follow different rhythms; whereas scientific publications seem to increase after the huge number of fertilization experiments and decline with after the last experiment in 2009, media coverage evolves according to specific events (controversial experiments, law suits etc.).
2. Both have different peaks; scientific publications peak in 2008, when it comes to handling the results of the previous experiments and debating their potential for commercial Ocean Iron Fertilization. Media coverage, on the other hand, peaks in 2014, with more articles published in its first 5 months than in any other year (at least according to the data from factiva). This is mostly due to the coverage of the Haida process.
So it seems that the scientific debate is gradually declining, whereas media coverage will rise and decline with the occurrence of “spectacular” events.
Method:
As a proxy for the intensity of the scientific debate we used the number of publications containing the key words “Ocean Fertilization” and “Iron Fertilization” per year.
In order to measure the evolution of the media coverage of the controversy we counted the number of articles published every year containing the key words “Iron Fertilization” and “Ocean Fertilization” in English, French, German and Spanish. However, the small number of articles found on factiva makes us doubt about the accuracy of our result. Yet, we consider that if publications are left out in this databank, this is likely to be the case for every year so that the global tendency of media coverage might not be distorted.
Thirdly, we tried to measure the interest into the OIF topic by the inquiry statistics of Google Trends, which reflect the worldwide evolution of key word searches (Ocean Fertilization and Iron Fertilization) through the Google search engine. The numbers encountered do not represent the total number of Google inquiries; rather they are made off of Google’s own indicators of relative importance. This type of data is, however, only available from 2004 on.
Finally, we attempted to assess the diversity of actors involved in the controversy over time. By dividing actors into the classical groups of scientists, commercial enterprises, governance institutes, civil society and the media we assessed their participation for each year. This assessment naturally bases on our own subjective perception and limited knowledge of the controversy. However, we think that it is important to include this element into our graph, as the involvement of many different actors increased the scope and the controversial nature of the Ocean Iron Fertilization debate.
Observations:
Media coverage and scientific publications:
Comparing, at a first stage, the evolution of media coverage and scientific publications over time we can observe.
1. Both follow different rhythms; whereas scientific publications seem to increase after the huge number of fertilization experiments and decline with after the last experiment in 2009, media coverage evolves according to specific events (controversial experiments, law suits etc.).
2. Both have different peaks; scientific publications peak in 2008, when it comes to handling the results of the previous experiments and debating their potential for commercial Ocean Iron Fertilization. Media coverage, on the other hand, peaks in 2014, with more articles published in its first 5 months than in any other year (at least according to the data from factiva). This is mostly due to the coverage of the Haida process.
So it seems that the scientific debate is gradually declining, whereas media coverage will rise and decline with the occurrence of “spectacular” events.
Inquiry data from Google trends:
Looking at the inquiry data from Google trends it becomes obvious that interest in Ocean Fertilization and Iron Fertilization is not constant but rather volatile. This might also reflect the occurrence of important, single, controversial events that attract interest into the topic which suggests that the Ocean Iron Fertilization debate is not followed over a large time by the general public.
Google Trends for “Iron Fertilization” and “Ocean Fertilization” :
http://www.google.fr/trends/explore#q=Iron%20Fertilization%2C%20Ocean%20Fertilization&cmpt=q
When comparing searches for Ocean Fertilization/Iron Fertilization and Geoengineering it becomes furthermore clear that the interest for Ocean Iron Fertilization does not grow very much over time contrary to the one for geoengineering. Although Ocean Iron Fertilization is classified as one geoengineering method, the relative difference of both search terms increases over time, suggesting rising interest for geoengineering in general and declining interest for Ocean Iron Fertilization specifically.
Google Trends for “Iron Fertilization”, “Ocean Fertilization” and Geoengineering:
http://www.google.fr/trends/explore#q=Iron%20Fertilization%2C%20Ocean%20Fertilization%2C%20Geoengineering&cmpt=q
Combining our parameters: The OIF intensity graph:
Looking at the inquiry data from Google trends it becomes obvious that interest in Ocean Fertilization and Iron Fertilization is not constant but rather volatile. This might also reflect the occurrence of important, single, controversial events that attract interest into the topic which suggests that the Ocean Iron Fertilization debate is not followed over a large time by the general public.
Google Trends for “Iron Fertilization” and “Ocean Fertilization” :
http://www.google.fr/trends/explore#q=Iron%20Fertilization%2C%20Ocean%20Fertilization&cmpt=q
When comparing searches for Ocean Fertilization/Iron Fertilization and Geoengineering it becomes furthermore clear that the interest for Ocean Iron Fertilization does not grow very much over time contrary to the one for geoengineering. Although Ocean Iron Fertilization is classified as one geoengineering method, the relative difference of both search terms increases over time, suggesting rising interest for geoengineering in general and declining interest for Ocean Iron Fertilization specifically.
Google Trends for “Iron Fertilization”, “Ocean Fertilization” and Geoengineering:
http://www.google.fr/trends/explore#q=Iron%20Fertilization%2C%20Ocean%20Fertilization%2C%20Geoengineering&cmpt=q
Combining our parameters: The OIF intensity graph:
By associating the graph with important moments of the controversy, we can make assumptions about factors, actors and core events that had a huge influence on the evolution of the controversy.
We suggest:
1. That the entrance and the engagement of commercial enterprises in the Ocean Iron Fertilization realm is one of the most important factors shaping the controversy.
2. That Planktos’ attempt to realize an unregulated Ocean Iron Fertilization experiment in the pacific ocean (Gulf of Alaska) has to be seen as one of the key moments of the controversy as it lead to a massive reaction from civil society (especially the ETC group), governance institutions and also scientists.
3. That the regulatory framework subsequently constructed led to a decline of intensity as commercial Ocean Iron Fertilization was clearly prohibited and distinguished from “legitimate sciences”. This might be the reason for the gradual disappearance of commercial OIF enterprises.
4. That the decline of the intensity is also related to “disappointing” results on carbon removal efficiency of Ocean Iron Fertilization shown by the empirical experiments. After Lohafex in 2009 no more experiments were conducted.
In conclusion:
The intensity of the OIF controversy has increased from the beginning of the 2000s until 2009. Even if the Haida experiment has, once again, led to an intensification of the controversy in 2012 and 2014, its general trend is declining. In our understanding the main reasons for this evolution are the lack of promising scientific results, a strong civil society mobilization against Ocean Iron Fertilization, a fast response from international regulators and a lack of power of the economic constituencies of OIF.
We suggest:
1. That the entrance and the engagement of commercial enterprises in the Ocean Iron Fertilization realm is one of the most important factors shaping the controversy.
2. That Planktos’ attempt to realize an unregulated Ocean Iron Fertilization experiment in the pacific ocean (Gulf of Alaska) has to be seen as one of the key moments of the controversy as it lead to a massive reaction from civil society (especially the ETC group), governance institutions and also scientists.
3. That the regulatory framework subsequently constructed led to a decline of intensity as commercial Ocean Iron Fertilization was clearly prohibited and distinguished from “legitimate sciences”. This might be the reason for the gradual disappearance of commercial OIF enterprises.
4. That the decline of the intensity is also related to “disappointing” results on carbon removal efficiency of Ocean Iron Fertilization shown by the empirical experiments. After Lohafex in 2009 no more experiments were conducted.
In conclusion:
The intensity of the OIF controversy has increased from the beginning of the 2000s until 2009. Even if the Haida experiment has, once again, led to an intensification of the controversy in 2012 and 2014, its general trend is declining. In our understanding the main reasons for this evolution are the lack of promising scientific results, a strong civil society mobilization against Ocean Iron Fertilization, a fast response from international regulators and a lack of power of the economic constituencies of OIF.