Future Generations represent the billions of children, grandchildren, and descendants yet to be born—those who will inherit the planet we shape today.
They do not have a seat at the table, a vote in elections, or a voice in corporate boardrooms, yet their lives will be profoundly affected by the actions we take now.
They are counting on us to leave behind a world that is safe, just, and livable.
“We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children” – As stewards of the future, it is our responsibility to act on their behalf today.
Dear People of Earth,
We are the Future Generations.
We do not vote, so governments don’t prioritize us. We do not pay taxes, so we are not in the budget. We do not buy products, so corporations ignore us.
But you—our parents, our grandparents, our aunts and uncles—you have the power now.
You are writing the story we will be born into. Will it be a world of chaos and collapse? Or one of restoration, beauty, and life?
We ask you to be bold. To stand up for us when no one else will. To make the choices today that will give us a tomorrow.
Join the Climate Restoration Alliance. Sign the Climate Restoration Resolution.
Taking place at the EarthX 2025 Congress of Conferences, this summit signifies a historic moment in time – the moment we started building the Climate Restoration Industry.
An industry is a group of businesses and organizations that produce, provide, or support a particular set of related goods, services, or technologies, typically serving a common market or purpose.
The Climate Restoration Industry is a group of businesses and organizations dedicated to developing, scaling, and deploying solutions that restore atmospheric CO₂ levels and other climate indicators to safe, pre-industrial levels.
Here is a message from Ilan Mandel, CEO of the Climate Restoration Alliance – recorded for the Summit:
Hi, I’m Ilan Mandel. I currently serve as Chairman and CEO of the Climate Restoration Alliance and the Grandparents Fund for Climate Restoration, working out of Israel.
In 2017, I met Peter Fiekowsky — and that meeting changed the course of my life. Peter had a bold vision: not just to slow global warming, but to restore a safe and healthy climate — like the one we inherited and the one future generations deserve. I partnered with Peter, we co-founded the Foundation for Climate Restoration, and since then, I’ve been working on the architecture — the system — that could actually make this vision a reality.
While most of the climate conversations focus on possible solutions, nearly all of them — except Ocean Iron Fertilization (OIF) — are thousands of times too expensive to scale. That’s why we’re focusing on building the infrastructure required for any real solution to scale and operate successfully.
Today, we heard from the ExOIS group, where scientists are exploring OIF solutions capable of removing CO₂ rapidly — at a cost that stakeholders like you and I can afford.
As those solutions evolve, the Climate Restoration Alliance and the Grandparents Fund are building the infrastructure needed to ensure their safe and rapid scale-up. This includes developing the atmospheric CO₂ measurement systems, funding pipelines, marketing strategies, and governance models.
Restoring the climate isn’t a single project. It’s a massive, global endeavor. And unfortunately, no government or international body has taken responsibility for it. Until that happens, we are working with funders to build what’s needed.
It takes: Science, Engineering, Governance, Funding, and of course, projects on the ground.
And it all needs to happen fast — in a coordinated, responsible way, worldwide, across regions and regulatory systems.
The good news is: people are already working on each of these components.
What’s missing is a shared structure — an architecture that connects it all. A roadmap that clearly informs every stakeholder about what’s happening, what’s needed, and what success looks like.
That’s what we’re building now: a Climate Restoration Industry, with clear pathways for collaboration, investment, and impact.
Not just another climate initiative — but a blueprint for working together. A blueprint for a bridge that can take us safely to the other side of this crisis.
We also need social license — broad public understanding, trust, and support for climate restoration solutions. That’s why last year, we launched the Climate Restoration Ambassador Program. Our Ambassadors include faith leaders, indigenous leaders, industry leaders, and Ambassadors to service organizations like Rotary.
This Climate Restoration Summit is a game-changing moment — a powerful demonstration of what’s possible when we all come together with a shared purpose.
Thank you for being here and for stepping into this historic opportunity.
We’ve been given a narrow window. But we know what to do. Nature has done it before — and we can do it too, if we commit to it. If we align our efforts — If we fund and build the architecture — We can create a future where the climate is once again safe, stable, and life-giving.
If you’re a donor or investor who wants to help build the system that will restore the climate, I invite you to connect with me. Together, we can accelerate the path forward.
Before I say goodbye, here is a short message from Future Generations:
We are the Future Generations.
We do not vote, so governments don’t prioritize us.
We do not pay taxes, so we are not in the budget.
We do not buy products, so corporations ignore us.
But you — our parents, our grandparents, our aunts and uncles — you have the power now.
You are writing the story we will be born into.
Will it be a world of chaos and collapse? Or one of restoration, beauty, and life?
We ask you to be bold. To stand up for us when no one else will. To make the choices today that will give us a tomorrow.
Join the Climate Restoration Alliance. Sign the Climate Restoration Resolution.
Speak for us. Until we can speak for ourselves.
Thank you for being part of this movement.
Let’s restore the climate, ensure a livable planet for our children, and usher in a new era where humanity can flourish for millennia to come.
Introduction: The Question of Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs)
As Ocean Iron Fertilization (OIF) gains attention as a climate restoration strategy, one common concern is whether stimulating phytoplankton growth could unintentionally trigger harmful algal blooms (HABs)—toxic or oxygen-depleting overgrowths that can devastate marine ecosystems and coastal communities.
But the relationship between OIF and HABs is complex—and increasingly hopeful. Not only does research suggest that OIF is unlikely to cause HABs, it may actually help suppress them in certain environments.
1. What Are Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs)?
HABs occur when certain algae—like dinoflagellates, cyanobacteria, or haptophytes—grow excessively, often releasing toxins or depleting oxygen when they die off. They can:
Kill fish and marine mammals
Contaminate seafood with dangerous toxins
Disrupt tourism, aquaculture, and coastal economies
Threaten human health via airborne or waterborne exposure
HABs are typically driven by excess nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus), warmer waters, and stagnant ocean conditions, often in coastal zones impacted by agriculture or sewage runoff.
2. How OIF Works Differently
Ocean Iron Fertilization adds small amounts of iron to nutrient-rich but iron-poor areas of the open ocean—known as High Nutrient, Low Chlorophyll (HNLC) regions. This stimulates the growth of phytoplankton, which remove CO₂ through photosynthesis and sink to the deep ocean.
Importantly:
OIF is conducted far offshore, not near coastal HAB hotspots
It uses iron, not nitrogen or phosphorus (the primary drivers of HABs)
It tends to favor the growth of diatoms, which are not typically harmful⁴
3. Scientific Evidence: Has OIF Caused HABs?
Across more than a dozen controlled OIF experiments globally, there has been no documented increase in HABs as a result of iron addition. Research has shown:
Short-lived, diverse blooms dominated by non-toxic phytoplankton
Rapid sinking of organic material, reducing the chance of persistent surface blooms⁵
No significant increase in low-oxygen zones or marine toxins following trials⁶
4. Could OIF Actually Prevent HABs?
Yes—under certain conditions, OIF may help reduce the occurrence or severity of harmful algal blooms. Here’s how:
Outcompeting HAB-forming species: OIF stimulates diatoms, which can consume available nutrients and occupy space before harmful species take hold.
Altering nutrient ratios: Adding iron without nitrogen or phosphorus can shift nutrient balances in ways that disadvantage toxin-producing algae.
Accelerating bloom turnover: Fast-sinking diatom blooms reduce water column residence time, limiting conditions that favor HABs.
Increasing biodiversity: More varied phytoplankton communities may reduce the dominance of any single harmful species.
Enhancing food web stability: Boosting zooplankton and small fish may increase grazing pressure on phytoplankton, helping control bloom size.
5. Risk Management and Monitoring
While current evidence shows low risk, responsible deployment still requires:
Site-specific modeling and ecological assessment
Use of MRV (Measurement, Reporting, and Verification) systems to monitor impacts
Adaptive management to respond to changes in plankton community structure
The idea that OIF could trigger harmful algal blooms is a reasonable concern—but it isn’t supported by evidence from past experiments. In fact, OIF may help rebalance marine ecosystems, support biodiversity, and even reduce the risk of harmful blooms in some ocean regions.
Like all powerful tools, OIF must be used responsibly. But with proper science and oversight, it can become part of a climate restoration strategy that helps heal—not harm—our oceans.
Call to Action: Support Smart, Safe OIF
The Southern California MRV Project is pioneering the science and monitoring systems that make climate-safe OIF possible. Help ensure future deployments protect ecosystems and support marine resilience.
The global fishing industry is an essential provider of food and livelihoods—but it’s also a significant consumer of fossil fuels. Trawlers, longliners, and other fishing vessels travel long distances and operate for extended periods, especially as fish stocks decline or migrate due to warming oceans and habitat loss.
What if we could bring the fish closer to shore?
This is one of the potential co-benefits of Ocean Iron Fertilization (OIF). By increasing fish productivity in targeted zones near ports and coasts, OIF could reduce the energy footprint of the fishing industry while simultaneously restoring the climate.
1. Fuel Use in the Fishing Industry
The global fishing fleet consumes 30–50 billion liters of fuel per year, contributing to ~0.6% of global CO₂ emissions¹.
Fuel costs account for 30–50% of operational expenses for many commercial fishers².
As fish stocks move further offshore or into deeper waters due to ecosystem stress, fuel use per ton of fish caught increases³.
2. How OIF Changes the Distribution of Fish
Ocean Iron Fertilization enhances phytoplankton growth—the base of the marine food web. With more phytoplankton in specific regions, fish stocks are likely to:
Concentrate in areas of enhanced productivity, reducing the distance required for fishing.
Stay closer to nutrient-rich zones, especially if those zones are intentionally located near ports or Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs).
Increase in abundance, leading to higher catch per unit effort (CPUE).
If fish are more densely distributed closer to shore, fishing fleets may reduce both travel distance and search time, leading to meaningful fuel savings.
3. Estimating the Impact at Full Scale
Assume full-scale OIF deployment (60 Gt CO₂ removal/year) leads to:
A portion of this increase occurs within 500 nautical miles of major fishing ports.
An average reduction of 15–30% in vessel operating range or time-at-sea due to improved proximity and catch rates.
Even a 10–20% reduction in fuel use across the industry could mean:
3–10 billion liters of fuel saved annually
8–25 million tons of CO₂ emissions avoided per year⁴
Lower costs for fishers and reduced environmental impact from marine diesel use
4. Broader Benefits
Improved profitability for fishers and cooperatives
Lower fish prices due to reduced overhead costs
Reduced need for high-seas fishing, helping address overfishing and IUU (illegal, unreported, and unregulated) practices
Climate co-benefits, both through carbon sequestration and emissions reductions
Conclusion: A Leaner, Cleaner Fishing Industry
Ocean Iron Fertilization isn’t just about restoring the climate—it could also reshape the economics of global fishing. By making fish more abundant and accessible, OIF may reduce the fishing industry’s reliance on fossil fuels, improve operational efficiency, and promote a more sustainable seafood system.
Call to Action: Fuel Change by Supporting OIF
The Southern California MRV Project is a key step toward validating the science and monitoring tools that will make OIF viable at scale. 👉 Support the project today and help fuel a cleaner, more sustainable fishing future.
Sources
Tyedmers, P., et al. (2005). Fueling global fishing fleets. Ambio, 34(8), 635–638.
FAO (2022). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture.
Sumaila, U.R., et al. (2020). Declining fish populations and the energy cost of fishing. Nature Sustainability, 3, 983–991.
IPCC (2021). Sixth Assessment Report: Mitigation of Climate Change.
Introduction: Connecting Ocean Productivity to Protein Affordability
In our previous discussion on climate restoration and hunger, we explored how Ocean Iron Fertilization (OIF) could significantly boost global fish populations. This article delves into the potential economic ripple effects of large-scale OIF deployment—specifically, how increasing fish biomass might influence global protein prices.
If OIF is deployed at full scale—removing 60 gigatons (Gt) of CO₂ per year—the increase in ocean productivity could shift global protein supply, improve affordability, and enhance food security. Here’s how.
1. The Link Between Fish Supply and Protein Prices
Fish serves as a crucial source of high-quality protein worldwide, particularly in developing nations. Key statistics include:
Global Fish Production: Approximately 179 million tons annually, encompassing both wild-caught and aquaculture sources¹
Protein Contribution: Fish accounts for about 17% of global animal protein intake, with figures exceeding 50% in certain coastal and island regions²
Rising Demand: Global protein demand is projected to double by 2050³
An increase in fish supply could alleviate pressure on other protein sources, potentially leading to more stable and affordable protein prices globally.
2. Projected Supply Increase from Full-Scale OIF
Implementing OIF at a scale capable of removing 60 gigatons of CO₂ per year could yield substantial increases in marine biomass. Based on established ecological models:
Phytoplankton Growth: Removing 60 Gt of CO₂ could generate approximately 120 Gt of phytoplankton biomass, given the 2:1 conversion ratio⁴
Trophic Transfers: Through successive 10% energy transfer efficiencies⁵:
10% of phytoplankton becomes zooplankton = ~12 Gt zooplankton
10% of zooplankton becomes small fish = ~1.2 Gt small fish
10% of small fish becomes large fish = ~0.12 Gt large fish (120 million tons)
This represents a 67% increase over current global fish production levels¹
Even if only half is harvested sustainably, that’s still a 33% increase in edible fish—an unprecedented boost in affordable, nutritious protein.
3. Potential Impact on Protein Prices
Fish prices fall as supply grows:
The price elasticity of demand for fish is approximately -0.5, meaning a 1% increase in supply may lead to a 0.5% decrease in price⁶
A 33–67% increase in fish supply could potentially result in a 15–30% global drop in fish prices, assuming other market factors remain constant
Cross-market protein effects:
Cheaper fish could displace demand for more expensive proteins like beef and poultry
The result: broader affordability of protein, especially in regions with limited dietary options
4. Broader Implications
Improved food security in developing regions
Reduced pressure on terrestrial livestock systems
Healthier diets supported by access to lean, ocean-based protein
Conclusion: The Economic Promise of OIF
If Ocean Iron Fertilization reaches full scale (60 Gt CO₂/year), the resulting boost in fish biomass could lower fish prices by 15–30%, while relieving pressure on other protein sources.
Restoring the climate could also make protein more accessible—and affordable—for billions.
Call to Action: Support the Southern California MRV Project
To realize the potential benefits of OIF, it’s essential to advance our understanding and monitoring capabilities. The Southern California MRV (Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification) Project aims to enhance the tools necessary for effective OIF implementation. Your support can drive this critical research forward.
👉 Contribute today and be part of the movement toward a sustainable, food-secure future.
Sources
FAO (2022). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. https://www.fao.org
FAO (2020). The Role of Aquatic Foods in Sustainable Healthy Diets
World Economic Forum (2019). Meat: The Future Series – Alternative Proteins.
Martin, J.H., Gordon, R.M., & Fitzwater, S.E. (1991). Iron deficiency limits phytoplankton growth in the north-east Pacific subarctic.Nature, 350, 227–229.
Pauly, D., & Christensen, V. (1995). Primary production required to sustain global fisheries.Nature, 374, 255–257.
Asche, F., Bellemare, M.F., Roheim, C., Smith, M.D., & Tveteras, S. (2015). Fair Enough? Food Security and the International Trade of Seafood.World Development, 67, 151–160.
Every so often, an idea comes along that is so simple and effective it feels like a no-brainer—until you realize just how much resistance it faces. That’s exactly what’s happening with ocean fertilization, a method of removing carbon from the atmosphere that should be at the center of climate discussions but instead has been pushed to the fringes.
Quico Toro’s recent article, “The Reason You’ve Never Heard of Ocean Fertilization”, dives into why this promising solution remains so obscure. The short answer? Environmental groups have done a fantastic job of shutting it down before it ever had a chance.
The science behind ocean fertilization is solid. It’s based on the research of oceanographer John Martin, who showed that adding small amounts of iron to iron-deficient parts of the ocean could trigger massive phytoplankton blooms. These blooms not only support marine life but also pull carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and sink it to the ocean floor. In theory, it’s an incredibly efficient and natural way to sequester CO₂.
But here’s where things get complicated. Instead of embracing the potential of this method, organizations like Greenpeace and WWF led the charge against it, warning of possible ecological side effects and claiming it was a dangerous form of geoengineering. Their concerns weren’t entirely baseless—any large-scale intervention in nature has risks—but their opposition effectively stalled progress. The LOHAFEX experiment, a major international attempt to study iron fertilization, was nearly canceled due to these pressures.
This brings up a bigger issue: Why do we allow fear to dictate our response to climate change? The argument that geoengineering solutions like ocean fertilization create a “moral hazard” (because they might distract from emissions reductions) is deeply flawed. We need to throw every viable solution at the climate crisis, and yet, we keep rejecting the ones that don’t fit neatly into the established narrative.
Toro’s piece is a must-read because it challenges the assumption that environmental activism always leads us toward the best solutions. Sometimes, it shuts them down. If we truly care about restoring the climate, we need to question who gets to decide what ideas are worth exploring—and whether we can afford to keep ignoring options like ocean fertilization.
As the world grapples with rising temperatures and worsening climate impacts, the goal of reaching net zero emissions by 2050 is increasingly seen as insufficient. Some scientists argue that to avoid the most severe climate tipping points—such as the collapse of ice sheets, massive biodiversity loss, and extreme weather amplification—we must dramatically accelerate our timeline.
While reaching net zero by 2030 may seem unattainable given current global policies, a growing number of experts suggest that rapid deployment of scalable carbon removal solutions could make it feasible.
Can Ocean Iron Fertilization (OIF) play a decisive role in making it happen? Let’s break it down with real numbers.
The Scale of the Net Zero Challenge
How Much CO₂ Do We Need to Remove?
Current global CO₂ emissions: ~40 gigatons (Gt) per year (as of 2023)¹.
To reach net zero, we must:
Eliminate most human-caused emissions through clean energy, electrification, and efficiency.
Remove any remaining CO₂ through negative emissions technologies.
Even with ambitious emissions cuts, we will still need to remove10-20 Gt CO₂ per year to fully offset hard-to-abate sectors like aviation, industry, and agriculture².
Can OIF Remove Enough CO₂ to Get Us to Net Zero by 2030?
OIF’s Potential for Carbon Removal
Ocean Iron Fertilization (OIF) stimulates phytoplankton growth by adding iron to iron-deficient regions of the ocean. This boosts photosynthesis, leading to carbon capture as phytoplankton absorb CO₂ and transport a portion to the deep ocean when they die, where it remains sequestered for centuries.
Based on previous experiments and modeling³:
1 ton of iron can stimulate 100,000 to 200,000 tons of phytoplankton growth.
Each ton of phytoplankton captures roughly 0.15 tons of CO₂.
This means 1 ton of iron could remove 15,000 to 30,000 tons of CO₂.
At full-scale deployment, OIF could remove:
1 Gt CO₂ per year using ~67,000 tons of iron⁴.
60 Gt CO₂ per year using ~4 million tons of iron (a fraction of global iron ore mining)⁴.
This suggests that, in theory, OIF alone could remove all human-caused CO₂ emissions annually, making net zero by 2030 possible—if deployed at scale.
What Would It Take to Implement OIF at Scale?
Speed & Feasibility of Deployment
Scaling OIF to full capacity requires rapid coordination, investment, and international collaboration. The Climate Restoration Alliance (CRA) is now leading the charge to scale up the Climate Restoration Industry, bringing together scientists, policymakers, investors, entrepreneurs, and industry leaders to deploy OIF at the speed and scale required.
Pilot Projects (2025-2026) – CRA is supporting initial OIF trials, validating methodologies, and ensuring MRV (Measurement, Reporting, and Verification) systems meet scientific and policy standards. These small-scale deployments will provide critical data on CO₂ sequestration efficiency and ecosystem impacts.
Expansion to Multiple Locations (2027-2028) – Building on pilot success, OIF projects will be deployed across multiple ocean regions, increasing CO₂ removal capacity to several gigatons per year while refining monitoring systems and securing regulatory approvals.
Full-Scale Deployment (2029-2030) – CRA is working to facilitate global-scale OIF deployment, reaching 60 Gt CO₂ removal per year by 2030. This level of carbon removal would not only achieve net zero emissions globally but also drive net-negative emissions, actively restoring the climate to pre-industrial conditions.
With CRA at the forefront of rapidly scaling the Climate Restoration Industry, OIF could put the world on track to achieve net zero by 2030—or even sooner.
Conclusion: OIF Can Be the Fastest Path to Net Zero
The world does not have to wait until 2050 to reach net zero. With bold action, we can get there by 2030—or even sooner.
🌍 OIF is the only carbon removal solution scalable enough to offset global emissions in time.
💡 By investing in OIF now, we can accelerate climate restoration and secure a livable future.
Call to Action: Let’s Make Net Zero by 2030 a Reality
OIF is not a distant idea—it’s a ready-to-scale climate solution. But we need funding, policy support, and international cooperation to make it happen.
Global Carbon Project (2023). Global Carbon Budget 2023.
IPCC (2022). Sixth Assessment Report on Climate Change Mitigation.
Martin, J.H. et al. (1991). Iron deficiency limits phytoplankton growth in the north-east Pacific subarctic.Nature, 350, 227-229.
Smetacek, V., & Naqvi, S.W.A. (2008). The next generation of iron fertilization experiments in the Southern Ocean.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366(1882), 3947-3967.
Everyone wants to restore a safe climate — one that humans have actually survived long-term. In this “pre-industrial” climate, which allowed us to develop agriculture and thriving civilizations, atmospheric CO2 never rose above 300 parts per million (ppm). Today, CO2 levels are 420 ppm. Yet now we know how to bring CO2 back down to pre-industrial levels—and could do so by 2050.
Ocean iron fertilization (OIF) appears to be the fastest, safest and most effective climate restoration solution although it was controversial for a time. OIF restores fisheries and other marine life while also reducing CO2 levels at the scale needed to restore the climate. It requires little or no public funding: instead, the process produces revenue … Read More "Future Generations"
Restoring the climate requires removing and storing a trillion tons of legacy CO2 by 2050. Nature has stored 99 percent of all the CO2 on earth in the form of limestone, made of calcium and CO2 by shellfish and other marine organisms.1 Nearly half carbon dioxide by weight, limestone is an ideal, permanent storage system for this greenhouse gas.
Restoring our climate will require pulling a trillion tons of legacy carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by 2050. Farming seaweed, mainly fast-growing kelp and sargassum, can help achieve climate restoration.
Methane is a potent greenhouse gas that causes about 1/3 of today’s global warming. Using Enhanced Atmospheric Methane Oxidation (EAMO), we can accelerate these processes and reduce atmospheric methane to pre-industrial levels. This could rewind warming back to 2002 levels by 2050 and protect humanity from catastrophic levels of melting permafrost.
More and more people are realizing: Even if we reach net zero by 2050, or stay “well under” 2°C of warming, our survival will still be in serious doubt. That’s because there are already a trillion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere. This “legacy” CO2, emitted over the last 200 years, will continue to wreak havoc in our world—whether or not we decrease future emissions to near-zero.
Edit and adapt it to your organization’s language and mission.
Sign it, scan it, and upload the file using this form, by uploading the signed resolution you are giving us permission to post your organization name, logo, and resolution on our website.
An industry is a group of businesses and organizations that produce, provide, or support a particular set of related goods, services, or technologies, typically serving a common market or purpose.
