▶ Your Answer :The reading passage contends that iron
fertilization is not good idea for decrease carbon dioxide. On the other hand,
the lecturer brings up several points that contradict this argument.
First of all, the author in the reading
mentions that a research conducted using iron fertilization did not any
noticeable results. The lecturer challenges this points by saying that resent
study shows this method have meaningful results. According to that longterm
experiment, after times goes by carbon dioxide level decreased gradually. Furthermore,
If all the increased plankton was consumed by zooplankton, there will be no
decrease of carbon dioxide. However, is is obvious there is longterm effect of
iron fertilization.
Secondly, the author contends that local
fishing industry will be attacked by this method.
The lecturer rebuts this points by saying
that plankton is only live at the high sea. Furthermore, plankton can not
reproduce at the specific chemical combination habitat. Thus, toxic plankton
can not live in the middle sea. And that the right place to conduct iron
fertilization method.
Finally, the author argue that ocean's
ecosystem can be damaged by iron fertilization. The lecturer, on the other hand,
cast doubt on the point in the reading passage by saying that benefits of this
method outcast the little damage. Either way, in global warming, there has to
be damage on the ocean ecosystem. In this situation, iron fertilization is the
considerable option to deal with carbon dioxide problem. |