The story provides interesting information about new efforts to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, while looking at various sides of the problem.

A very enlightening article; I especially like how he also wants to restore plankton for environmental balance as well as carbon emission reduction.

Thought provoking article raises questions about potential profiteering from global warming concerns. Plankton appears to be an interesting concept, but does the science support it? Does an atmosphere of panic over global warming (not that we shouldn't all be concerned) risk pushing projects ahead too fast without regard to potential side effects?

This is a very well balanced story that includes several perspectives about the potential to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It includes opponents from at least two different companies who have alternative ideas.

Interviews a couple scientists about how ocean fertilization might not work, but misses the more frightening potential consequence of "fertilizing the ocean," dead zones: http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/topics/deadzone/general.html I can't believe they're testing this by dumping iron in the real ocean (near the Galapagos Islands of all places!) instead of in a lab.

It is uncharacteristic of the NYTimes to be largely glossing over the risks and unknowns of such a large-scale "experiment" minimally subject to regulatory control. Where are the pleas to the precautionary principal? Where are the calls for regulation? Where are the concerns about virtual unmeasurability of results?