Pacific iron fertilisation is 'blatant violation' of international regulations
Controversial US businessman's geoengineering scheme off west coast of Canada contravenes two UN conventions
A controversial American businessman dumped around 100 tonnes of iron sulphate into the Pacific Ocean as part of a geoengineering scheme off the west coast of Canada in July, a Guardian investigation can reveal.Lawyers, environmentalists and civil society groups are calling it a "blatant violation" of two international moratoria and the news is likely to spark outrage at a United Nations environmental summit taking place in India this week.Satellite images appear to confirm the claim by Californian Russ George that the iron has spawned an artificial plankton bloom as large as 10,000 square kilometres. The intention is for the plankton to absorb carbon dioxide and then sink to the ocean bed – a geoengineering technique known as ocean fertilisation that he hopes will net lucrative carbon credits.George is the former chief executive of Planktos Inc, whose previous failed efforts to conduct large-scale commercial dumps near the Galapagos and Canary Islands led to his vessels being barred from ports by the Spanish and Ecuadorean governments. The US Environmental Protection Agency warned him that flying a US flag for his Galapagos project would violate US laws, and his activities are credited in part to the passing of international moratoria at the United Nations limiting ocean fertilisation experimentsScientists are debating whether iron fertilisation can lock carbon into the deep ocean over the long term, and have raised concerns that it can irreparably harm ocean ecosystems, produce toxic tides and lifeless waters, and worsen ocean acidification and global warming."It is difficult if not impossible to detect and describe important effects that we know might occur months or years later," said John Cullen , an oceanographer at Dalhousie University. "Some possible effects, such as deep-water oxygen depletion and alteration of distant food webs, should rule out ocean manipulation. History is full of examples of ecological manipulations that backfired."George says his team of unidentified scientists has been monitoring the results of what may be the biggest ever geoengineering experiment with equipment loaned from US agencies like Nasa and the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration. He told the Guardian that it is the "most substantial ocean restoration project in history," and has collected a "greater density and depth of scientific data than ever before"."We've gathered data targeting all the possible fears that have been raised [about ocean fertilisation]," George said. "And the news is good news, all around, for the planet."The dump took place from a fishing boat in an eddy 200 nautical miles west of the islands of Haida Gwaii, one of the world's most celebrated, diverse ecosystems, where George convinced the local council of an indigenous village to establish the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation to channel more than $1m of its own funds into the project.The president of the Haida nation, Guujaaw, said the village was told the dump would environmentally benefit the ocean, which is crucial to their livelihood and culture."The village people voted to support what they were told was a 'salmon enhancement project' and would not have agreed if they had been told of any potential negative effects or that it was in breach of an international convention," Guujaaw said.International legal experts say George's project has contravened the UN's convention on biological diversity (CBD) and London convention on the dumping of wastes at sea, which both prohibit for-profit ocean fertilisation activities."It appears to be a blatant violation of two international resolutions," said Kristina M Gjerde, a senior high seas adviser for the International Union for Conservation of Nature. "Even the placement of iron particles into the ocean, whether for carbon sequestration or fish replenishment, should not take place, unless it is assessed and found to be legitimate scientific research without commercial motivation. This does not appear to even have had the guise of legitimate scientific research."George told the Guardian that the two moratoria are a "mythology" and do not apply to his project.The parties to the UN CBD are currently meeting in Hyderabad, India, where the governments of Bolivia, the Philippines and African nations as well as indigenous peoples are calling for the current moratorium to be upgraded to a comprehensive test ban of geoengineering that includes enforcement mechanisms."If rogue geoengineer Russ George really has misled this indigenous community, and dumped iron into their waters, we hope to see swift legal response to his behavior and strong action taken to the heights of the Canadian and US governments," said Silvia Ribeiro of the international technology watchdog ETC Group, which first discovered the existence of the scheme. "It is now more urgent than ever that governments unequivocally ban such open-air geoengineering experiments. They are a dangerous distraction providing governments and industry with an excuse to avoid reducing fossil fuel emissions.
AndrewOne view is that fertilizing to grow / restore fish is NOT prohibited under LC / LPPl see the presentation by Dr David Schnare
Geoengineering and the Four Climate Change Truths:
Perspectives of a Lawyer-Scientist
A Presentation at the
Research Triangle Institute, International
November 18, 2008
Slide 59....
• The London Convention / London Protocol: You may fertilize if the intent is to grow fish but not if the intent is to dispose of carbon in the ocean. Hence, focus on “restoration”.
The Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation seems to aim at restoring the Salmon population.
regardsBhaskar
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/5a3alkqu5RUJ.--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
-- - Oliver Wingenter Assoc. Prof. of Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate Research Scientist Geophysical Research Center New Mexico Tech 801 Leroy Place Socorro, NM 87801
Jim
I kinda half buy your argument.
An individual can't legitimately do this as they can't ordinarily ringfence the fishing rights.
But surely a government, with territorial rights, could legitimately fertilize fish at an ecosystem level.
A
I recall being in the room when this exception was discussed, and there was a clear objective of some of the parties in the room to make sure that the actions taken under LC/LP would not adversely impact "conventional aquaculture".
Thus, I think Jim's interpretation of this document is not consistent with what was understood by the people who agreed to this language.
On the other hand, I think the parties did intend to exclude actions such as is reported to have been undertaken by Russ George, which I think would be characterized as "unconventional aquaculture".
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/6pURg3AYmwUJ.
Here are a couple of extra thoughts:
Generally speaking, international law such as LC-LP binds national governments, not individuals. George thus cannot violate international law himself, but the country under whose flag he flew could have. The LC and LP do not have universal membership. In 2007 he said that he planned on operating under a flag of convenience. If NASA and/or NOAA did assist him, that would imply that the US violated the LC (it is not a party to the LP). I would be surprised for various reasons, in part because it was the US EPA that was instrumental in ending his operations in 2007.
Regarding this
LC/LP.1 (2008) reads "2. AGREE that for the purposes of this resolution, ocean fertilization is any activity undertaken by humans
with the principal intention of stimulating primary productivity in the oceans"
Primary productivity is the growth of organisms by fixing carbon from the air or dissolved in water. Fish grow through secondary (or tertiary…) means. Intention
in law is often tricky this way.
The CBD COP resolutions are non-binding.
Jesse L. Reynolds, M.S.
PhD Candidate
European and International Public Law
Tilburg Sustainability Center
Tilburg University, The Netherlands
email: J.L.Re...@uvt.nl
http://www.tilburguniversity.edu/webwijs/show/?uid=j.l.reynolds
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/q7hpUqP8SlQJ.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/DnA7OvQPw_cJ.
Published:
California businessman Russ George dumped about 100 metric tons of iron sulphate off the western Canadian coast as part of a geoengineering scheme. The iron has created an artificial plankton bloom of more than 6,000 square miles in the Pacific Ocean.
The technique, known as ocean fertilization, is done so plankton can absorb carbon dioxide and then sink. George, the former CEO of Planktos Inc., could earn carbon credits from the experiment.
But lawyers, environmentalists and civil society groups have called George's actions a "blatant violation" of two international moratoriums that limit ocean fertilization.
While scientists have wondered about the lasting effects of the technique, George said his team has found nothing worrisome about the project.
"We've gathered data targeting all the possible fears that have been raised [about ocean fertilization]," he said. "And the news is good news, all around, for the planet" (Martin Lukacs, London Guardian, Oct. 15).
Canadian officials have remained silent about whether the government knew of George's actions and did nothing to stop it, saying the matter is under investigation.
"Canadian government people have been helping us," George said. "We've had workshops run where we've been taught how to use satellite resources by the Canadian space agency. [The government] is trying to 'cost-share' with us on certain aspects of the project. And we are expecting lots more support as we go forward."
The potential government involvement has angered international civil society groups. They announced at a U.N. biodiversity meeting in India that the country would be singled out at the meeting and awarded the Dodo Award for actions that harm biodiversity (Martin Lukacs, London Guardian, Oct. 17). -- JE
Dangerous climate change is best avoided by drastically and rapidly reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Nevertheless, geoengineering options are receiving attention on the basis that additional approaches may also be necessary. Here we review the state of knowledge on large-scale ocean fertilization by adding iron or other nutrients, either from external sources or via enhanced ocean mixing. On the basis of small-scale field experiments carried out to date and associated modelling, the maximum benefits of ocean fertilization as a negative emissions technique are likely to be modest in relation to anthropogenic climate forcing. Furthermore, it would be extremely challenging to quantify with acceptable accuracy the carbon removed from circulation on a long term basis, and to adequately monitor unintended impacts over large space and time-scales. These and other technical issues are particularly problematic for the region with greatest theoretical potential for the application of ocean fertilization, the Southern Ocean. Arrangements for the international governance of further field-based research on ocean fertilization are currently being developed, primarily under the London Convention/London Protocol.
► Fertilization using iron can increase the uptake of CO2 across the sea surface. ► But most of this uptake is transient; long-term sequestration is difficult to assess. ► Unintended impacts of ocean fertilization may be far removed in space and time. ► For climate benefits, the Southern Ocean has most potential - also most problems. ► A regulatory framework for ocean fertilization research has been developed.
Not wishing to take sides, but I don't agree with the points raised.
It's not clear to me what, if any, commercial purpose there was. I don't see any evidence of selling credits, specifically. It's probably harder to judge the fisheries issue - which may have been within the definition of commercial. However, it may be that the intended fisheries impact was research, not directly commercial, on this specific occasion.
Secondly, the assessment framework expressly permits small scale research. 100t is pretty small scale (two petrol tankers) even if the effect was spatially dispersed.
Surely it's for objectors to prove a violation, not the converse. Innocent until proven guilty, and all that ....
A
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/cxkvyDi3-t0J.
Well, to defend the absent :
A press conference is not a quasi judicial process. There's no obligation to mount a formal defence.
Small scale experiments are pre exempted. They don't need piecemeal approval.
A
>
> On Oct 20, 2012 8:36 PM, "Joshua Horton" <joshuah...@gmail.com> wrote:
According to multiple sources, the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation (HSRC) had planned to sell carbon credits resulting from the experiment (for example, see CBC http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/10/19/bc-ocean-fertilization-haida.html). Setting aside the fact that there's no way currently to do this, neither Russ George, John Disney (president of HSRC), nor any other corporate or community official has disputed this assertion, not even during the press conference they organized in Vancouver yesterday.
As for the Assessment Framework, the point is not whether or not the experiment was "small-scale," but whether or not it was submitted to the LC/LP for approval under the Framework, which apparently it was not (presumably because it wouldn't have passed scientific muster).
Josh
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Andrew Lockley <andrew....@gmail.com> wrote:
Not wishing to take sides, but I don't agree with the points raised.
It's not clear to me what, if any, commercial purpose there was. I don't see any evidence of selling credits, specifically. It's probably harder to judge the fisheries issue - which may have been within the definition of commercial. However, it may be that the intended fisheries impact was research, not directly commercial, on this specific occasion.
Secondly, the assessment framework expressly permits small scale research. 100t is pretty small scale (two petrol tankers) even if the effect was spatially dispersed.
Surely it's for objectors to prove a violation, not the converse. Innocent until proven guilty, and all that ....
A
On Oct 20, 2012 7:01 PM, "Josh Horton" <joshuah...@gmail.com> wrote:
Circling back to Ken's original question, given what we know it seems pretty clear that the Haida experiment did violate both the CBD and LC/LP.
CBD Decision IX/16(C)(4) explicitly prohibits any research "used for generating and selling carbon offsets or any other commercial purposes."
Resolution LC/LP.1 (2008) explicitly prohibits any research that has not "been assessed and found acceptable under the assessment framework."
George and his company have had a week to make their case, including a press conference yesterday, and have neither denied the commercial aspect of the test, nor shown that approval was granted under the LC/LP Assessment Framework.
Josh Horton
On Monday, October 15, 2012 12:38:16 PM UTC-4, Ken Caldeira wrote:
It would be useful if any legal minds in the group would assess exactly the relevant language that Russ George has supposedly violated.
I recall that in negotiations under the London Convention / London Protocol, there was concern not to impact fish farms which of course supply copious nutrients to surrounding waters.
If my recollection was correct, somebody proposed an exception for mariculture. I piped up and said that all ocean fertilization could be considered mariculture and that the CO2 storage could be regarded as a co-benefit, achieved knowingly but not intentionally (just as when we drive a car we knowingly heat the planet although that is not our intent).
My recollection was that in response to this comment, the word 'conventional' was added to the language, so that it now reads:
"Ocean fertilization does not include conventional aquaculture, or mariculture, .. ".
Resolution LC-LP.1(2008) - IMO <http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.imo.org%2Fblast%2FblastData.asp%3Fdoc_id%3D14101%26filename%3D1.doc&ei=xzV8ULXmFoKG9QSWsICYCA&usg=AFQjCNFJLn-efXeq0_tlczhFZRjjpRGFGQ&sig2=FC11W0IMKGaw0-Mc166MwQ>
Incidentally, it seems that they have a misplaced comma, as I believe the word 'conventional' was meant to apply to both 'aquaculture'' and 'mariculture', but with the placement of the comma, I read this as 'conventional aquaculture' or 'mariculture'. I am not enough of a lawyer to know whether the intended meaning or the literal meaning is the one likely to prevail under some sort of adjudication process.
---
It is interesting to see the level of interest that intentional ocean fertilization draws relative to, say, nutrients added to the ocean as a result of farm runoff or inadequately processed sewage. We are very sensitive to the intent with which actions are conducted, and are willing to overlook travesties caused in the normal course of business so that we can focus on physically insignificant acts where the presumed intentions do not meet our high ethical standards.
We do not choose to focus on problems based on an objective appraisal of threats posed, but rather largely based on which actions we find to be most ethically repugnant. Apparently, dumping raw sewage simply to save the cost of sewage processing is less repugnant than fertilizing the ocean in hopes of increasing fish yields. One suspects that the real ethical boundary that Russ George is inferred to have transgressed is the desire to personally profit from unconventional mariculture.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVCu158FqvE <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVCu158FqvE>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voXiJ5t23sY <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voXiJ5t23sY>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5gcZ4rojsI <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5gcZ4rojsI>
_______________
Ken Caldeira
Carnegie Institution for Science
Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
+1 650 704 7212 <tel:%2B1%20650%20704%207212> kcal...@carnegiescience.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab <http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab> @kencaldeira
Our YouTube videos
The Great Climate Experiment: How far can we push the planet? <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce2OWROToAI>
Geophysical Limits to Global Wind Power <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U7PXjUG-Yk>
More videos <http://www.youtube.com/user/CarnegieGlobEcology/videos>
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 7:08 AM, M V Bhaskar <bhaska...@gmail.com> wrote:
Andrew
One view is that fertilizing to grow / restore fish is NOT prohibited under LC / LP
Pl see the presentation by Dr David Schnare
- http://www.thomasjeffersoninst.org/pdf/articles/geo_and_4climatetruths.ppt <http://www.thomasjeffersoninst.org/pdf/articles/geo_and_4climatetruths.ppt>
Geoengineering and the Four Climate Change Truths:
Perspectives of a Lawyer-Scientist
A Presentation at the
Research Triangle Institute, International
November 18, 2008
Slide 59
....
• The London Convention / London Protocol: You may fertilize if the intent is to grow fish but not if the intent is to dispose of carbon in the ocean. Hence, focus on “restoration”.
The Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation seems to aim at restoring the Salmon population.
regards
Bhaskar
On Monday, 15 October 2012 17:03:21 UTC+5:30, andrewjlockley wrote:
http://m.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/15/pacific-iron-fertilisation-geoengineering?cat=environment&type=article <http://m.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/15/pacific-iron-fertilisation-geoengineering?cat=environment&type=article>
George himself is clearly under pressure at the moment, and also has a bit of a convenient megaphone at the moment. He has tried todistance himself from GeoE in the media, saying his project has "nothing to do with GeoE", which is just plain silly, and also has tried tosay that he isn't just some guy wanting to make money - which might actually be half true. He wants to be seen as a "champion of geoengineering," but at the moment, everyone on this list should recognize, that he isn't the kind of champion anyone should want, unless things can get turned around a bit.Now, I don't know what others on this list think, but it is hard enough to see any GeoE getting accepted in the near future, and the profitaspect greatly stirs the pot. It would clearly be possible to have a market-based system eventually with carbon credits that reallywork, and then, sure, GeoE projects could legitimately be part of that, but can't everyone here see the writing on the wall?Right now, there's the real risk that no effective carbon market gets set up at all, and so any potential GeoE profit maker would sit high and dry anyhow, while that also clearly pushes the world at the same time toward needing more GeoE sooner, and public trust would be virtually impossible to build for it if profit schemes were tied in to GeoE, even if just by association. Thus, some kind of blanket statement, signed by folks at this list, any other concerned parties worldwide in GeoE, & Russ George himself, stating that, while GeoE might eventually function within the context of a robust carbon market system, that, for the time being, no GeoE should be pursued whatsoever with a profit motive. This might build momentum in a positive direction, rather than a negative one.
Just to have a UN body say "OK, you can go ahead and research this now" gives respectability to the enterprise, rather than a black eye. So, this might also go a long way to turn the tide of negative PR into a more positive spin, and then the story will morph into what scientists find there, not the negative spin of the "bad deed" and further stigmatization of GeoE by ETC etc, etc.....
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/H6b3LEpvY5QJ.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/jFR1ih5ODqUJ.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Jim
Thanks for your email.
Could you cite emails where you think there have been ad hominem attacks on ETC?
I'm reluctant to censor obvious satire. This thread has triggered useful debate.
I'm also concerned at your attempts to apply the ad hominem principle to a group or organisation. This would make it harder for people to criticize governments, etc.
Furthermore, can it really be said the ETC conduct in this regard has been at the standards by which it would ask others to be judged?
Your response has been useful, and I'd welcome more contribution from ETC. This group's posts are widely read by an influential, but mostly silent, audience of policy makers, Journalists and scientists. It's a good opportunity to boost support for your cause.
Andrew Lockley
Moderator
Obviously this is patently silly. ETC Group are not a party to UNFCCC and if continuing to use air travel constitutes some sort of breach of a UN convention then many people and groups on this list are also 'in breach' . So is the IPCC etc etc. Also didn't there used to be some sort of moderation rule on this list about 'no ad hominem attacks'??? Andrew: what happened to that?
Best
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
Geoengineering also splits nations. Nations like Canada, Russia, the Scandanian countries prefer warming and ice melt. Go toward the equator and you have a different result.
You cannot please all nations or regions unless it gets too hot for all and that scenario is many many thousands of years away. In the end the only way a geoengineering technique will be accepted without significant rancor is if it is relatively local to a country or region and can be implemented without world wide approval or oversight. What the various countries think then will not be especially relevant. The issue then will be how local and that is not trivial. The oceans outside boundaries pose special problems.
Geoengineering techniques that have global impact are interesting but probably have not a chance for implementation. I suggest that the group add potential localization to consideration of geoengineering approaches and options and give higher marks for localization capability.
-gene.
From: "Nathan Currier" <natcu...@gmail.com>
To: geoengi...@googlegroups.com
Cc: natcu...@gmail.com, kcal...@carnegiescience.edu
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2012 11:23:34 PM
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Pacific iron fertilisation is 'blatant violation' of international regulations
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/K_7grERY6DAJ.
+1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegiescience.edu <about:blank>
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira
Our YouTube videos