(geo] UNEA6 fails to adopt SRM resolution
H simmens
A missed opportunity at UNEA-6
The UN Environment Assembly, the governing body of the UN’s Environment Programme (#UNEP), is currently having its 6th session #unea6 in Nairobi.
Yesterday, it failed to approve a draft resolution on solar radiation modification (#SRM). The original draft called for a way to collect what is known about such techniques; creating an international repository; and have experts review that information. After a few days of negotiations, it ended up only asking that UNEP prepare options for a transparent, publicly available registry of information on who-is-doing-what on SRM.
Yesterday, in the last minute, even that reduced draft resolution did not get acceptance. This was a missed opportunity, one that will have negative impacts for the coming years – whether one is against or for SRM.
First, at a time when the world is heading into an increasingly likely, and potentially long period of temperature overshoot, and when different state and non-state actors are engaged in a range of SRM activities without the appropriate regulatory oversight, and often with no transparency, having impartial information from a trusted source on what is happening would have been very much needed.
Second, having such information available would have been an important input into discussions that governments as well as non-state actors really must have to enable them to make evidence-based decisions sooner or later whether to reject SRM, or accept SRM as part of the necessary response strategies to a prolonged overshoot situation.
Third, if UNEA /UNEP – the principal UN institution that is supposed to bring to the attention of governments emerging issues that have impacts on the environment - cannot get a mandate from governments to do this on emerging techniques like SRM, then this actually makes it more difficult for UNEA/UNEP to fulfil its fundamental mandate and thereby it weakens this key multilateral institution – at a time when in fact it needs to be strengthened.
Fourth, addressing issues of SRM are not about “normalizing” this technique, as some claim. It is simply about creating the evidence-base for governments to eventually make decisions on whether or not to make use of SRM to complement the priority emission reductions they must do, and to assess the risk sand other implications of making use of SRM versus not doing so. We know from inter alia the IPCC that there is a governance gap around SRM, in that whatever governance is there, it is neither robust nor comprehensive. The information that would have come from the proposed registry would have perhaps helped to better understand that gap. Putting one’s head in the sand and assuming that this issue does not exist is no way to deal with planetary resilience.
The international community has failed yesterday on this issue. It was a missed opportunity. I hope one way or another in UNEA/UNEP or elsewhere this issue can be revisited – and soon.Janos
☞ My latest [and last article authored as C2G Executive Director] on “SRM Governance in the Context of Temperature Overshoot”.
☞ ☞ You may also wish to listen to the Challenging Climate podcast’s 43rd episode with me, focussing on C2G’s work over the last 7 years.
=============================
Sent from my iPhone--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/79CAC03D-7006-47FE-A8E4-3463FB347076%40pasztor.net.
daleanne bourjaily
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/32440B79-5BF7-4307-8CE6-1A0D8F6B5FC8%40gmail.com.
Clive Elsworth
Dale Anne
So, SRM Watch ignored our Marine Cloud Brightening proposals?
Clive
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CANhw0zwsh%3DbTZPRHgAoq5pFxRtFxZvf3k8TkqyFiD32V%3DceaDQ%40mail.gmail.com.
rob...@rtulip.net
Thanks Herb for bringing these issues to attention. This failure at UNEA6 gives cause for pause to reflect on the strategic context. I agree with Pasztor’s analysis, except for his comment that “addressing issues of SRM are not about “normalizing” this technique.” This comment reflects the tactical decision of C2G and similar groups like the Overshoot Commission to adopt a lukewarm position of confusion and equivocation that fails to advocate the need for higher albedo. As a result, there is no effective lobby to counter the strident bullying disinformation from the opposition. It is essential to normalise conversation about geoengineering, since the attitude that treats it as bizarre can easily dismiss all discussion of albedo without analysis or debate. This is why the opponents are so intent on preventing normalisation, since any step toward engagement could lead their brittle ideology to collapse.
One voice of support in this UNEP debate is the Degrees Initiative - https://www.degrees.ngo/the-degrees-initiative-statement-on-draft-srm-resolution/ - calling for voices from the global south to be heard in support of SRM research, but without any clear statement of the problem.
Obviously no advocates of a brighter world had the organisation or funding to engage at UNEA6. However, those who accept darkening present a range of spurious arguments.
https://www.oceancare.org/en/stories_and_news/protecting-marine-ecosystems-and-geoengineering-pandoras-box-on-the-agenda-of-un-environment-ministers/ states, quite absurdly “Solar radiation modification technologies risk further destabilising an already deeply disturbed climate system, threatening to exacerbate uncontrolled shifts in regional climate and weather, biodiversity loss, food security, global injustice, and human rights abuses for generations to come.” This is so far from any scientific perspective that it can only be understood as a kind of rhetorical ratchet, starting from an ideological standpoint and generating imaginary claims designed purely to advance the ideology without regard to facts. This whole style of argument reflects a purely polarised groupthink perspective on the world, a division of humanity into good and evil. They wrongly see interest in geoengineering as only explicable as the conspiracy of an evil cabal whose every utterance can be automatically dismissed. This political syndrome is as irrational as the QAnon Satanic pizza shop.
Even more pointedly insane is https://eeb.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Joint-Global-Statement-MGS-UNEA-6.pdf - the Joint Global Statement of Major Groups and Stakeholders for UNEA-6 presented by the Children and Youth, Indigenous Peoples, Farmers, Local Authorities, NGO, Science and Technology, Women, and Workers and Trade Unions Major Groups based on a series of International Consultations and the 20th Global Major Groups and Stakeholders Forum. It includes the attached statement against geoengineering, another calculated exercise in virulent disinformation and propaganda with such heavy emotional bullying that governments could hardly go against it in the absence of well organised advocacy.
The underlying problem here of dividing the world into good and evil camps is often described as Manichaeism, from the ancient religion of Persia that imagined evil as a cosmic principle in war against goodness and light. Just as communism understood the world as a class war between the good workers and the evil bosses, so too climate activism has its own distorted theology, with the allies of indigeneity on the side of the angels in war against the evil forces of fossil fuels. This simplistic mentality rejects suggestion of integration or reconciliation or dialogue between opposing views, and instead promotes an ideology of partisan conflict, rejecting everything from the other side in order to build support for the political victory of its own tribe. Unfortunately, that approach is unscientific, and as a result generates delusional views. This is especially the case in the climate wars. One of the hallmarks of climate activism is the assertion that their views align completely with science. Maintaining this false assertion requires a refusal to engage in any conversation or allow any platform that could suggest a lack of scientific rigor and evidence within the ideology of emission reduction alone.
In challenging polarised thinking, it is essential to respect the perspectives of opponents, especially the elements of truth that they use to combine with untrue arguments. In this regard the critiques made by Indigenous cultures have a powerful message. But that does not at all imply that respect requires complete assent to their opinions. In particular, I believe the Association of Small Island States could well be convinced to reverse its reported opposition to geoengineering, which is why the critics work so assiduously to prevent these nations from hearing scientific information that would change their minds.
Regards
Robert Tulip
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/32440B79-5BF7-4307-8CE6-1A0D8F6B5FC8%40gmail.com.
rob...@rtulip.net
Further updates:
Silver Lining has provided a rather anodyne commentary on the UNEA debacle at https://www.silverlining.ngo/discussions-on-climate-intervention-research-at-un-environment-assembly asserting that the UNEA conversation was “open and productive”, and that it signalled “that research on solar radiation modification is critical to support international policy conversations.” From my distant viewpoint I had the impression the discussion was closed and destructive, but I suppose it is often worthwhile trying to make a silk purse from a sow’s ear. I have the impression many observers did not notice the signal in the silver lining to this rather dark and stormy cloud.
In a far less positive light, a bunch of academic ideologues have written a totally delusional hatchet job at The Conversation, asserting without evidence that action to brighten the planet would be entirely harmful, and that cooling with albedo enhancement is basically impossible. Their article is pure disinformation, presenting as settled science many questions that are totally disputed and under-researched. Once again, like the so-called “Major Groups” quoted in my email below, they start from their conclusion and massage the facts to suit it. I have noticed The Conversation seems never to allow comments on its climate articles, perhaps because the academic establishment has such a strongly enforced party line.
The Conversation article asserts that “research has consistently identified potential risks” from geoengineering, with potential harm to climate and weather patterns, biodiversity loss, food security and human rights. They can only make this false claim by ignoring the research that disagrees, so their assertion of a consistent message is misinformation. My view is that measures to increase albedo, properly governed, would have immense benefits in all these areas of alleged risk, vastly dwarfing the real harms that are inevitable without brightening action. The absence of any risk-risk perspective in this article is a scandal. Perhaps the worst thing about this article is its aura of fantasy, in its assumption that net zero emissions is a realistic climate scenario. The real world is moving in entirely the opposite direction (see article attached), and major flashing lights are saying net zero by 2050 is only possible through economic collapse.
Regards
Robert Tulip
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/04cb01da6b8a%247d6ec040%24784c40c0%24%40rtulip.net.
Douglas Grandt
On Feb 29, 2024, at 2:40 PM, H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com> wrote:
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/32440B79-5BF7-4307-8CE6-1A0D8F6B5FC8%40gmail.com.
H simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future
@herbsimmens
HerbSimmens.com
On Mar 1, 2024, at 11:46 AM, Douglas Grandt <answer...@mac.com> wrote:
Thanks, Herb -
You will find my reaction posted on my Facebook page yesterday. (Following my signature below). As explanation:Bottom line for me from Janos’ simple summary, is our conundrum is analogous to a stalemate chat (it was quickly truncated with “wait, I believe in a young earth”) I had years ago with my integrated-circuit-design manager/electronics engineer and former Catholic reborn evangelist cousin as I naively ventured into humanity releasing hundreds-of-million-years of CO2 a million times faster than it was sequestered by photosynthesis in an azolla bloom that reduced the atmospheric concentration from ~2,000ppm to ~450ppm when ice first formed on earth.Constructive dialogue is not in the cards when “belief” and “faith” (in that case a 6,000 year old earth) distort otherwise intelligent individuals’ understanding of reality.My take of Janos is that we are now faced with an unfounded fear of a nonexistent evil concept (that conflates geoengineering, SRM and unfettered global SAI) not unlike the DEVIL.Conundrum: There will be no convincing.Rhetoric and logic based on facts is futile.Explore plausible alternative strategies.Below is my preface to Janos’ statement.Enjoy,
DougSent from my iPhone (audio texting)
Suzanne Reed
The science is clear: we can still prevent irreversible harm to the climate, ecosystems, and human rights, and the only way to do so is reducing GHGs and a rapid, funded and equitable phase-out of all fossil fuels.
Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) describes an array of geoengineering techniques designed to partially block sunlight to mask the heating effect of greenhouse gasses. It does nothing to tackle the root causes of climate change, is inherently unpredictable and risks further destabilizing an already destabilized climate system with more and new extremes. It is neither insurance to ‘buy time’ nor any form of supplement to mitigation. Solar geoengineering is a recipe for disaster that delays climate action and real solutions, and puts our communities and ecosystems at unacceptable risk.
Widely discussed SRM techniques such as stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) and marine cloud brightening (MCB) carry the further risk of ‘termination shock’ – the sudden spiraling of global temperatures if such injections were, for whatever reason, ever stopped. For SAI this means injections of chemicals into the stratosphere would need to be continued for several decades if not centuries, in effect requiring policy continuity spanning numerous generations – something that is virtually impossible to assure. In addition to severe environmental, social and political risks – which include serious threats to biodiversity and food security – SRM itself poses a clear ‘moral hazard’, risking delays to meaningful climate action that must occur in the near term.
The UN Human Rights Council’s Advisory Committee has warned that geoengineering technologies “could seriously interfere with the enjoyment of human rights for millions and perhaps billions of people”. It has also pointed out the disproportionate impact on Indigenous Peoples, peasants, fisherfolk and others living in rural areas. These same groups have been vocal in rejecting geoengineering as a dangerous distraction that would violate their rights.
By their very nature, SRM technologies cannot be tested effectively for their impact on the global climate other than through large-scale scale deployment. Small experiments cannot demonstrate whether and how the technique really affects complex climate systems. Because of the time frame and complexity they demand there is no precedent in human history to give comfort that deployment of these technologies could ever be effectively governed. The risk of unilateral deployment and weaponization is real: private actors are financing research and a company has already carried out solar geoengineering experiments for profit.
For all these reasons, SRM, along with other forms of geoengineering, has been under a de facto moratorium through the Convention on Biological Diversity since 2010, and marine geoengineering techniques are the subject of a drive for increased regulation under the London Convention / London Protocol (LC/LP), where the first geoengineering ban – on ocean fertilization – arose. Hundreds of leading scientists from multi-disciplinary backgrounds and civil society movements are in agreement on the need for states to go further and commit to Non-Use of Solar Radiation Modification.
Given the extensive, often peer-reviewed work already undertaken by experts from diverse scientific backgrounds that have informed UN decisions to date, and the nature of those findings and their scientific conclusions, we question the outcomes that would arise from establishing an expert group as per the proposal in the resolution put forward to UNEA6 by Switzerland, Monaco, Guinea, and co-sponsored by Georgia and Israel. Discussion of SRM in the manner proposed by the resolution could inadvertently undermine decisions of the CBD and LC/LP, and risks legitimizing SRM technology, while giving cover to large emitters to slow-walk the phase-out of fossil fuels.
The broad range of diverse risks that solar geoengineering entails cannot be narrowed only to environmental dimensions, which is the remit of UNEP. We also note with concern that the UNEP-sponsored ‘One Atmosphere’ report has not been peer-reviewed, does not follow IPCC standards and has not in fact been endorsed by UNEP. It controversially recommends increasing research and open-air experiments, which would only help further the development of solar geoengineering.
States at UNEA6 should focus on firmly recalling and strengthening existing decisions under the CBD and LP/LC, upholding the precautionary principle, and rights of Free Prior Informed Consent, access to information, public participation, and access to justice and remedy. In doing so, States are expected to comply with long-standing norms of international environmental law such as the obligations not to cause transboundary environmental harm and to ensure the harmless use of their territory.
Furthermore, States should acknowledge the risks posed by these most dystopian technologies by stepping up and committing to the Non-Use of Solar Geoengineering. The decision of the African Ministerial Conference on the Environment calling for a global SRM Non-Use governance mechanism shows important leadership as does the European Parliament’s explicit call to “initiate a non-use agreement at international level, in accordance with the precautionary principle and in the absence of evidence of its safety and a full global consensus on its acceptability.” The further debate of disruptive planetary technofixes is truly a dangerous distraction from the real and urgent task of tackling the root causes of the climate crisis.
Recommendations for action at UNEA 6
- Do not endorse the creation of an expert group;
- Encourage States to endorse the call for the establishment of a Solar Geoengineering Non-Use Agreement;
- Reaffirm a strong precautionary principle approach in relation to solar geoengineering;
- Ensure meaningful consultation, and that Free Prior and Informed Consent is obtained in relation to the undertaking of any projects that affect Indigenous Peoples’ rights to land, territory and resources;
- Ensure access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice and other remedies to the conduct of activities, including experiments, research and decision-making on solar geoengineering, as per the provisions of the Aarhus Convention and Escazu Agreement.
- Reaffirm CBD and LC/LP decisions and emphasize the need to prevent open-air solar geoengineering experiments;
- Call on CBD to ask States to implement Decision CBD X/33.8 (w) and to ask Parties to report on measures taken in accordance with this decision;
- Call on Contracting Parties to the London Convention to enable the 2013 amendment to the London Protocol as per Resolution LP.4(8) to enter into force, and uphold its provisions prior to its entering into force;
Links to resources for further information
- Solar Geoengineering Non-Use Agreement (SGNUA)
- SGNUA Solar Geoengineering Briefing Note
- CIEL Geoengineering and Human Rights briefing
- CAN-International position on Solar Radiation Modification
- African Ministerial Conference on the Environment/19/6 Decision 19/5 Climate Change
- European Parliament Resolution 2023/2636 (RSP)
- Report of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee on the Impact of new technologies intended for climate protection on the enjoyment of human rights
- Why SRM experiments are a bad idea
- Experimentation on solar geoengineering will not be allowed in Mexico
- Media briefing: Debunking Solar Geoengineering
- Media briefing: 100 countries affirm intention to regulate marine geoengineering
- Stop solar geoengineering – resistance to solar geoengineering outdoor experimentation
- CAN-I Debunking Dangerous Distractions: Solar Radiation Modification
This briefing is endorsed by:
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/32440B79-5BF7-4307-8CE6-1A0D8F6B5FC8%40gmail.com.
robert...@gmail.com
Thanks, Suzanne, for circulating this. It identifies the core single issue that has to be confronted, and that has nothing to do with SRM.
The entire argument presented here proceeds from this premise:
The science is clear: we can still prevent irreversible harm to the climate, ecosystems, and human rights, and the only way to do so is reducing GHGs and a rapid, funded and equitable phase-out of all fossil fuels.
Until this canard is laid to rest and it is widely accepted to now be false, it will be impossible for any form of SRM to gain acceptance in policymaking circles. Cleaving to this faith in decarbonisation is the new form of denialism.
The case against this premise has to show beyond reasonable doubt two truths:
- It is not politically feasible for net zero emissions to be delivered on a timescale that will prevent irreversible harm within any reasonable level of confidence given the nature of the risks entailed.
- Even if net zero emissions were achieved by 2030, inertia in the climate system and its complex feedbacks are such that it would not prevent irreversible climate change induced harm.
Focus on the carbon cycle alone is therefore an inadequate response and will almost certainly precipitate those harms to ecosystems and human rights that we all want to avoid.
We need to put as much, if not more effort, into promoting that
argument as we do into devising novel ways of doing SRM. Those
innovations will go nowhere until this prior argument has won.
Robert
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAE0%3DaUBzsjoJFhCUr8%2BZwyg%3Dz9wAUsty6jJ-T6s2mO5DwLzs-w%40mail.gmail.com.
Tom Goreau
The fossil fuel phase out strategy, essential though it is, can’t possibly happen quickly enough to prevent dangerous overshoot, not because of lack of scientific knowledge but because of ignorance, stupidity, greed, and corruption at the government and funding agency decision making level.
It could have worked in the late 1980s when the scientific community first brought these concerns to governments in the First Geotherapy Conference in Lyon BEFORE the UNCCC was negotiated.
Governments ignored all the warnings, and it is their never ending obfuscation, prevarication, diddling delays, and refusal to deal with the issue for 35 years that have now made the phase out strategy too little too late to do the job by itself, and makes much more serious measures essential.
This 1971 book was one of the first such warnings that our lack of foresight would do us in!:
Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD
President, Global Coral Reef Alliance
Chief Scientist, Blue Regeneration SL
President, Biorock Technology Inc.
Technical Advisor, Blue Guardians Programme, SIDS DOCK
37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139
gor...@globalcoral.org
www.globalcoral.org
Skype: tomgoreau
Tel: (1) 617-864-4226 (leave message)
Books:
Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration, Carbon Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 Increase
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466595392
Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466557734
Geotherapy: Regenerating ecosystem services to reverse climate change
No one can change the past, everybody can change the future
It’s much later than we think, especially if we don’t think
Those with their heads in the sand will see the light when global warming and sea level rise wash the beach away
“When you run to the rocks, the rocks will be melting, when you run to the sea, the sea will be boiling”, Peter Tosh, Jamaica’s greatest song writer
From:
healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of robert...@gmail.com <robert...@gmail.com>
Date: Saturday, March 2, 2024 at 4:45
AM
To: Suzanne Reed <csuzann...@gmail.com>, H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com>
Cc: healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/cc09c148-8233-4c9d-8647-bda79b3e7c75%40gmail.com.
Jeff Suchon
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/BY3PR13MB4994949E409A99EB0A24E151DD5D2%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.
Clive Elsworth
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/cc09c148-8233-4c9d-8647-bda79b3e7c75%40gmail.com.
H simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future
@herbsimmens
HerbSimmens.com
On Mar 2, 2024, at 6:24 AM, Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org> wrote:
The fossil fuel phase out strategy, essential though it is, can’t possibly happen quickly enough to prevent dangerous overshoot, not because of lack of scientific knowledge but because of ignorance, stupidity, greed, and corruption at the government and funding agency decision making level.
It could have worked in the late 1980s when the scientific community first brought these concerns to governments in the First Geotherapy Conference in Lyon BEFORE the UNCCC was negotiated.
Governments ignored all the warnings, and it is their never ending obfuscation, prevarication, diddling delays, and refusal to deal with the issue for 35 years that have now made the phase out strategy too little too late to do the job by itself, and makes much more serious measures essential.
This 1971 book was one of the first such warnings that our lack of foresight would do us in!:
Jeff Suchon
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/1998220553.4092564.1709381133077%40email.ionos.co.uk.
H simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future
@herbsimmens
HerbSimmens.com
On Mar 2, 2024, at 7:05 AM, Clive Elsworth <Cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk> wrote:
Jeff Suchon
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/F9EF7B8B-04A1-4C38-A46A-4E5B40A42F8F%40gmail.com.
Cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk
robert...@gmail.com
Great question, Herb. You're beginning to sound like a systems thinker! 😉
Robert
Clive Elsworth
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAE0%3DaUBzsjoJFhCUr8%2BZwyg%3Dz9wAUsty6jJ-T6s2mO5DwLzs-w%40mail.gmail.com.
H simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future
@herbsimmens
HerbSimmens.com
On Mar 2, 2024, at 8:29 AM, cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk wrote:
Clive Elsworth
H simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future
@herbsimmens
HerbSimmens.com
On Mar 2, 2024, at 9:08 AM, Clive Elsworth <Cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk> wrote:
Tom Goreau
The Earth will be fine, coccoliths and cockroaches will survive those conditions, but humans won’t, except perhaps small numbers at the most basal level of survival.
Jim Lovelock predicted the last humans would be at the North Pole, heavily armed to keep others out, their future trumped.
From:
healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Clive Elsworth <cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk>
Date: Saturday, March 2, 2024 at 9:00 AM
To: Suzanne Reed <csuzann...@gmail.com>, H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com>
Cc: healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [HPAC] (geo] UNEA6 fails to adopt SRM resolution
What’s worse for the ocean: a doubling of atmospheric CO2 or its current rapid warming?
The Cretaceous period lasted 80 million years during which CO2 was much higher than today, yet life appeared to thrive for at least some of that time, as seen by the huge chalk deposits made by coccolithophora in England as the North and South Downs. (E.g. white cliffs of Dover).
It seems a shame to reject ocean cooling on the basis of a hypothesis that appears inconsistent with the geological record.
Clive
On 02/03/2024 01:30 GMT Suzanne Reed <csuzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
This is the opposition SRM briefing for UNEA6 delegates, per Geoengineering Monitor.
Suzanne
As the sixth session of the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA-6) kicks off in Nairobi, Kenya, the Hands Off Mother Earth! (HOME) Alliance and allies have published a new briefing for delegates on what is set to be a hotly-debated topic at the Assembly: Geoengineering the climate through Solar Radiation Modification (SRM).
The science is clear: we can still prevent irreversible harm to the climate, ecosystems, and human rights, and the only way to do so is reducing GHGs and a rapid, funded and equitable phase-out of all fossil fuels.
Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) describes an array of geoengineering techniques designed to partially block sunlight to mask the heating effect of greenhouse gasses. It does nothing to tackle the root causes of climate change, is inherently unpredictable and risks further destabilizing an already destabilized climate system with more and new extremes. It is neither insurance to ‘buy time’ nor any form of supplement to mitigation. Solar geoengineering is a recipe for disaster that delays climate action and real solutions, and puts our communities and ecosystems at unacceptable risk.
Widely discussed SRM techniques such as stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) and marine cloud brightening (MCB) carry the further risk of ‘termination shock’ – the sudden spiraling of global temperatures if such injections were, for whatever reason, ever stopped. For SAI this means injections of chemicals into the stratosphere would need to be continued for several decades if not centuries, in effect requiring policy continuity spanning numerous generations – something that is virtually impossible to assure. In addition to severe environmental, social and political risks – which include serious threats to biodiversity and food security – SRM itself poses a clear ‘moral hazard’, risking delays to meaningful climate action that must occur in the near term.
The UN Human Rights Council’s Advisory Committee has warned that geoengineering technologies “could seriously interfere with the enjoyment of human rights for millions and perhaps billions of people”. It has also pointed out the disproportionate impact on Indigenous Peoples, peasants, fisherfolk and others living in rural areas. These same groups have been vocal in rejecting geoengineering as a dangerous distraction that would violate their rights.
By their very nature, SRM technologies cannot be tested effectively for their impact on the global climate other than through large-scale scale deployment. Small experiments cannot demonstrate whether and how the technique really affects complex climate systems. Because of the time frame and complexity they demand there is no precedent in human history to give comfort that deployment of these technologies could ever be effectively governed. The risk of unilateral deployment and weaponization is real: private actors are financing research and a company has already carried out solar geoengineering experiments for profit.
For all these reasons, SRM, along with other forms of geoengineering, has been under a de facto moratorium through the Convention on Biological Diversity since 2010, and marine geoengineering techniques are the subject of a drive for increased regulation under the London Convention / London Protocol (LC/LP), where the first geoengineering ban – on ocean fertilization – arose. Hundreds of leading scientists from multi-disciplinary backgrounds and civil society movements are in agreement on the need for states to go further and commit to Non-Use of Solar Radiation Modification.
Given the extensive, often peer-reviewed work already undertaken by experts from diverse scientific backgrounds that have informed UN decisions to date, and the nature of those findings and their scientific conclusions, we question the outcomes that would arise from establishing an expert group as per the proposal in the resolution put forward to UNEA6 by Switzerland, Monaco, Guinea, and co-sponsored by Georgia and Israel. Discussion of SRM in the manner proposed by the resolution could inadvertently undermine decisions of the CBD and LC/LP, and risks legitimizing SRM technology, while giving cover to large emitters to slow-walk the phase-out of fossil fuels.
The broad range of diverse risks that solar geoengineering entails cannot be narrowed only to environmental dimensions, which is the remit of UNEP. We also note with concern that the UNEP-sponsored ‘One Atmosphere’ report has not been peer-reviewed, does not follow IPCC standards and has not in fact been endorsed by UNEP. It controversially recommends increasing research and open-air experiments, which would only help further the development of solar geoengineering.
States at UNEA6 should focus on firmly recalling and strengthening existing decisions under the CBD and LP/LC, upholding the precautionary principle, and rights of Free Prior Informed Consent, access to information, public participation, and access to justice and remedy. In doing so, States are expected to comply with long-standing norms of international environmental law such as the obligations not to cause transboundary environmental harm and to ensure the harmless use of their territory.
Furthermore, States should acknowledge the risks posed by these most dystopian technologies by stepping up and committing to the Non-Use of Solar Geoengineering. The decision of the African Ministerial Conference on the Environment calling for a global SRM Non-Use governance mechanism shows important leadership as does the European Parliament’s explicit call to “initiate a non-use agreement at international level, in accordance with the precautionary principle and in the absence of evidence of its safety and a full global consensus on its acceptability.” The further debate of disruptive planetary technofixes is truly a dangerous distraction from the real and urgent task of tackling the root causes of the climate crisis.
Recommendations for action at UNEA 6
o Do not endorse the creation of an expert group;
o Encourage States to endorse the call for the establishment of a Solar Geoengineering Non-Use Agreement;
o Reaffirm a strong precautionary principle approach in relation to solar geoengineering;
o Ensure meaningful consultation, and that Free Prior and Informed Consent is obtained in relation to the undertaking of any projects that affect Indigenous Peoples’ rights to land, territory and resources;
o Ensure access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice and other remedies to the conduct of activities, including experiments, research and decision-making on solar geoengineering, as per the provisions of the Aarhus Convention and Escazu Agreement.
o Reaffirm CBD and LC/LP decisions and emphasize the need to prevent open-air solar geoengineering experiments;
o Call on CBD to ask States to implement Decision CBD X/33.8 (w) and to ask Parties to report on measures taken in accordance with this decision;
o Call on Contracting Parties to the London Convention to enable the 2013 amendment to the London Protocol as per Resolution LP.4(8) to enter into force, and uphold its provisions prior to its entering into force;
Links to resources for further information
o Solar Geoengineering Non-Use Agreement (SGNUA)
o SGNUA Solar Geoengineering Briefing Note
o CIEL Geoengineering and Human Rights briefing
o CAN-International position on Solar Radiation Modification
o African Ministerial Conference on the Environment/19/6 Decision 19/5 Climate Change
o European Parliament Resolution 2023/2636 (RSP)
o Why SRM experiments are a bad idea
o Experimentation on solar geoengineering will not be allowed in Mexico
o Media briefing: Debunking Solar Geoengineering
o Media briefing: 100 countries affirm intention to regulate marine geoengineering
o Stop solar geoengineering – resistance to solar geoengineering outdoor experimentation
o CAN-I Debunking Dangerous Distractions: Solar Radiation Modification
This briefing is endorsed by:
Error! Filename not specified.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/1173052042.4101137.1709388002148%40email.ionos.co.uk.
Tom Goreau
Socrates could have told you there is no hope at all with this kind of “leadership”. When Alexander the Great tried to attract Diogenes’ attention while he lay on the plaza stones trying to warm up in the sun, Diogenes said “Move, you’re blocking my light!”.
The problem is not lack of collective knowledge, it’s lack of wisdom by the self-anointed “leaders” who bought, stabbed, or licked their way up the greasy pole of success.
The scum floats to the top, that’s why we have killers, thieves, and sexual molesters like putin, trump, and MBS destroying the future, sieg-heiled as leaders by brainwashed fools for the pennies they toss them.
Truth to power does not work with those who despise truth and can’t recognize it.
From:
H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com>
Date: Saturday, March 2, 2024 at 7:06 AM
To: Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>
Cc: robert...@gmail.com <robert...@gmail.com>, Suzanne Reed <csuzann...@gmail.com>, healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Inadvertent Climate Modification
Tom,
You’ve posted frequently that it was a combination of government stupidity, greed, corruption and ignorance that has directly led us to our present state of planetary precarity.
Reflecting back on those critical years do you think the paralyzing inaction that occurred could have been - and possibly still could be - ameliorated by some combination of more enlightened leaders, broader public awareness, a less effective fossil fuel lobby or any other factors that come to mind.
Or was it and is it inevitable that the inherent nature of this most unprecedented and extreme collective action problem has inevitably led to a world on the precipice of collapse?
Herb
Herb Simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future
“A SciencePoem and an Inspiration.” Kim Stanley Robinson
@herbsimmens
HerbSimmens.com
On Mar 2, 2024, at 6:24 AM, Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org> wrote:
The fossil fuel phase out strategy, essential though it is, can’t possibly happen quickly enough to prevent dangerous overshoot, not because of lack of scientific knowledge but because of ignorance, stupidity, greed, and corruption at the government and funding agency decision making level.
It could have worked in the late 1980s when the scientific community first brought these concerns to governments in the First Geotherapy Conference in Lyon BEFORE the UNCCC was negotiated.
Governments ignored all the warnings, and it is their never ending obfuscation, prevarication, diddling delays, and refusal to deal with the issue for 35 years that have now made the phase out strategy too little too late to do the job by itself, and makes much more serious measures essential.
This 1971 book was one of the first such warnings that our lack of foresight would do us in!:
Jeff Suchon
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/BY3PR13MB4994063F02E108C41D9C6F96DD5D2%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.
Robin Collins
My reading is that the naysayers to SRM are generally ideologically opposed to “human climate engineering” on one hand but also do not actually accept the urgency of the situation. As a result they have slid into a kind of denialism, equating SRM to being opposed to the carbon transition. It is ironic, and a very conservative position they are advocating, given the previous form of denial (climate change itself) was coming from a very different camp.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/cc09c148-8233-4c9d-8647-bda79b3e7c75%40gmail.com.
Tom Goreau
Magic silver bullets that download sense into their addled brains, and censor their lies?
Error! Filename not specified.
Jeff Suchon
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAKes%3DnFD%3DGS3cLTrhvNzBmP2GGfsUYxNPGr3Eguzwxa-mNovrQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Jeff Suchon
Robert Chris
Tom, I couldn't disagree with you more about our leaders with addled brains, being scum, killers, thieves, sexual molesters, greedy, ignorant, stupid and corrupt - have I missed anything out? Oh yes, who bought, stabbed or licked their way to power.
I don't doubt that some individuals (you name three) meet some of these descriptions, but I do not believe that it is true of the vast majority of people in power, whether in public or private service. By far the great majority are diligently following the established paths that our various social systems have created for this purpose. The reason it's difficult for them to adopt behaviours that are radically different from established practice (e.g. retiring all fossil fuels or promoting SRM) is that to do so would risk them losing their positions of power and then they wouldn't be able to do anything. We shouldn't forget that the vast majority of people do not want their lives disrupted in the ways that effectively confronting climate change would entail. Our leaders are following our lead. The consequence is that the system obliges them to exalt the conservation of existing practice and reject anything that might threaten it. Change threatens it, and significant change threatens it significantly.
So, yes, there may be a few bad apples but
they are not the reason we failed, and continue to fail, to deal
with climate change when it was much easier to deal with. The
cause of that is systemic and cannot be blamed on any
individuals. The question now is whether we have lost the
capacity to pull ourselves back from the precipice or are now
destined to go over it. That can't be predicted, but from where
I'm sitting, the omens don't look good.
Robert
Jeff Suchon
Ronal Larson
On Mar 2, 2024, at 4:24 AM, Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org> wrote:
The fossil fuel phase out strategy, essential though it is, can’t possibly happen quickly enough to prevent dangerous overshoot, not because of lack of scientific knowledge but because of ignorance, stupidity, greed, and corruption at the government and funding agency decision making level.It could have worked in the late 1980s when the scientific community first brought these concerns to governments in the First Geotherapy Conference in Lyon BEFORE the UNCCC was negotiated.Governments ignored all the warnings, and it is their never ending obfuscation, prevarication, diddling delays, and refusal to deal with the issue for 35 years that have now made the phase out strategy too little too late to do the job by itself, and makes much more serious measures essential.This 1971 book was one of the first such warnings that our lack of foresight would do us in!:
<image001.png>
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/BY3PR13MB4994949E409A99EB0A24E151DD5D2%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.
Jeff Suchon
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/BCC40736-B0A2-436C-942D-7165D421CAAD%40comcast.net.
Michael MacCracken
Hi Tom--Very well said. I too remember the book
well. There was also the President's Science Advisory Council
(PSAC) report from 1965 (copy attached) that was discussed at
Cabinet and Congressional levels, a SCEP book (Study of Critical
Environmental Problems) with the opening section on climate
change in 1970, and a National Academy Report in 1975 (see
photos below). The issue has been quite well understood for a
long time, and as you note, the scientific warnings were
ignored--instead of reacting to the risks (which society
normally prepares for, like designing for the 100-year flood),
the fossil fuel and other communities insisted on reducing
uncertainties and so research programs were started and
continued on and on with very little action. Then there is also
the book by Gus Speth, titled "They Knew: The US Federal
Government's Fifty-Year Role in Causing the Climate Crisis" that
goes through the history of all of this, prepared originally in
support of the Youth vs. Go lawsuit that the Department of
Justice has been doing everything to avoid going to trials now
for nearly a decade (see ourchildrenstrust.org).
Mike MacCracken
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/BY3PR13MB4994949E409A99EB0A24E151DD5D2%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.
Tom Goreau
Thanks, Mike!
Roger Revelle was the key mover behind all these efforts, not Herbert York.
Revelle was prevented from becoming Chancellor of the University of California at San Diego, a university he nearly single handedly founded, and replaced by York for political reasons.
Revelle left San Diego in the early 1960s and moved to Harvard where he set up the Center for Population Studies,, with a very strong environmental focus.
Roger was the very first person I met when I came to the US for college. He advised my father, who measured CO2 and O2 atmosphere-ocean exchange rates at Bikini Atoll in 1947. They were already trying to measure changes to the global carbon cycle in 1947!
Richard Garwin may be the only original author who is still alive.
Best wishes,
Tom
Tom Goreau
Massive unauthorized ocean fertilization experiment now underway!
Houthis sink ship loaded with ammonium nitrate fertilizer.
This is the stuff that blew up Beirut.
It’s effects on chlorophyll will tell us if a tanker full of fertilizer can “launch a new Ice Age”, as some claim:
UK-owned ship attacked by Houthis sinks off Yemen coast
2 hours ago
Share
By Lipika PelhamBBC News
BBC
The Rubymar is the first ship to have been sunk by the Houthis
A British-registered cargo ship has sunk two weeks after being attacked by Houthis in the Gulf of Aden.
Yemen's government said the Rubymar was drifting and taking on water for days before it sank.
It is the first ship to have been sunk by the Iran-backed rebels in Yemen since they began targeting vessels in the Red Sea.
The ship was reportedly carrying fertilisers and experts say the sinking risks "an environmental catastrophe".
The Rubymar was in the Gulf of Aden near the Bab al-Mandab Strait when it was hit by two missiles fired by Yemen-based Houthi rebels.
Ten days ago, the British government said that the vessel had been taking in water and all its 24 crew had been rescued.
The BBC obtained an image of the ship on 21 February, which showed it submerged at the stern, but still afloat.
The vessel's owners said at the time that it was being towed to nearby Djibouti but could yet sink. It said it was unable to confirm it had given there was no one aboard.
The vessel was flying under a Belize flag and operated by a Lebanese firm. It is believed to have been carrying a cargo of ammonium nitrate fertiliser.
The prime minister of Yemen's internationally recognised government, Ahmed Awad Bin Mubarak, called the ship's sinking "an unprecedented environmental disaster".
Greenpeace said a spill of ammonium nitrate could have "significant impacts on marine ecosystems".
Since November, the Houthi rebels have been carrying out attacks on ships linked to Israel in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, saying their actions are in support of the Palestinians in Gaza.
Source: Acled, December 2023
The US and the UK have carried out a series of attacks on Houthi targets inside Yemen in response.
On Saturday, the UK Maritime Trade body, UKMTO, said it had received a report of a ship being attacked west of Yemen's port of Mokha.
The UKMTO said: "The crew took the vessel to anchor and were evacuated by military authorities".
Separately, the UKMTO reported a ship sinking, close to where the Rubymar was last seen.
The US Central Command said it carried out "a self-defence strike" against a Houthi surface-to-air missile that was about to be launched from Yemen.
The command said the missile had presented an imminent threat to US aircraft.
The rebels' attacks on merchant vessels in the Red Sea have prompted many shipping companies to stop using the waterway, through which about 12% of global seaborne trade passes.
Despite more than a month of air strikes against Houthi targets by the US-led naval coalition, the rebels remain capable of carrying out significant attacks.
They insist the attacks will continue until Israel stops its military campaign against Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
Anderson, Paul
It will be better if a statement about possible future CLIMATE impacts of this “experiment” are made by our experts on ocean fertilization instead of being left to speculative comments by media and the general public. Please post all such statements to our discussion groups.
Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: psan...@ilstu.edu Skype: paultlud Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434
Website: https://woodgas.com see Resources page for 2023 “Roadmap for Climate Intervention with Biochar” and 2020 white paper, 2) RoCC kilns, and 3) TLUD stove technology.
From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
On Behalf Of Tom Goreau
Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2024 1:14 PM
To: CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com> <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: Michael MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net>; robert...@gmail.com; Suzanne Reed <csuzann...@gmail.com>; H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com>
Subject: [HPAC] Massive unauthorized ocean fertilization experiment now underway
|
This message originated from outside of the Illinois State University email system. Learn why this is important |
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/BY3PR13MB49949C35574182780DBFD0FDDD5D2%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.
Gregory Slater
On Mar 2, 2024, at 11:13 AM, Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org> wrote:
Massive unauthorized ocean fertilization experiment now underway!Houthis sink ship loaded with ammonium nitrate fertilizer.This is the stuff that blew up Beirut.It’s effects on chlorophyll will tell us if a tanker full of fertilizer can “launch a new Ice Age”, as some claim:UK-owned ship attacked by Houthis sinks off Yemen coast2 hours agoShareBy Lipika PelhamBBC News
<image001.png>BBC
The Rubymar is the first ship to have been sunk by the HouthisA British-registered cargo ship has sunk two weeks after being attacked by Houthis in the Gulf of Aden.Yemen's government said the Rubymar was drifting and taking on water for days before it sank.It is the first ship to have been sunk by the Iran-backed rebels in Yemen since they began targeting vessels in the Red Sea.The ship was reportedly carrying fertilisers and experts say the sinking risks "an environmental catastrophe".The Rubymar was in the Gulf of Aden near the Bab al-Mandab Strait when it was hit by two missiles fired by Yemen-based Houthi rebels.Ten days ago, the British government said that the vessel had been taking in water and all its 24 crew had been rescued.The BBC obtained an image of the ship on 21 February, which showed it submerged at the stern, but still afloat.The vessel's owners said at the time that it was being towed to nearby Djibouti but could yet sink. It said it was unable to confirm it had given there was no one aboard.The vessel was flying under a Belize flag and operated by a Lebanese firm. It is believed to have been carrying a cargo of ammonium nitrate fertiliser.The prime minister of Yemen's internationally recognised government, Ahmed Awad Bin Mubarak, called the ship's sinking "an unprecedented environmental disaster".Greenpeace said a spill of ammonium nitrate could have "significant impacts on marine ecosystems".Since November, the Houthi rebels have been carrying out attacks on ships linked to Israel in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, saying their actions are in support of the Palestinians in Gaza.
<image002.png>
Source: Acled, December 2023The US and the UK have carried out a series of attacks on Houthi targets inside Yemen in response.On Saturday, the UK Maritime Trade body, UKMTO, said it had received a report of a ship being attacked west of Yemen's port of Mokha.The UKMTO said: "The crew took the vessel to anchor and were evacuated by military authorities".Separately, the UKMTO reported a ship sinking, close to where the Rubymar was last seen.The US Central Command said it carried out "a self-defence strike" against a Houthi surface-to-air missile that was about to be launched from Yemen.The command said the missile had presented an imminent threat to US aircraft.The rebels' attacks on merchant vessels in the Red Sea have prompted many shipping companies to stop using the waterway, through which about 12% of global seaborne trade passes.Despite more than a month of air strikes against Houthi targets by the US-led naval coalition, the rebels remain capable of carrying out significant attacks.They insist the attacks will continue until Israel stops its military campaign against Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/BY3PR13MB49949C35574182780DBFD0FDDD5D2%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.
Suzanne Reed
Tom Goreau
You’d have to pay Houthis “protection money”, for CDR to be monitored with sediment traps.
Satellite chlorophyll may be all we have, not sure if that is available in near real time?
From:
Gregory Slater <ten...@gmail.com>
Date: Saturday, March 2, 2024 at 2:58
PM
Jeff Suchon
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/BY3PR13MB49949C1C06FF91360FE69EA9DD5D2%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.
Mike Williamson
Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2024 12:07 PM
To: Jeff Suchon <ecom...@gmail.com>
Cc: Robin Collins <robin.w...@gmail.com>; Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com>; H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [HPAC] (geo] UNEA6 fails to adopt SRM resolution
Jeff Suchon
Jeff Suchon
Gregory Slater
Tom Goreau
Wouldn’t you have guessed? The Bab el Mandeb is a black hole in the “near real time satellite maps”! So we’ll not know for a LONG time if they start an Ice Age in Yemen.
Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD
President, Global Coral Reef Alliance
Chief Scientist, Blue Regeneration SL
President, Biorock Technology Inc.
Technical Advisor, Blue Guardians Programme, SIDS DOCK
37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139
gor...@globalcoral.org
www.globalcoral.org
Skype: tomgoreau
Tel: (1) 617-864-4226 (leave message)
Books:
Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration, Carbon Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 Increase
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466595392
Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466557734
Geotherapy: Regenerating ecosystem services to reverse climate change
No one can change the past, everybody can change the future
It’s much later than we think, especially if we don’t think
Those with their heads in the sand will see the light when global warming and sea level rise wash the beach away
“When you run to the rocks, the rocks will be melting, when you run to the sea, the sea will be boiling”, Peter Tosh, Jamaica’s greatest song writer
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/BY3PR13MB49949C1C06FF91360FE69EA9DD5D2%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.
Jeff Suchon
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/BY3PR13MB4994241C15C62E5C4E5BAD27DD5D2%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.
Jeff Suchon
Unless the local phytoplankton are N limited, there won't be a phyto N nutrrient response, but the hydration of ammonium nitrate does yield an acidic sollution, so posibly some local bio effects from that, not to mention loss of CO2 solubility as local seawater pH drops. Also about 10% of the added NH4+ will convert to NH3 as pH rises to about 8 with seawater dilution. That's not good for marine life. Another fun fact is that the hydration of NH4NO3 is endothermic, meaning that heat is consumed and the solution gets colder (the ingredient in cold packs). A nice, coldwater plume to observed from space? But NH4NO3 is usually stored in watertight containersso maybe only those hit in the attack will leak, but as sealed conainers sink they may implode depending on depth. Then there's the loss of food production via fertilizer loss. Anyway, humans - the grand experiment in sustainable co-existence continues.Greg
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/406666866.212170.1709421676792%40mail.yahoo.com.
Tom Goreau
There’s strong vertical stratification in the Bab el Mandeb and a complex pattern of seasonal mixing depending on whether water is flowing from the Red Sea or from the Gulf of Aden.
So without direct measurements of carbon and nitrogen transformations in the water it’ll be very hard to figure out where all this ammonium nitrate will end up, or if Martin was right that sinking a tanker full of iron as well as nitrogen will trigger re-glaciation of Greenland and Antarctica.:
Remote Sensing the Phytoplankton Seasonal Succession of the Red Sea
· Dionysios E. Raitsos ,
· Yaswant Pradhan ,
· Robert J. W. Brewin,
· Georgiy Stenchikov,
· Ibrahim Hoteit
- Published: June 5, 2013
- https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064909
Abstract
The Red Sea holds one of the most diverse marine ecosystems, primarily due to coral reefs. However, knowledge on large-scale phytoplankton dynamics is limited. Analysis of a 10-year high resolution Chlorophyll-a (Chl-a) dataset, along with remotely-sensed sea surface temperature and wind, provided a detailed description of the spatiotemporal seasonal succession of phytoplankton biomass in the Red Sea. Based on MODIS (Moderate-resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) data, four distinct Red Sea provinces and seasons are suggested, covering the major patterns of surface phytoplankton production. The Red Sea Chl-a depicts a distinct seasonality with maximum concentrations seen during the winter time (attributed to vertical mixing in the north and wind-induced horizontal intrusion of nutrient-rich water in the south), and minimum concentrations during the summer (associated with strong seasonal stratification). The initiation of the seasonal succession occurs in autumn and lasts until early spring. However, weekly Chl-a seasonal succession data revealed that during the month of June, consistent anti-cyclonic eddies transfer nutrients and/or Chl-a to the open waters of the central Red Sea. This phenomenon occurs during the stratified nutrient depleted season, and thus could provide an important source of nutrients to the open waters. Remotely-sensed synoptic observations highlight that Chl-a does not increase regularly from north to south as previously thought. The Northern part of the Central Red Sea province appears to be the most oligotrophic area (opposed to southern and northern domains). This is likely due to the absence of strong mixing, which is apparent at the northern end of the Red Sea, and low nutrient intrusion in comparison with the southern end. Although the Red Sea is considered an oligotrophic sea, sporadic blooms occur that reach mesotrophic levels. The water temperature and the prevailing winds control the nutrient concentrations within the euphotic zone and enable the horizontal transportation of nutrients.
From:
Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Saturday, March 2, 2024 at 6:21
PM
To: Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>, Gregory Slater <ten...@gmail.com>
Cc: CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>, healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>, Michael MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net>, robert...@gmail.com <robert...@gmail.com>,
Suzanne Reed <csuzann...@gmail.com>, H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [CDR] Re: [HPAC] Massive unauthorized ocean fertilization experiment now underway
Unless the local phytoplankton are N limited, there won't be a phyto N nutrrient response, but the hydration of ammonium nitrate does yield an acidic sollution, so posibly some local bio effects from that, not to mention loss of CO2 solubility as local seawater pH drops. Also about 10% of the added NH4+ will convert to NH3 as pH rises to about 8 with seawater dilution. That's not good for marine life. Another fun fact is that the hydration of NH4NO3 is endothermic, meaning that heat is consumed and the solution gets colder (the ingredient in cold packs). A nice, coldwater plume to observed from space? But NH4NO3 is usually stored in watertight containers
so maybe only those hit in the attack will leak, but as sealed conainers sink they may implode depending on depth. Then there's the loss of food production via fertilizer loss. Anyway, humans - the grand experiment in sustainable co-existence continues.
Greg
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
Tom Goreau
Robert, perhaps you think the devils you don’t know are not as bad as the ones you do know, and some other country must have perfect paragon politicians. Can you name one?
In most countries there are one or two politicians who simply can’t be bought, but rarely more! People attracted to money and power are the least to be trusted, they’d sell their own Mother Earth to the first bidder, not even wait for the highest.
I’ve dived in more than 50 countries, and while I avoid politics or religion, I find people in every country quickly let you know that they despise their politicians, and are perversely proud that they have the most thieving and ingeniously corrupt on Earth. But that’s just because they don’t know other countries!
Not many countries can boast that 100% of their elected officials are provably corrupt. In the Enron Bush financial scandals all but a small handful of all US Congressmen and Senators took money directly from Enron, and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM TOOK MONEY FROM THE ACCOUNTING FIRM THAT FALSIFIED ENRON’S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS!
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/b622bcd7-edab-4526-a370-7e29eeba4ea1%40gmail.com.
Jeff Suchon
Jeff Suchon
Chris Vivian
Robert,
Your criticism of Janos Pasztor is unwarranted as C2G was deliberately set up NOT to advocate climate-altering techniques or interventions but to advocate the need for effective governance. If you want to criticise anyone, you should criticise The Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs who set up the C2G project.
Chris.
From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of rob...@rtulip.net
Sent: Friday, March 1, 2024 3:42 AM
To: 'H simmens' <hsim...@gmail.com>; 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; 'Planetary Restoration' <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: [HPAC] (geo] UNEA6 fails to adopt SRM resolution
Thanks Herb for bringing these issues to attention. This failure at UNEA6 gives cause for pause to reflect on the strategic context. I agree with Pasztor’s analysis, except for his comment that “addressing issues of SRM are not about “normalizing” this technique.” This comment reflects the tactical decision of C2G and similar groups like the Overshoot Commission to adopt a lukewarm position of confusion and equivocation that fails to advocate the need for higher albedo. As a result, there is no effective lobby to counter the strident bullying disinformation from the opposition. It is essential to normalise conversation about geoengineering, since the attitude that treats it as bizarre can easily dismiss all discussion of albedo without analysis or debate. This is why the opponents are so intent on preventing normalisation, since any step toward engagement could lead their brittle ideology to collapse.
One voice of support in this UNEP debate is the Degrees Initiative - https://www.degrees.ngo/the-degrees-initiative-statement-on-draft-srm-resolution/ - calling for voices from the global south to be heard in support of SRM research, but without any clear statement of the problem.
Obviously no advocates of a brighter world had the organisation or funding to engage at UNEA6. However, those who accept darkening present a range of spurious arguments.
https://www.oceancare.org/en/stories_and_news/protecting-marine-ecosystems-and-geoengineering-pandoras-box-on-the-agenda-of-un-environment-ministers/ states, quite absurdly “Solar radiation modification technologies risk further destabilising an already deeply disturbed climate system, threatening to exacerbate uncontrolled shifts in regional climate and weather, biodiversity loss, food security, global injustice, and human rights abuses for generations to come.” This is so far from any scientific perspective that it can only be understood as a kind of rhetorical ratchet, starting from an ideological standpoint and generating imaginary claims designed purely to advance the ideology without regard to facts. This whole style of argument reflects a purely polarised groupthink perspective on the world, a division of humanity into good and evil. They wrongly see interest in geoengineering as only explicable as the conspiracy of an evil cabal whose every utterance can be automatically dismissed. This political syndrome is as irrational as the QAnon Satanic pizza shop.
Even more pointedly insane is https://eeb.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Joint-Global-Statement-MGS-UNEA-6.pdf - the Joint Global Statement of Major Groups and Stakeholders for UNEA-6 presented by the Children and Youth, Indigenous Peoples, Farmers, Local Authorities, NGO, Science and Technology, Women, and Workers and Trade Unions Major Groups based on a series of International Consultations and the 20th Global Major Groups and Stakeholders Forum. It includes the attached statement against geoengineering, another calculated exercise in virulent disinformation and propaganda with such heavy emotional bullying that governments could hardly go against it in the absence of well organised advocacy.
The underlying problem here of dividing the world into good and evil camps is often described as Manichaeism, from the ancient religion of Persia that imagined evil as a cosmic principle in war against goodness and light. Just as communism understood the world as a class war between the good workers and the evil bosses, so too climate activism has its own distorted theology, with the allies of indigeneity on the side of the angels in war against the evil forces of fossil fuels. This simplistic mentality rejects suggestion of integration or reconciliation or dialogue between opposing views, and instead promotes an ideology of partisan conflict, rejecting everything from the other side in order to build support for the political victory of its own tribe. Unfortunately, that approach is unscientific, and as a result generates delusional views. This is especially the case in the climate wars. One of the hallmarks of climate activism is the assertion that their views align completely with science. Maintaining this false assertion requires a refusal to engage in any conversation or allow any platform that could suggest a lack of scientific rigor and evidence within the ideology of emission reduction alone.
In challenging polarised thinking, it is essential to respect the perspectives of opponents, especially the elements of truth that they use to combine with untrue arguments. In this regard the critiques made by Indigenous cultures have a powerful message. But that does not at all imply that respect requires complete assent to their opinions. In particular, I believe the Association of Small Island States could well be convinced to reverse its reported opposition to geoengineering, which is why the critics work so assiduously to prevent these nations from hearing scientific information that would change their minds.
Regards
Robert Tulip
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/04cb01da6b8a%247d6ec040%24784c40c0%24%40rtulip.net.
rob...@rtulip.net
Sorry Chris, your point about C2G does not make sense. You seem to imply that because C2G is constituted to make wrong arguments they are immune from criticism.
I respect Janos Pasztor, and am only criticising his argument that “addressing issues of SRM are not about “normalizing” this technique.”
What does this mean? The situation is that the world has an urgent need to normalize advocacy of SRM, replacing the current dangerous situation that treats all such discussion as abnormal.
Normalizing means to start to consider something as normal, as when disputing nations restore normal diplomatic relations. The current abnormal situation for SRM sees almost all advocacy frozen out of public discussion through a general agreement to cancel and non-platform the debate.
My view, which I contend is purely scientific, is that without higher albedo the world faces inevitable catastrophe. Therefore as a matter of urgence we must normalize advocacy of methods that can increase albedo. It seems quite abnormal to me, and excessively cautious, that C2G accepts language that rejects the normalization of cooling action.
Regards
Robert Tulip
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/106401da6e4d%246a68a130%243f39e390%24%40btinternet.com.
Alan Kerstein
As you emphasize Robert, the basic fact that should drive all climate policy is that without higher albedo [soon] the world faces inevitable catastrophe. Is the main cause of opposition to SRM that the opponents do not know this, or do they know it and yet oppose SRM? If it’s the former, which is my guess, then advocacy of SRM, however well justified, might be a needless distraction from the main priority of convincing people that without higher albedo [soon] the world faces inevitable catastrophe. I expect that this would result in a societal tipping point that would sweep away the SRM naysayers like a tidal wave. Indeed, we’re in a race between that tipping point and climate-induced tipping points. Basically I’m endorsing Jim Hansen’s approach of focusing on the problem, from which the solution should be obvious enough to most people.
Alan
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/054101da6ec3%24a759f6e0%24f60de4a0%24%40rtulip.net.
rob...@rtulip.net
Hi Alan
Thanks very much for your comment. If I can expand on it, you are pointing out that public and scientific ignorance about albedo is a primary stumbling block that is preventing broader recognition of the case for SRM. I would not agree that advocacy for SRM is a distraction, but take your point that SRM has to be presented within a simple rebrightening context.
You are correct about this strategic messaging problem. Most people have not even heard the word albedo, and need to have it explained to them when it comes up. Public opinion works by simple mass mythology, such as the myth that Emissions Reduction Alone could mitigate climate change. The entrenched status of this ERA myth easily excludes all discussion of SRM among climate activists and their supporters. And on the conservative side of politics, the myth that global warming is not caused by man equally functions to block advocacy of practical solutions.
I know calling ERA a myth is provocative, and I am not at all challenging carbon science. But two key points here are that tipping points are mainly about albedo, and that the long term need to fix the carbon cycle could well be achieved more by conversion of CO2 into useful products than by emission reduction. ERA is like a one foot levee for a twenty foot flood.
Both sides of the public debate are in denial of the science. This means that if we advocate SRM when peopled don’t even know what albedo is, let alone that it is in a state of collapse, we can’t get a hearing. Simpler terms like brightness, reflection, shininess, whiteness, etc can help, as well as more technical terms like reflectivity. Our group rebrighten.org has had some discussion about how to promote such simpler strategic messaging, saying the Earth is getting darker, a message that Hansen is promoting.
It is important to challenge the negative line of the anti-cooling activists that SRM is about dimming the Sun. The more accurate and positive message is that SRM will rebrighten the Earth.
I have been arguing for some time that albedo is a more tractable lever than carbon to slow global warming. By a tractable lever, I mean both that it is more effective and that it can ultimately gain better public acceptance. On effectiveness, I was pleased to see that the 2009 Royal Society Geoengineering Review argued that to stop warming, raising albedo could be 1000 times better value for money than emission reduction. This information has been out there for a long time, but it has not been presented simply and clearly enough, let alone to a mass audience. On the problem of gaining acceptance, the key observation is that ERA is a fantasy, and if we focus on the truth we will win the public ear. The ERA ideology is about to crumble. That is why its acolytes were so aggressive at UNEA6 in preventing the simple review of SRM. When more people understand the options on cost and effectiveness there will be a rapid switch.
As you mention, Jim Hansen is doing a superb job in generating strategic clarity. He wrote to me yesterday to clarify a question I asked about his 12 January communication, Global Warming Acceleration: Causes and Consequences. In that short paper he presented this graph (without the black line that I have added) and stated
“the large increase of global absorbed solar radiation since 2015 is a decrease of Earth’s albedo (reflectivity) by 0.4% (1.4/340).”
I pointed out to him that this calculation could be done differently. The world has 340 watts per square metre (w/m2) coming in from sunlight and about 100 w/m2 going out as albedo. Mean albedo has recently fallen by 1.4 w/m2. His denominator (bottom line) of sunlight (340 w/m2) can be replaced by albedo (100 w/m2). That would mean the fall in mean reflectivity is calculated at 1.4% (1.4/100) rather than 0.4% (1.4/340). This is a better way to present the data. His numerator (top line) of 1.4 w/m2 is also only a multi-year mean figure, while the latest spike is much worse.
Jim replied, saying “What's driving the climate is the 240 W/m2 of absorbed solar radiation. So you could argue that the most relevant change is 1.4/240. I don't think that it really matters, as long as you are clear. The most informative comparison is probably to the equivalent CO2 change, which is of the order of 100 ppm.”
I don’t understand his point here about the most informative comparison being to CO2, but welcome his recognition that both measures are acceptable. How I see it is that we should aim to present this data accurately in the ways that will provoke most discussion and interest and concern. Highlighting the collapse in albedo can help people to explore how albedo is a more serious climate problem in the short term than carbon, in view of the need to reverse the accelerating feedbacks.
I would say the most informative comparison is between current and past albedo, falling from about 100 to 98 w/m2 in the last few years. That conveniently equates albedo w/m2 to %, due to the coincidence that albedo was about 100 w/m2. Using the red mean line in Jim’s Figure 4 above, on this measure albedo has collapsed by 1.4% over the last decade. I believe it would be reasonable to argue that the collapse of albedo since 2013 is 2%, based on the black line I added to highlight the recent trendline.
There is a case to also note outliers that would make this figure even higher, as high as 3% since 2021. This could be a reasonable number to use given the obvious acceleration and the absence of mitigation. Leon Simons highlighted the extreme recent albedo collapse in a recent tweet.
Jim Hansen also wrote in this paper “This reduced albedo is equivalent to a sudden increase of atmospheric CO2 from 420 to 530 ppm.” That calculation is extremely important in developing a fungible metric for cooling effects, to help justify a possible system of radiative forcing credits.
Getting a proper understanding of the role of clouds and ice and aerosols in albedo collapse still seems to be a work in progress.
I am trying to simplify complex scientific information and have only a general grasp of the issues, so welcome challenge and correction where needed.
Regards
Robert Tulip
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CAH-gPYE7S-agKBA8QpmbndsaxhRmX8HZwvY3d7QahEA8xS1MvA%40mail.gmail.com.
Tom Goreau
Satellite chlorophyll maps don’t show signs of massive blooms after sinking a rusty steel tanker full of ammonium nitrate.
Note the area is chock full of wind-blown iron dust from the Sahara and Arabia.
This does not appear promising for Ocean Fertilization CDR?
Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD
President, Global Coral Reef Alliance
Chief Scientist, Blue Regeneration SL
President, Biorock Technology Inc.
Technical Advisor, Blue Guardians Programme, SIDS DOCK
37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139
gor...@globalcoral.org
www.globalcoral.org
Skype: tomgoreau
Tel: (1) 617-864-4226 (leave message)
Books:
Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration, Carbon Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 Increase
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466595392
Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466557734
Geotherapy: Regenerating ecosystem services to reverse climate change
No one can change the past, everybody can change the future
It’s much later than we think, especially if we don’t think
Those with their heads in the sand will see the light when global warming and sea level rise wash the beach away
“When you run to the rocks, the rocks will be melting, when you run to the sea, the sea will be boiling”, Peter Tosh, Jamaica’s greatest song writer
David Price
On 31 Mar 2024, at 08:27, Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org> wrote:
<image001.png>BBC
The Rubymar is the first ship to have been sunk by the Houthis
A British-registered cargo ship has sunk two weeks after being attacked by Houthis in the Gulf of Aden.
Yemen's government said the Rubymar was drifting and taking on water for days before it sank.
It is the first ship to have been sunk by the Iran-backed rebels in Yemen since they began targeting vessels in the Red Sea.
The ship was reportedly carrying fertilisers and experts say the sinking risks "an environmental catastrophe".
The Rubymar was in the Gulf of Aden near the Bab al-Mandab Strait when it was hit by two missiles fired by Yemen-based Houthi rebels.
Ten days ago, the British government said that the vessel had been taking in water and all its 24 crew had been rescued.
The BBC obtained an image of the ship on 21 February, which showed it submerged at the stern, but still afloat.
The vessel's owners said at the time that it was being towed to nearby Djibouti but could yet sink. It said it was unable to confirm it had given there was no one aboard.
The vessel was flying under a Belize flag and operated by a Lebanese firm. It is believed to have been carrying a cargo of ammonium nitrate fertiliser.
The prime minister of Yemen's internationally recognised government, Ahmed Awad Bin Mubarak, called the ship's sinking "an unprecedented environmental disaster".
Greenpeace said a spill of ammonium nitrate could have "significant impacts on marine ecosystems".
Since November, the Houthi rebels have been carrying out attacks on ships linked to Israel in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, saying their actions are in support of the Palestinians in Gaza.
<image002.png>
Source: Acled, December 2023
The US and the UK have carried out a series of attacks on Houthi targets inside Yemen in response.
On Saturday, the UK Maritime Trade body, UKMTO, said it had received a report of a ship being attacked west of Yemen's port of Mokha.
The UKMTO said: "The crew took the vessel to anchor and were evacuated by military authorities".
Separately, the UKMTO reported a ship sinking, close to where the Rubymar was last seen.
The US Central Command said it carried out "a self-defence strike" against a Houthi surface-to-air missile that was about to be launched from Yemen.
The command said the missile had presented an imminent threat to US aircraft.
The rebels' attacks on merchant vessels in the Red Sea have prompted many shipping companies to stop using the waterway, through which about 12% of global seaborne trade passes.
Despite more than a month of air strikes against Houthi targets by the US-led naval coalition, the rebels remain capable of carrying out significant attacks.
They insist the attacks will continue until Israel stops its military campaign against Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/BY3PR13MB4994A08C459C43D58A42C59FDD382%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.
Tom Goreau
To be sure it will be a mystery until one is able to dive on the site to see, not soon under the current conditions!
From:
David Price <da...@pricenet.ca>
Date: Sunday, March 31, 2024 at 11:52
AM
Tom Goreau
Probably nitrogen and phosphorus.
From:
Brian Cady <brianc...@gmail.com>
Date: Sunday, March 31, 2024 at 4:32
PM
To: Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>
Cc: CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>, healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>, Michael MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net>, robert...@gmail.com <robert...@gmail.com>,
Suzanne Reed <csuzann...@gmail.com>, H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [CDR] No blooms after massive unauthorized ocean fertilization experiment now underway
What nutrients are limiting here?
Brian
-
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/BY3PR13MB4994A08C459C43D58A42C59FDD382%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.
Tom Goreau
No its not hypersaline at all, there is strong wind driven mixing across the shallow sill between the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean via the Gulf of Aden.
The incoming surface water from GA has an average salinity of 36.5psu and an average temperature of 26{28C while the lower layer outflow of the Red Sea deep water has an average salinity of 40.5psu and an average temperature of 21.5C.
From:
Michael Hayes <electro...@gmail.com>
Date: Sunday, March 31, 2024 at 4:55
PM
To: Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>
Cc: David Price <da...@pricenet.ca>, Carbon Dioxide Removal <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>, healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>, Michael MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net>, Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com>,
Suzanne Reed <csuzann...@gmail.com>, H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [CDR] Re: [HPAC] No blooms after massive unauthorized ocean fertilization experiment now underway
Tom, I looked into the biochem details of that particular area.
Bab-el-Mandeb is hypersaline and thus the native microbial life may not be in need of the ammonium. Salinity directly affects the release of ammonium from sediment particles through ion exchange and thus the local biota is likely accustomed to rather high levels.
If anything, any released fertilizer would likely be toxic. Also, if/when a large release happens, I would watch further up into the Red sea for a new or expanded dead zone as that is the direction of the current....or an unlikely biotic bloom.
Effect of salinity on nitrification efficiency and structure of ammonia-oxidizing bacterial communities in a submerged fixed bed bioreactor
Cortés-Lorenzo a b, M. Rodríguez-Díaz a, D. Sipkema b, B. Juárez-Jiménez a, B. Rodelas a, H. Smidt b, J. González-López
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1385894714017069
Thanks for spurring on the very interesting reading.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/BY3PR13MB49948DFB354CC310815FA0C3DD382%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.
Tom Goreau
During the Ice Ages the Red Sea was cut off from the Indian Ocean and the Red Sea became saltier, but not by very much:
Red Sea outflow during the last glacial maximum
E.J. Rohling ∗, W.J. Zachariasse †
Show more
https://doi.org/10.1016/1040-6182(95)00023-CGet rights and content
Abstract
The Red Sea is connected to the Gulf of Aden, and hence to the Arabian Sea, via the Strait of Bab-el-Mandab, which is only about 20 km wide and 300 m deep. The shallowest part of the passage, however, lies about 140 km further basin-inward, near greater Hanish Island. That passage is only 137 m deep, while the channel deeper than 120 m is only 11 km wide. Foraminiferal and isotopic studies suggest that the inflow-outflow salinity contrast at Bab-el-Mandab was about 10‰ during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), compared with 3.1‰ at present. Calculation of maximal outflow during the LGM suggests that it was about 14% of the present-day value, while the density of this outflow was around 1035 kg m−3, compared to the modern value of about 1029 kg m−3. Therefore, it seems very likely that this outflow played no role of importance in the intermediate water ventilation of the Arabian Sea during the LGM. The Persian Gulf influence on this ventilation may be excluded as well, since the very shallow Persian Gulf was completely above sea level during the LGM. It is anticipated that, among other influences, LGM curtailment of these sources for intermediate depth ventilation should be reflected in the intensity and extent of the Oxygen Minimum Zone (OMZ) in the Arabian Sea. Other sources may have become important, such as northward penetration of Antarctic Intermediate Water. The Institute for Paleoenvironment and Paleoclimate Utrecht has recently participated in the 1992 Netherlands Indian Ocean Expedition, with the intention to determine Late Quaternary variations in the intensity and extent of the Arabian Sea OMZ in transects of cores recovered across its lower dept limit.
From:
Michael Hayes <electro...@gmail.com>
Date: Sunday, March 31, 2024 at 5:40 PM
To: Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>
Cc: David Price <da...@pricenet.ca>, Carbon Dioxide Removal <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>, healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>, Michael MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net>, Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com>,
Suzanne Reed <csuzann...@gmail.com>, H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [CDR] Re: [HPAC] No blooms after massive unauthorized ocean fertilization experiment now underway
If, a big IF, some form of OIF work gets seriously proposed and funded, using the post glacial time when massive amounts of organic biomass got flushed into the Red sea may work as some form of proxy.
Influence of seawater exchanges across the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait on sedimentation in the Southern Red Sea during the last 60 ka
Tom Goreau
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/BY3PR13MB4994A5D635F81B0150D96734DD382%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.
John Nissen
On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 11:40 AM H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com> wrote:
Mike Maccracken forwarded this commentary - thanks Mike - written by Janos Pasztor, the former Director of C2G, perhaps the most respected and prominent individual in the direct climate cooling space.It provides much needed insider information about what happened in Nairobi and the consequences of failure.Janos’ narrative provides a grim description of how the initial proposal by Switzerland was heavily watered down and yet still could not gain sufficient support to be adopted by the UNEA.I would rank what happened in Nairobi together with the Biden administration‘s refusal to support the SRM research report it prepared last June as the two most ominous cooling related events in the past year.
Herb
A missed opportunity at UNEA-6
The UN Environment Assembly, the governing body of the UN’s Environment Programme (#UNEP), is currently having its 6th session #unea6 in Nairobi.
Yesterday, it failed to approve a draft resolution on solar radiation modification (#SRM). The original draft called for a way to collect what is known about such techniques; creating an international repository; and have experts review that information. After a few days of negotiations, it ended up only asking that UNEP prepare options for a transparent, publicly available registry of information on who-is-doing-what on SRM.
Yesterday, in the last minute, even that reduced draft resolution did not get acceptance. This was a missed opportunity, one that will have negative impacts for the coming years – whether one is against or for SRM.
First, at a time when the world is heading into an increasingly likely, and potentially long period of temperature overshoot, and when different state and non-state actors are engaged in a range of SRM activities without the appropriate regulatory oversight, and often with no transparency, having impartial information from a trusted source on what is happening would have been very much needed.
Second, having such information available would have been an important input into discussions that governments as well as non-state actors really must have to enable them to make evidence-based decisions sooner or later whether to reject SRM, or accept SRM as part of the necessary response strategies to a prolonged overshoot situation.
Third, if UNEA /UNEP – the principal UN institution that is supposed to bring to the attention of governments emerging issues that have impacts on the environment - cannot get a mandate from governments to do this on emerging techniques like SRM, then this actually makes it more difficult for UNEA/UNEP to fulfil its fundamental mandate and thereby it weakens this key multilateral institution – at a time when in fact it needs to be strengthened.
Fourth, addressing issues of SRM are not about “normalizing” this technique, as some claim. It is simply about creating the evidence-base for governments to eventually make decisions on whether or not to make use of SRM to complement the priority emission reductions they must do, and to assess the risk sand other implications of making use of SRM versus not doing so. We know from inter alia the IPCC that there is a governance gap around SRM, in that whatever governance is there, it is neither robust nor comprehensive. The information that would have come from the proposed registry would have perhaps helped to better understand that gap. Putting one’s head in the sand and assuming that this issue does not exist is no way to deal with planetary resilience.
The international community has failed yesterday on this issue. It was a missed opportunity. I hope one way or another in UNEA/UNEP or elsewhere this issue can be revisited – and soon.Janos
☞ My latest [and last article authored as C2G Executive Director] on “SRM Governance in the Context of Temperature Overshoot”.
☞ ☞ You may also wish to listen to the Challenging Climate podcast’s 43rd episode with me, focussing on C2G’s work over the last 7 years.
=============================
Sent from my iPhone
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/79CAC03D-7006-47FE-A8E4-3463FB347076%40pasztor.net.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/32440B79-5BF7-4307-8CE6-1A0D8F6B5FC8%40gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAE0%3DaUBzsjoJFhCUr8%2BZwyg%3Dz9wAUsty6jJ-T6s2mO5DwLzs-w%40mail.gmail.com.
Jeff Suchon
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CACS_FxqOJffFtW6dkf9XvvzW%3D5E_XNT7pVO6e3NT7G%2B_OgovWg%40mail.gmail.com.