Temple, James: 'These startups hope to spray iron particles above the ocean to fight climate change'

[Brian Cady]

Climate change

'The intervention may break down methane, mimicking a phenomenon that could have amplified ice ages. But scientists say far more basic research still needs to be done.'

February 15, 2023

https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/02/15/1068495/these-startups-hope-to-spray-iron-particles-above-the-ocean-to-fight-climate-change/

Brian

-

[rob...@rtulip.net]

This article by James Temple provides a professional overview of efforts to commercialise Iron Salt Aerosol (ISA).

 

https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/02/15/1068495/these-startups-hope-to-spray-iron-particles-above-the-ocean-to-fight-climate-change/

 

It discusses cooling effects of ISA including methane removal, ocean iron fertilization and marine cloud brightening.   The article comments that a marine cloud brightening effect “would muddy the line between greenhouse-gas removal and the more controversial field of solar geoengineering.”  My view is that taking this as a criticism shows the incoherence in popular understanding of climate science.  If marine cloud brightening could be a fast, safe, cheap and effective way to mitigate dangerous warming, field research of ISA could be a great way to test this.  Solar geoengineering is no more controversial than ocean iron fertilization, given that both are under a de facto ban on field research. 

 

The article comments that “if it brightened marine clouds, it would likely draw greater scrutiny given the sensitivity around geoengineering approaches that aim to achieve cooling by reflecting away sunlight.”  It may prove to be the case that ISA could only be deployed by an intergovernmental planetary cooling agreement of the scale of the Bretton Woods Agreement of 1944 to establish the IMF and World Bank.  In that governance scenario, the scrutiny placed on all cooling technologies will be intense regardless of the balance of effects between brightening and greenhouse gas removal.

 

I disagree with the scientists quoted in the article who oppose field tests. That is a dangerous and complacent attitude, failing to give due weight to the risks of sudden tipping points that can only be prevented by albedo enhancement and GHG removal at scale.  Learning by doing is the most safe and effective strategy.  If there are unexpected effects it is easy to stop the trials.  The only risk of well governed field tests is that they would provide information to justify a slower transition from fossil fuels.  On balance that is not a serious risk, given that emissions are expected to continue regardless of climate concerns.  Cooling technologies are essential to balance the ongoing heating, the sooner the better.

 

I was pleased that the article included my comment that our company decided not to pursue our ISA field test proposal because the overall political governance framework is not ready to support this form of geoengineering.  This illustrates that strategic discussion of ethics and governance will need to be far more advanced before any geoengineering deployment is possible. I explored these moral themes in a recent discussion note published by the Healthy Planet Action Coalition.

 

Robert Tulip

[Michael Hayes]

How does this relate to CDR?

How are already over nutrified waters protectected from the iron or the second order effects of the iron? 

Has the iron being lofted into the air been modeled in relationship to the Global Electrical Circuit? 

--
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/2bc901d942cd%248ee19e60%24aca4db20%24%40rtulip.net.

[Peter Fiekowsky]

Robert-

Good point about the scientists uniformly calling for delaying implementation, essentially indefinitely, since they don't offer any criteria for actually starting to restore safe methane levels and protect against a methane burst.

Do you think this is an ethical issue? Doubling the methane oxidation rate would result, in 5 years, in methane levels cut roughly in half--bringing warming back to roughly 2002 levels. This would likely save a million lives a year lost in the severe hurricanes, floods, wildfires and droughts we have now. And if today's methane burst gets serious, it could also save a quarter, or even all of humanity from the kind of extinction event that happened last time our planet lost the Arctic sea ice. 

Even if it's only a 1% chance that history repeats itself (warming is now happening 10 times faster than during the previous methane burst called the PETM), statistically that's 8 billion people divided by a 1/1000 probability, or 8 million people we could save.

Is it ethical for climate scientists to make the same claims that health scientists made for tobacco companies and later that oil company scientists made about climate actions--that we need undefined "more research" before acting?

Should we establish a climate ethics committee to discuss this issue publicly?

Peter

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Climate Alliance" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-climate-al...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-climate-alliance/2bc901d942cd%248ee19e60%24aca4db20%24%40rtulip.net.

[Michael MacCracken]

Dear Peter--A couple of comments:

1. What reducing methane emissions would do is to reduce the radiative forcing over the ensuing decade or two. With the heat from the higher levels having built up in the ocean, the time for recovery of the temperature (and climate)  is longer, so until the heat comes back out of the ocean and is radiated to space and/or the time it takes to be mixed into the deeper ocean so it is not affecting surface temperatures.

2. On behalf of scientists, let me say that our mantra is to focus on the facts of what has happened and what would be expected to happen under various types of situations/scenarios--and for statements about such aspects to be made by those who truly understand/research the issue (speculation by scientists needs to be made clear that it is speculation) and strengths and limits of findings (so uncertainties) should be listed. Like it or not, the role of the scientist is not to be an advocate or to think of themselves as decisionmakers (even though some of us might want to be kings or the equivalent)--it is the decisionmakers (so, for government, the elected leaders; and, as appropriate for the question, business leaders--though the capitalist system would say their main, or even only, role relates to finances of their investors). I do agree that how scientists phrase things, how they explain their decision framework, etc. can all be relevant, but is it not the choices that policymakers are (or are not) making decisions where the ethics enter in--for everyone but the elected decisionmakers, what they can do is mainly try to present useful information to decisionmakers, which is where the risk and ethical perspectives actually come into determining what actually happens? I'm just suggesting that actions need to be directed appropriately.

Best, Mike

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/CAEr4H2nDV%2BvPXnOFK3wJ5Kvn_hzZQwgLk%3DbJqMUXRXioygR%3DDQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[rob...@rtulip.net]

Replies appreciated.

 

It is obviously provocative for Peter Fiekowsky to compare views of climate scientists to claims that health scientists made for tobacco companies and that oil company scientists made about climate actions.

 

I think there is a real difference, in that climate scientists who disparage climate restoration honestly (but wrongly) believe that emission reduction augmented by some CDR could stabilise the climate, as presented in the IPCC consensus, and so are acting with integrity.  By contrast, tobacco and oil scientists display the Upton Sinclair syndrome, the psychological difficulty of getting someone to understand something when their income depends upon not understanding it.  To the extent climate scientists are committed to the ethical principles of evidence and logic, they have a major difference from morally corrupt scientists who say what they are paid to say.

 

There is now strong evidence that the IPCC belief about the lead role of emission reduction in mitigating climate change is false, for the reasons Peter outlined about risk of system collapse.  I would extend Peter’s argument to say carbon based approaches cannot prevent system collapse, and must be augmented by urgent focus on albedo enhancement.  This is a paradigm shift.  It is reasonable in such a case to criticise the ethics of those who stand on the wrong side of history, even though their personal integrity may be strong.  If you refuse to engage with evidence that refutes your opinion, and that refusal abets suffering, your opinion is unethical.

 

Mike MacCracken makes a great point that the role of the scientist is not to be an advocate.  But as Andrew Revkin notes, this misses the factional reality that advocates use the views of scientists to demonize and prohibit relevant science.   EWG, the advocacy group Andrew mentions, is the US Environmental Working Group, widely criticised for its product warnings which often ignore scientific data. 

 

Peter Fiekowsky’s argument implies that the scientists quoted in the MIT article are actually engaged in political advocacy when they oppose field testing of iron salt aerosol.  Advocates such as myself have just as much moral responsibility as scientists do to ensure their views and values have a sound evidentiary basis.

 

This material directly relates to carbon dioxide removal due to the massive potential of ocean iron fertilization and methane oxidation to affect the carbon cycle.

 

One reader could not access the link I provided to my HPAC Issues Paper.  It is available at https://www.healthyplanetaction.org/hpac-participants-work

 

Robert Tulip

 

From: Andrew Revkin <rev...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, 18 February 2023 9:12 AM
To: mmac...@comcast.net
Cc: CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com; Healthy Climate Alliance <healthy-clim...@googlegroups.com>; NOAC <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; Peter Fiekowsky <pfi...@gmail.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; rob...@rtulip.net
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: [CDR] Re: [HCA-list] Iron Salt Aerosol: Article in MIT Technology Review

 

Important discussion and Mike’s point about roles and sequencing has merit, but may be. missing an important negative feedback loop. 

 

That loop exists when the ethical frame of one faction in civil society, let’s say represented by EWG, is used to demonize and prohibit relevant science itself. 

 

(Typing on phone so hopefully this isn’t too telegraphic to understand)

[Michael MacCracken]

Dear Robert--The IPCC has three volumes, with climate scientists responsible for the first one, but not, I don't think, the results in the volumes from which you seem to be drawing. Those volumes are also prepared by experts in their field, but not climate scientists, or are you suggesting that all IPCC volumes are prepared by experts of all fields and they can be called climate scientists because the subject matter generally is climate.

Next, I'd suggest that the statements refer to what was said in volume 3 is based on what is technically possible--now I'd agree it stretches (or over-stretches by a good bit) what is proving politically possible, but has more to do what the national representatives are responsible for rather than climate scientists.

I'm as concerned as you about the present situation, and I agree that IPCC's use of the decadal or long average change in global average temperature does not give as significant a sense of the seriousness of the issue as the accelerating impacts are illustrating, and I agree that the guidance that the COP provides leading to the issue being presented using the scientific community's traditional decision framework that seeks two-sigma significance for findings in the SPMs and Synthesis Reports tends to underplay the issue as compared to using the due diligence, seek resilience to the worst plausible outcome approach that is more generally typical of societal decision-making.

I mention all of this because I think there is a need to be very clear on what the problem is and why so that the basis for considering climate intervention and pulling warming back downward toward, say, conditions similar to the mid-20th century can be solidly stated and justified.

Best, Mike

--

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/2f9101d94336%24a39e5d20%24eadb1760%24%40rtulip.net.

[Michael MacCracken]

Hi Andy--Growing up in 1950s with college in early 1960s, I'll admit I'm an idealist, and likely naive, but what is that old saying: "Never wrestle with a pig. You get dirty and the pig likes it." (for attribution controversy, see https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/07/08/pig/)

As noted in my response to Robert's email, I think we can make our point convincingly with sound arguments.

Best, Mike

On 2/17/23 5:12 PM, Andrew Revkin wrote:

Important discussion and Mike’s point about roles and sequencing has merit, but may be. missing an important negative feedback loop. 

That loop exists when the ethical frame of one faction in civil society, let’s say represented by EWG, is used to demonize and prohibit relevant science itself. 

(Typing on phone so hopefully this isn’t too telegraphic to understand)

On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 5:01 PM Michael MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net> wrote:

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/7f4ac2e8-d38b-bf1d-7563-2f27cb5c6c88%40comcast.net.

--

_______________
ANDREW REVKIN
Climate Communication Advisor
Columbia Climate School
http://sustcomm.ei.columbia.edu
Subscribe to my Sustain What dispatch
https://revkin.Substack.com

--
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/CA%2BakwtYfDsA1ifb4wacO_Q_RaFV0UZCCP4hoX3jDo0kce5jF7Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Peter Fiekowsky]

Andy-

It's good to hear from you.

Yes-there's a problem when one faction of society demonizes and prevents relevant science from happening. There's also a problem when respected scientists speak inaccurately, in order to prevent critical actions from happening. 

The examples below are generic--not unique to these scientists whom I very much respect. They indicate systemic, not personal failures.

In the article, Stanford Prof. Jackson says, "We don’t know enough about it. We don’t know enough about unexpected or unpredicted reactions." 

Of course we don't know what we don't know. But the use of that logic to argue against doing commercial field tests to look for unexpected reactions sounds suspicious. 

Similarly, Cornell Prof. Mahowald says, “We have no idea what will happen there.” 

Of course we don't know everything, as Jackson said, but we know a lot. The chemistry has been modeled and tested in labs. We design the process to produce aerosol concentrations 100 to 1000 fold lower than OSHA standards so that we know they're safe. I am told that the chemicals are often found in the atmosphere now at low concentrations, so we have reason to expect no serious safety issues.

Don't these sound like the statements that tobacco company and oil company scientists made about uncertainty in their fields in the past? (Merchants of Doubt)  If so, is that delaying tactic acceptable in our climate emergency today? Is it ever acceptable?

With respect and kindness, we can handle this systemic problem, if indeed you agree it's a problem.

Peter

[Michael Hayes]

Again, how does this relate to CDR?

CH4 is not CO2. 

The many other groups that have been CCed in this thread are wide open to any and all chatter about any and all subjects that can pop into people's minds. This list is about Carbon Dioxide Removal.

How does your comment relate to CDR?

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/CAEr4H2nDV%2BvPXnOFK3wJ5Kvn_hzZQwgLk%3DbJqMUXRXioygR%3DDQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Clive Elsworth]

Michael

 

Iron salt aerosol relates indirectly to CDR. Reduced warming from reduced atmospheric methane would slow the temperature rise of the ocean surface, curbing the accelerating loss of nutrient mixing owing to surface stratification. Without nutrients, less phytoplankton are available to raise ocean surface pH. A higher pH at the ocean surface lowers the partial pressure of dissolved CO2, increasing the oceanic CO2 absorption rate.

 

Where there is chlorophyll in the ocean there tend to be marine clouds also, which provide an additional cooling effect. Thus, a beneficial feedback cycle is established, or at least the opposite destructive feedback cycle is curbed.

 

The addition of iron to the ocean surface is of course highly controversial, even if it’s by aerosol delivery adding less than 1 mg/m² per day and with natural fertilisation by desert dust doing the same thing. Huge areas of abyssal ocean are very low in iron content, so this would also enable a slightly higher phytoplankton productivity than otherwise - over vast areas. In areas where iron is not the limiting nutrient, the addition of a tiny amount more would make essentially no difference.

 

Clive

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CABjtO1cv0bwVvebOcv_js7-c7-WB8W0ht3xFjEVQGaz04xi3Yw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Hayes]

Clive, I'm aware of the chemistry, yet this is a CDR list not a CH4 mitigation list. Removing CO2 has little involvement with CH4 mitigation. Use of iron salt is not a CDR method, and it has little if any relation to CDR policy or economics.

The many CCed groups often welcome any comment on any subject under the Sun. This list, however, is focused on removing CO2, not second or third order indirect subjects that can be tacked onto CO2 removal.

Getting things done requires maintaining focus, and the GE list along with many others like it simply can not maintain focus and thus are of little use and even less importance. Converting this list to a CC of the GE list is not needed, yet there seems to be a core group interested in either taking the moderators' post to do so or simply overrunning the CDR list with non CDR posts and making the CDR list a defacto non focused GE list. I object to the petty politics and to the non CDR posts.

Best regards 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/352759944.1617469.1676735989223%40email.ionos.co.uk.

[Clive Elsworth]

Michael

 

We calculate that potentially tens of Gt of CO2 per year could be safely removed by iron salt aerosol dispersal over remote iron poor ocean areas at low cost, if allowed. Of course this would need to be incrementally scaled, with lots of measurement, analysis.

 

Clive

[Peter Flynn]

I will register my disagreement: reduction of CH4 should be part of CDR; you can count on my interest. For purists, let us refer to CH4 as CO2eq.

 

Peter Flynn

 

Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.

Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Alberta

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

1 928 451 4455

peter...@ualberta.ca

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CABjtO1erDJ%2BaWYhpMSf369TgQvSuKOZWUrziXOEk%2B2M900XGEQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Peter Fiekowsky]

Metta-

Excellent question about the legal standing of adding iron to the ocean.

The NAS report from Dec 2021: Ocean Carbon Dioxide Removal says there are no actual legal barriers to ocean iron fertilization (OIF). Iron salt aerosol (ISA) is essentially a variation on that theme.

I have looked high and low for a specific person who opposes either OIF or ISA and have not found one in the last few years. Nevertheless many people share your (perhaps unfounded) belief that somewhere there are people actually opposed to this. I am working with several indigenous peoples' alliances, and they are now committed to restoring the climate, saying "We don't have a choice." 

There are people opposed to slowing down the clean energy transition (you may be included), and most people agree that the carbon offset system allows large GHG emitters to delay or defer their transition to clean energy.  Some OIF ideas are built on the idea of selling carbon offsets--so there is some opposition to the concept of selling carbon offsets from OIF. The ETC Group discusses that on their site, stated not quite elegantly.

If you come across an actual OIF opponent, please let me know and send them to me.

Peter

On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 11:03 AM Metta W Spencer <mspe...@web.net> wrote:

I should probably know this but don’t.  Can someone tell me whether there is really a legally binding international agreement NOT to do this? I am aware that there would be plenty of opposition, but is there anything to actually keep Canada from doing something like this over Hudson Bay, which is entirely inside Canada? 

Metta Spencer

mspe...@web.net       1-416-789-2294

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NOAC Meetings" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to noac-meeting...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/1082078125.1624832.1676744947167%40email.ionos.co.uk.

[Wil Burns]

Peter,

 

As usual, this is a distortion of the statement of others, including most notably here, the conclusions in the NASEM CDR study, for which myself and others on this list served as reviewers. The NASEM study did not conclude “there are no actual legal barriers to ocean iron fertilization.” Rather, it indicated that uncertainties, and gaps in regulatory frameworks, necessitated development of additional regulatory standards for research, and POTENTIALLY deployment in the future. The clear message of NASEM is that there is not clear authority for proceeding at this point, certainly with deployment (ditto from a scientific perspective, see below). Here’s the key section:

 

Notwithstanding the lack of international and domestic law specifically governing ocean CDR research and deployment, projects could be subject to a variety of general environmental and other laws. Because those laws were developed to regulate other activities, there is often uncertainty as to how they will apply to ocean CDR research and deployment. Further research is needed both to resolve unanswered questions about the application of existing law to ocean CDR projects and to develop new model governance frameworks for such projects.

 

Developing a clear and consistent legal framework for ocean CDR is essential to facilitate research and (if deemed appropriate) full-scale deployment, while also ensuring that projects are conducted in a safe and environmentally sound manner. Having appropriate legal safeguards in place is vital to minimize the risk of negative environmental and other outcomes and should help to promote greater confidence in ocean CDR among investors, policy makers, and other stakeholders. It is, however, important to avoid imposing inappropriate or overly strict requirements that could unnecessarily hinder ocean CDR research and deployment. Having clearly defined requirements should simplify the permitting of projects and reduce uncertainties and risks for project developers.

 

                                                                                                                                                ***

 

Establishing a robust legal framework for ocean CDR is essential to ensure that research and (if deemed appropriate) deployment is conducted in a safe and responsible manner that minimizes the risk of negative environmental and other outcomes. There is currently no single, comprehensive legal framework for ocean CDR research or deployment, either internationally or in the United States. At the international level, while steps have been taken to regulate certain ocean CDR techniques—most notably, ocean fertilization—under existing international agreements, significant A Research Strategy for Ocean-based Carbon Dioxide Removal and Sequestration Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. CROSSCUTTING CONSIDERATIONS ON OCEAN-BASED CDR R&D 55 uncertainty and gaps remain. Domestically, in the United States, initial studies suggest that a range of general environmental and other laws could apply to ocean CDR research and deployment. Those laws were, however, developed to regulate other activities and may be poorly suited to ocean CDR. Further study is needed to evaluate the full range of U.S. laws that could apply to different ocean CDR techniques and explore possible reforms to strengthen the legal framework to ensure that it appropriately balances the need for further research to improve understanding of ocean CDR techniques against the potential risks of such research, and put in place appropriate safeguards to prevent or minimize negative environmental and other outcomes.

 

Moreover, at least two international treaty regimes, the London Convention/Protocol and the CBD have passed resolutions limiting OIF to small-scale experiments, with no commercial component, subject to risk assessment, with the LC Parties developing such a framework in 2010. Ken Buesseler at Woods Hole, who drafted much of the NASEM section on OIF, has acknowledged that these provisions would guide any research program that he might develop for OIF in the future. Thus, it’s incorrect to conclude there are no barriers at this point to a full-scale deployment of OIF.

 

I also think it’s incorrect to say that there’s no one opposed to OIF, at least if you mean full-scale deployment. Again, Ken Buesseler in the NASEM study made it clear that only RESEARCH should ensue at this point given a number of questions of effectiveness, and potential risks of this approach, including nutrient robbing.  Here’s some topline conclusions:

While OF, and OIF in particular, has a longer history of scientific study than all other ocean CDR approaches, these studies were not intended as a test of the feasibility and cost of OIF for large-scale CDR and climate mitigation, or to fully assess environmental impacts at deployment scales. Modeling studies, on the other hand, often focused on the sequestration potential, environmental impacts, and, sometimes, cost estimates of large-scale deployment. Efforts to bridge local experimental scales and global modeling scales (e.g., Aumont and Bopp, 2006) should be encouraged to help maximize the information gained. The earlier OIF studies do serve as a pilot[1]scale work that can be used to pose several key questions that would be answered with additional laboratory, field, and modeling studies as part of a portfolio of ocean CDR research activities. These research questions can be grouped broadly by the ones on “will it work” related to C sequestration effectiveness and “what are the intended and unintended consequences” related to changes to ocean ecosystems that are an intended part of responsible ocean CDR of any type.

 

These pilot studies taught us that aOIF experiments would need to be significantly longer and larger than earlier ones that used 0.3–4 tons of iron (II) sulfate (FeSO4) and covered 25–300 km2 with ship-based observations lasting 10–40 days. A demonstration-scale aOIF field study might need to add up to 100–1,000 tons of iron (using planes, or autonomous surface vehicles), cover up to 1 million km2 (1 percent of HNLC waters), and last for at least an entire growth season with multiyear follow-up. This would be a scale similar to the Kasatochi volcanic eruption in the Gulf of Alaska (see Fisheries) that caused no permanent harm, but was of a size that it could be readily tracked and pH and CO2 impacts could be measured, and it provided a regional C loss out of the surface of 0.01–0.1 Gt C (0.04–0.4 Gt CO2) (Hamme et al., 2010; Longman et al., 2020).

 

 

WIL BURNS Co-Director, Institute for Carbon Removal Law & Policy American University   Visiting Professor, Environmental Policy & Culture Program, Northwestern University   Email: wil.b...@northwestern.edu Mobile: 312.550.3079 https://www.american.edu/sis/centers/carbon-removal/   Want to schedule a call? Click on one of the following scheduling links: 60-minute phone call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/phone-call 30-minute phone call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/30min 15-minute phone call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/15min 60-minute conference call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/60-minute-conference-call 30-minute conference call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/30-minute-group 60-minute Zoom call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/60min 30-minute Zoom call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/30-minute-zoom-call   Follow us:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAEr4H2m2NBUsb_BLFYFv3XT_yTUUZmk3gx%2B3vmigoUbugHUdPQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Peter Fiekowsky]

Wil-

I stand corrected. Let's use the Columbia Law School's report in 2022 instead. They say, more succinctly: “There are currently no legally binding international treaties dealing specifically with ocean fertilization.” They add that operations might require EPA permits. But there probably are no OIF projects that could be done within the EPA jurisdiction.

I wouldn't qualify Ken Buesseler as opposing OIF--he is working to advance it, doing it safely, legally and ethically. And I am supporting him and his work.

Peter

[Wil Burns]

Hi Peter,

 

First of all, thank you for acknowledging that the NASEM report did not say what you said it did about either the law or science of OIF, and that no less than the lead author of the OIF section doesn’t support deployment at this point. That’s a good starting point. Moreover, you’re not “supporting” Dr. Buesseler’s work if you’re plumping for deployment at this point. He’s made that clear in both the NASEM report, and his current efforts to develop a sound framework for RESEARCH and RESEARCH only; your full-throated advocacy of deployment actually contravenes his intent.

As to the Columbia report, that’s a bit of a distortion also. What the authors conclude is that while there’s not a treaty that SPECIFICALLY prohibits OIF, there’s a number of agreements, including UNCLOS, that could be invoked to circumscribe research or deployment. It’s a bit blithe to say that you could proceed tomorrow without challenge. Moreover, while the resolutions of the London Convention and CBD are not legally binding on the parties to said treaties, they provide strong guidance to the parties, and countries generally conform. That’s why, again, Ken Buesseler, who you claim to “support” says that the LC resolution would be in play, and it clearly limits current OIF activities to small-scale scientific research. Again, not what you claim is permissible.

 

wil

[Peter Fiekowsky]

Wil- 

You speak for yourself, not for Ken Buesseler or for the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, unless you have an agreement to do so--in which case you should tell us.

Your point is made. Let's stop here.

Peter

[Wil Burns]

Peter. You appear to be speaking for the entire planet when you say that no one opposes full-scale OIF deployment at this point, so hope you received permission to do so 😊 Moreover, I am citing the text of both reports, which I’m pretty sure is “authorization.” Just want to make sure that the truth remains important in our debates on CDR; it’s critical for the community’s credibility. wil

[Clive Elsworth]

Hi Ye

 

I am not aware of any new data on iron salt aerosol. However, TIO2 provides little or no ocean fertilisation, which an iron containing aerosol does, albeit very diffusely if dispersed as intended.

 

A TIO2 -based aerosol is more suitable for use near icefields, where iron may colour the surface of the ice and fertilise growth of sessile life such as biofilms and moss that would likely accelerate the melting rate during summer months.

 

Clive

On 18/02/2023 23:17 GMT Ye Tao <t...@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:

 

 

Hi Clive and Peter,

Have there been new data to substantiate the claims of effectiveness and scalability? I believe that previous discussion threads on ISA that I have witnessed and engaged in (based on papers cited in the ISA field and beyond) were consistent with a lack of laboratory experimental evidence to support effectiveness and scalability of this otherwise tantalizing concept.   

Clive, if I remember well, you wrote in the past that you did not believe ISA was optimal and were rather looking into another thing based on TiO2.  Now you are again supporting ISA, I take it that new data and evidence must have emerged to rekindle your enthusiasm.   If new data or concept for in situ characterization have emerged, please share preliminary results.

Or perhaps Peter has performed new experiments from the list I suggested to the core group on ISA? and things look promising?

Looking forward to learning more,

Ye

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NOAC Meetings" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to noac-meeting...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/1082078125.1624832.1676744947167%40email.ionos.co.uk.

[Andrew Lockley]

As moderator of the Google group I am just responding to the the points earlier stating that iron sulfate aerosol is not suitable for the CDR list. My personal view is that greenhouse gas removal fits very closely with CDR, to the point that they are are essentially interchangeable terms. Iron salt aerosol, where it is used to destroy methane seems to be a more appropriate fit for the CDR list than the geoengineering Google group. unless there's a lot of pushback I prefer to keep ISA in CDR and not geoengineering

Andrew 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/1372647549.1638284.1676801764513%40email.ionos.co.uk.

[Michael Hayes]

Mission creep undermines many missions.

Understanding the mission of this CDR list is obviously key if mission creep is to be avoided. Seeking out largely actionable information and concepts covering the STEM, policy, and economics of CO2 management has seemed to have work so far, it's focused.

The use of CO2e can be applied to most every aspect of human civilization and Nature, it is the antithesis of focus.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAJ3C-05Fh3AFvJwNyEqFy%2Bv3%2Bu475%2ByyUK7FxM99rOFh221oag%40mail.gmail.com.

[Clive Elsworth]

Michael

 

I agree with you on the need for focus. However, Iron Salt Aerosol (ISA) mimics a natural process that provides many climate benefits (and we can see no harmful effects if it’s dispersed in remote areas far away from icefields where it’s not raining at the time).

 

Therefore, by its nature it doesn’t fit into any particular category. We have the same problem with our methane removal colleagues, who say it’s mission creep that the aerosol particles become cloud droplets in supersaturated air, providing a direct cooling benefit.

 

If it’s lumped into geoengineering, people tend to confuse it with stratospheric aerosol injection. That is despite ISA operating only in the lower troposphere where other hygroscopic aerosol particles naturally exist – that also get rained out in typically 1 – 3 weeks.

 

That said, I’m happy to comply with the majority opinion on where ISA discussions should be posted.

 

Clive Elsworth

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CABjtO1daLpwONAVpsF5iOQaYUSvuc%3DjYtTGLuRBugM1JMDStLA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Robert Tulip]

Andrew

 

Iron Salt Aerosol adds iron chloride to the air, and has significant cloud brightening potential as a form of solar geoengineering. 

 

ISA differs from iron sulfate, which you mentioned, which is proposed as only an ocean fertilisation method for CDR and fisheries enhancement, and is not deployed as an aerosol. 

 

It is interesting that the MIT article implied the cloud brightening effect of ISA could be a negative in view of public hostility toward solar geoengineering, regardless of benefits and safety.

 

Once we are allowed to do field tests, data will emerge on the balance of brightening and GGR effects of ISA.  Before that it is premature to assume one or the other is more important.

 

I note your comments are presented “as moderator of the Google group”.  New readers may be unaware (as I understand it) that you are moderator of the geoengineering group, not the CDR group.

 

Robert Tulip

 

From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Monday, 20 February 2023 8:05 AM
Cc: CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com> <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [CDR] Re: [HCA-list] Iron Salt Aerosol: Article in MIT Technology Review

 

As moderator of the Google group I am just responding to the the points earlier stating that iron sulfate aerosol is not suitable for the CDR list. My personal view is that greenhouse gas removal fits very closely with CDR, to the point that they are are essentially interchangeable terms. Iron salt aerosol, where it is used to destroy methane seems to be a more appropriate fit for the CDR list than the geoengineering Google group. unless there's a lot of pushback I prefer to keep ISA in CDR and not geoengineering

 

Andrew 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAJ3C-05Fh3AFvJwNyEqFy%2Bv3%2Bu475%2ByyUK7FxM99rOFh221oag%40mail.gmail.com.

[Andrew Lockley]

I'm aware of this. One of the problems with ISA is its messy cascade of impacts. I'm not even sure which is intended to be most prominent, and over which timescales. Launching large ISA particles from low altitudes in low turbulence regions with high precipitation and abundant cloud nucleation particles is likely to lead to short lifetimes, where the ISA does more for ocean fertility than anything else. In damp clean air, it's likely to influence clouds most. In high, dry air deployment it may have a greater effect on methane. So what exactly is it for?

Anyone with expertise in this is welcome to come on the Reviewer 2 Does Geoengineering podcast to discuss the subject. 

Andrew 

[chris.vivian2]

Peter,

Peter,

Apologies for this late post but I have been catching up with a vast number of emails that accumulated while I was on holiday.

 A couple of additional points about the legal standing of adding iron to the ocean.

1.            Even though the 2013 London Protocol (LP) amendments are not yet in force, under article 18(a) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), Parties to the London Convention (LC) and the LP should refrain from acts that would defeat the object and purpose of the 2013 amendment.

2.            There are a significant number of countries that are not party to the LC or LP who would not be bound by the 2013 amendments even if they were in force. However, article 210 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) dealing with dumping (which has been ratified by most States) says in 210(6) “National laws, regulations and measures shall be no less effective in preventing, reducing and controlling such pollution than the global rules and standards”. An International Maritime Organisation legal document addresses this issue as it applies to the LC/LP – see chapter 2, part B from p. 73-77 in https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresources/en/OurWork/Legal/Documents/LEG%20MISC%208.pdf. Note there is a section specifically about ocean fertilisation.

Your statement "I have looked high and low for a specific person who opposes either OIF or ISA and have not found one in the last few years" does not distinguish research from deployment. While there may not be many people who would oppose research, although a number of people and NGOs do, there are very few people who would support deployment at this time. Ken Buesseler is clearly not in the latter group.

 Best wishes

 Chris.