Re: [geo] Digest for geoengineering@googlegroups.com - 13 Messages in 2 Topics
24 views
Skip to first unread message
nathan currier
Oct 16, 2012, 10:59:54 AM10/16/12
to geoengi...@googlegroups.com, Arctic Methane Google Group
Re George Russ and his project, I just received this from someone who had seen my latest Huffpost piece.
I've hardly had time to look at it myself yet - but it might be of interest, since Josh Horton
and others are saying they want to know more about what took place.....
Cheers,
Nathan
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 7:10 AM, <geoengi...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Group: http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/topics
- Pacific iron fertilisation is 'blatant violation' of international regulations [12 Updates]
- Debate on Climate Engineering: How Newspaper Frames are Changing [1 Update]
M V Bhaskar <bhaska...@gmail.com> Oct 15 07:08AM -0700
Andrew
One view is that fertilizing to grow / restore fish is NOT prohibited under
LC / LP
Pl see the presentation by Dr David Schnare
-
http://www.thomasjeffersoninst.org/pdf/articles/geo_and_4climatetruths.ppt
*Geoengineering and the Four Climate Change Truths:***
*Perspectives of a Lawyer-Scientist***
*A Presentation at the *
*Research Triangle Institute, International *
*November 18, 2008*
Slide 59 ....• The London Convention / London Protocol: You may
fertilize if the intent is to grow fish but not if the intent is to dispose
of carbon in the ocean. Hence, focus on “restoration”.
The Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation seems to aim at restoring the
Salmon population.
regards
Bhaskar
On Monday, 15 October 2012 17:03:21 UTC+5:30, andrewjlockley wrote:
Ken Caldeira <kcal...@carnegiescience.edu> Oct 15 09:37AM -0700
It would be useful if any legal minds in the group would assess exactly the
relevant language that Russ George has supposedly violated.
I recall that in negotiations under the London Convention / London
Protocol, there was concern not to impact fish farms which of course supply
copious nutrients to surrounding waters.
If my recollection was correct, somebody proposed an exception for
mariculture. I piped up and said that all ocean fertilization could be
considered mariculture and that the CO2 storage could be regarded as a
co-benefit, achieved knowingly but not intentionally (just as when we drive
a car we knowingly heat the planet although that is not our intent).
My recollection was that in response to this comment, the word
'conventional' was added to the language, so that it now reads:
"Ocean *fertilization* does not include* conventional* *aquaculture*, or *
mariculture*, .. ".
Resolution LC-LP.1(2008) -
IMO<http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.imo.org%2Fblast%2FblastData.asp%3Fdoc_id%3D14101%26filename%3D1.doc&ei=xzV8ULXmFoKG9QSWsICYCA&usg=AFQjCNFJLn-efXeq0_tlczhFZRjjpRGFGQ&sig2=FC11W0IMKGaw0-Mc166MwQ>
Incidentally, it seems that they have a misplaced comma, as I believe the
word 'conventional' was meant to apply to both 'aquaculture'' and
'mariculture', but with the placement of the comma, I read this as
'conventional aquaculture' or 'mariculture'. I am not enough of a lawyer
to know whether the intended meaning or the literal meaning is the one
likely to prevail under some sort of adjudication process.
---
It is interesting to see the level of interest that intentional ocean
fertilization draws relative to, say, nutrients added to the ocean as a
result of farm runoff or inadequately processed sewage. We are very
sensitive to the intent with which actions are conducted, and are willing
to overlook travesties caused in the normal course of business so that we
can focus on physically insignificant acts where the presumed intentions do
not meet our high ethical standards.
We do not choose to focus on problems based on an objective appraisal of
threats posed, but rather largely based on which actions we find to be most
ethically repugnant. Apparently, dumping raw sewage simply to save the cost
of sewage processing is less repugnant than fertilizing the ocean in hopes
of increasing fish yields. One suspects that the real ethical boundary that
Russ George is inferred to have transgressed is the desire to personally
profit from unconventional mariculture.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVCu158FqvE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voXiJ5t23sY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5gcZ4rojsI
_______________
Ken Caldeira
Carnegie Institution for Science
Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
+1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegiescience.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira
*Our YouTube videos*
The Great Climate Experiment: How far can we push the
planet?<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce2OWROToAI>
Geophysical Limits to Global Wind
Power<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U7PXjUG-Yk>
More videos <http://www.youtube.com/user/CarnegieGlobEcology/videos>
Oliver Wingenter <oli...@nmt.edu> Oct 15 11:20AM -0600
Ken,
The scale of the scientific research is not clearly defined in the IMO
document. Does there definition coastal water extend out 200 miles?
Oliver
On 10/15/2012 10:37 AM, Ken Caldeira wrote:
--
-
Oliver Wingenter
Assoc. Prof. of Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate
Research Scientist
Geophysical Research Center
New Mexico Tech
801 Leroy Place
Socorro, NM 87801
jim thomas <j...@etcgroup.org> Oct 15 04:06PM -0400
Ken,
from our legal analysis that doesn't wash.
Firstly, mariculture and acquaculture doesn't come into COP Decision IX/16 so obviously it's a breach of that in any case
COP 9 DECISION IX/16
4. Bearing in mind the ongoing scientific and legal analysis occurring
under the auspices of the London Convention (1972) and the 1996 London
Protocol, requests Parties and urges other Governments, in accordance
with the precautionary approach, to ensure that ocean fertilization
activities do not take place until there is an adequate scientific
basis on which to justify such activities, including assessing
associated risks, and a global, transparent and effective control and
regulatory mechanism is in place for these activities; with the
exception of small scale scientific research studies within coastal
waters. Such studies should only be authorized if justified by the
need to gather specific scientific data, and should also be subject to
a thorough prior assessment of the potential impacts of the research
studies on the marine environment, and be strictly controlled, and not
be used for generating and selling carbon offsets or any other
commercial purposes
regarding LC/LP
LC/LP.1 (2008) reads "2. AGREE that for the purposes of this resolution, ocean fertilization is any activity undertaken by humans
with the principal intention of stimulating primary productivity in the oceans"
That is the definition. So whether it's carbon or fish is irrelevant. The principal intention needs to be 'stimulating primary productivity in the oceans"
The footnote "Ocean fertilization does not include conventional aquaculture, or mariculture, or the creation of
artificial reefs." must be read in the light of the sentence it's noting i.e.''stimulating primary productivity in the oceans".
Without doubt, the exercise by Russ George and his band was with the intention of stimulating primary productivity in the oceans. An activity which qualifies as mariculture which nevertheless is 'stimulating primary productivity in the oceans" is still ocean fertilization. The footnote is simply to
avoid an argument that feeding fish as part of aquaculture or mariculture is ocean fertilisation since it is inadvertently stimulating primary
productivity in the oceans.Clearly putting iron in the oceans was done with the intention of stimulating primary productivity in the oceans
and was neither mariculture nor aquaculture, and I am sure no country would seriously argue that it is.
Nor can the addition of the word 'conventional' mean that 'unconventional' aquaculture (or mariculture) is somehow exempt even if it is done with the primary intention of stimulating primary productivity in the oceans. The meaning of para 2 is clear.
Further everything we have learned from the Haida and also public financial documents around a loan for the project clearly indicate that the aim of the project was to sequester carbon in order to sell carbon credits - ie in financial terms this is primarily about carbon not fish. Quite who was expected to issue such carbon credits is beyond me but thats what those paying for the project were led to believe (by Russ George one assumes).
Jim
On Oct 15, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Ken Caldeira wrote:
> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Jim Thomas
ETC Group (Montreal)
j...@etcgroup.org
+1 514 2739994
Andrew Lockley <andrew....@gmail.com> Oct 15 09:13PM +0100
Jim
I kinda half buy your argument.
An individual can't legitimately do this as they can't ordinarily ringfence
the fishing rights.
But surely a government, with territorial rights, could legitimately
fertilize fish at an ecosystem level.
A
Ken Caldeira <kcal...@carnegiescience.edu> Oct 15 01:18PM -0700
I am less familiar with the CBD, but from the LC/LP perspective, it is
clear that the intent of the footnote ("[3]
Ocean fertilization does not include conventional aquaculture, or
mariculture, or the creation of artificial reefs.") was to limit the scope
of "*AGREE* that for the purposes of this resolution, ocean fertilization
is any activity undertaken by humans with the principal intention of
stimulating primary productivity in the oceans[3];", so as to exclude
"conventional aquaculture, or mariculture.".
I recall being in the room when this exception was discussed, and there was
a clear objective of some of the parties in the room to make sure that the
actions taken under LC/LP would not adversely impact "conventional
aquaculture".
Thus, I think Jim's interpretation of this document is not consistent with
what was understood by the people who agreed to this language.
On the other hand, I think the parties did intend to exclude actions such
as is reported to have been undertaken by Russ George, which I think would
be characterized as "unconventional aquaculture".
Russell Seitz <russel...@gmail.com> Oct 15 01:51PM -0700
A trifling investment in dimensional anaysis reveals that roughly a
thousand tonnes a week of ferrous sulfate was deposited in the
trans-Atlantic and Pacific shipping lanes every week from roughly 1890
to 1930.
the same torrent of engine exhaust proviided more than synergistic amounts
of soluble phosphorus and nitrogen, all under the rubric of 'marine
propulsion ' when the primary fuel was coal, typically holding much of its
sulfur content as combustable iron pyrites .
Experiments Happen.
On Monday, October 15, 2012 7:33:21 AM UTC-4, andrewjlockley wrote:
"Georg P Kössler" <georg.k...@gmail.com> Oct 15 11:56PM +0200
Experiments happen... but not without a pupose. Russ George (Planktos) clearly tries to play with the climate and - frankly - it doesn't matter if shipping lanes sprayed the same amount of dirt.
We need a clear and honest debate on this issue and international rules to set a safe environment for careful science - not some lunatic DIY-action by some wannabe-hero billionaire. He needs to be stopped.
Best
:) Georg
Sent from my mobile
Josh Horton <joshuah...@gmail.com> Oct 15 03:22PM -0700
There seem to be a lot more questions than answers here. Every report I've
seen on this so far has been based solely on the Guardian story. Reading
that story, it's not at all clear to me what exactly Russ George did. The
Guardian reports that he had assistance from NASA and NOAA--what? He
wanted to earn carbon credits? I don't know of any authority anywhere that
issues offset credits for OIF. George has a checkered history no doubt,
but Guardian reporting on geoengineering over the past few years has been
checkered too and its thoroughness and accuracy simply can't be taken for
granted. When a newspaper engages in sloppy, biased reporting on a
sustained basis, it forfeits any assumption that it's providing the full,
complete, and accurate story. Furthermore, the source of the Guardian
story appears to be ETC Group, which is certainly entitled to its opinion,
but can hardly be considered disinterested.
More facts from more objective sources would be helpful right now.
Josh Horton
On Monday, October 15, 2012 4:51:48 PM UTC-4, Russell Seitz wrote:
"J.L. Reynolds" <J.L.Re...@uvt.nl> Oct 16 06:49AM
Here are a couple of extra thoughts:
Generally speaking, international law such as LC-LP binds national governments, not individuals. George thus cannot violate international law himself, but the country under whose flag he flew could have. The LC and LP do not have universal membership. In 2007 he said that he planned on operating under a flag of convenience. If NASA and/or NOAA did assist him, that would imply that the US violated the LC (it is not a party to the LP). I would be surprised for various reasons, in part because it was the US EPA that was instrumental in ending his operations in 2007.
Regarding this
LC/LP.1 (2008) reads "2. AGREE that for the purposes of this resolution, ocean fertilization is any activity undertaken by humans
with the principal intention of stimulating primary productivity in the oceans"
Primary productivity is the growth of organisms by fixing carbon from the air or dissolved in water. Fish grow through secondary (or tertiary...) means. Intention in law is often tricky this way.
The CBD COP resolutions are non-binding.
Jesse L. Reynolds, M.S.
PhD Candidate
European and International Public Law
Tilburg Sustainability Center
Tilburg University, The Netherlands
email: J.L.Re...@uvt.nl<mailto:J.L.Re...@uvt.nl>
http://www.tilburguniversity.edu/webwijs/show/?uid=j.l.reynolds
http://twitter.com/geoengpolicy
From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Josh Horton
Sent: dinsdag 16 oktober 2012 0:23
To: geoengi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] Re: Pacific iron fertilisation is 'blatant violation' of international regulations
There seem to be a lot more questions than answers here. Every report I've seen on this so far has been based solely on the Guardian story. Reading that story, it's not at all clear to me what exactly Russ George did. The Guardian reports that he had assistance from NASA and NOAA--what? He wanted to earn carbon credits? I don't know of any authority anywhere that issues offset credits for OIF. George has a checkered history no doubt, but Guardian reporting on geoengineering over the past few years has been checkered too and its thoroughness and accuracy simply can't be taken for granted. When a newspaper engages in sloppy, biased reporting on a sustained basis, it forfeits any assumption that it's providing the full, complete, and accurate story. Furthermore, the source of the Guardian story appears to be ETC Group, which is certainly entitled to its opinion, but can hardly be considered disinterested.
More facts from more objective sources would be helpful right now.
Josh Horton
On Monday, October 15, 2012 4:51:48 PM UTC-4, Russell Seitz wrote:
A trifling investment in dimensional anaysis reveals that roughly a thousand tonnes a week of ferrous sulfate was deposited in the trans-Atlantic and Pacific shipping lanes every week from roughly 1890 to 1930.
the same torrent of engine exhaust proviided more than synergistic amounts of soluble phosphorus and nitrogen, all under the rubric of 'marine propulsion ' when the primary fuel was coal, typically holding much of its sulfur content as combustable iron pyrites .
Experiments Happen.
On Monday, October 15, 2012 7:33:21 AM UTC-4, andrewjlockley wrote:
http://m.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/15/pacific-iron-fertilisation-geoengineering?cat=environment&type=article
Pacific iron fertilisation is 'blatant violation' of international regulations
Controversial US businessman's geoengineering scheme off west coast of Canada contravenes two UN conventions
A controversial American businessman dumped around 100 tonnes of iron sulphate into the Pacific Ocean as part of a geoengineering scheme off the west coast of Canada in July, a Guardian investigation can reveal.Lawyers, environmentalists and civil society groups are calling it a "blatant violation" of two international moratoria and the news is likely to spark outrage at a United Nations environmental summit taking place in India this week.Satellite images appear to confirm the claim by Californian Russ George that the iron has spawned an artificial plankton bloom as large as 10,000 square kilometres. The intention is for the plankton to absorb carbon dioxide and then sink to the ocean bed - a geoengineering technique known as ocean fertilisation that he hopes will net lucrative carbon credits.George is the former chief executive of Planktos Inc, whose previous failed efforts to conduct large-scale commercial dumps near the Galapagos and Canary Islands led to his vessels being barred from ports by the Spanish and Ecuadorean governments. The US Environmental Protection Agency warned him that flying a US flag for his Galapagos project would violate US laws, and his activities are credited in part to the passing of international moratoria at the United Nations limiting ocean fertilisation experimentsScientists are debating whether iron fertilisation can lock carbon into the deep ocean over the long term, and have raised concerns that it can irreparably harm ocean ecosystems, produce toxic tides and lifeless waters, and worsen ocean acidification and global warming."It is difficult if not impossible to detect and describe important effects that we know might occur months or years later," said John Cullen , an oceanographer at Dalhousie University. "Some possible effects, such as deep-water oxygen depletion and alteration of distant food webs, should rule out ocean manipulation. History is full of examples of ecological manipulations that backfired."George says his team of unidentified scientists has been monitoring the results of what may be the biggest ever geoengineering experiment with equipment loaned from US agencies like Nasa and the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration. He told the Guardian that it is the "most substantial ocean restoration project in history," and has collected a "greater density and depth of scientific data than ever before"."We've gathered data targeting all the possible fears that have been raised [about ocean fertilisation]," George said. "And the news is good news, all around, for the planet."The dump took place from a fishing boat in an eddy 200 nautical miles west of the islands of Haida Gwaii, one of the world's most celebrated, diverse ecosystems, where George convinced the local council of an indigenous village to establish the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation to channel more than $1m of its own funds into the project.The president of the Haida nation, Guujaaw, said the village was told the dump would environmentally benefit the ocean, which is crucial to their livelihood and culture."The village people voted to support what they were told was a 'salmon enhancement project' and would not have agreed if they had been told of any potential negative effects or that it was in breach of an international convention," Guujaaw said.International legal experts say George's project has contravened the UN's convention on biological diversity (CBD) and London convention on the dumping of wastes at sea, which both prohibit for-profit ocean fertilisation activities."It appears to be a blatant violation of two international resolutions," said Kristina M Gjerde, a senior high seas adviser for the International Union for Conservation of Nature. "Even the placement of iron particles into the ocean, whether for carbon sequestration or fish replenishment, should not take place, unless it is assessed and found to be legitimate scientific research without commercial motivation. This does not appear to even have had the guise of legitimate scientific research."George told the Guardian that the two moratoria are a "mythology" and do not apply to his project.The parties to the UN CBD are currently meeting in Hyderabad, India, where the governments of Bolivia, the Philippines and African nations as well as indigenous peoples are calling for the current moratorium to be upgraded to a comprehensive test ban of geoengineering that includes enforcement mechanisms."If rogue geoengineer Russ George really has misled this indigenous community, and dumped iron into their waters, we hope to see swift legal response to his behavior and strong action taken to the heights of the Canadian and US governments," said Silvia Ribeiro of the international technology watchdog ETC Group, which first discovered the existence of the scheme. "It is now more urgent than ever that governments unequivocally ban such open-air geoengineering experiments. They are a dangerous distraction providing governments and industry with an excuse to avoid reducing fossil fuel emissions.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/q7hpUqP8SlQJ.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com>.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com>.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Bhaskar M V <bhaska...@gmail.com> Oct 16 08:08AM +0530
Ken
You said
"I piped up and said that all ocean fertilization could be considered
mariculture and that the CO2 storage could be regarded as a
co-benefit, achieved knowingly but not intentionally (just as when we drive
a car we knowingly heat the planet although that is not our intent)."
I agree with you.
Unfortunately people do not seem to like solutions that yield multiple
benefits, they are too focused on single solutions.
The reason why cars and electrical appliances pollute is that people
ignored the side effects of steam engines and Internal Combustion engines.
In the case of solutions to climate change too, people seem to prefer
single solution solutions like SRM rather than multiple solution solutions
like Ocean Fertilization.
In the past 200 years fish biomass of oceans have declined (perhaps from 8
to 14 billion tons to 0.8 to 2 billion tons - a decline of at least 75% )
and agriculture production has increased (population has increased from 1
billion to 7 billion, so food production has increased at least 7 fold.
Agriculture production has increased partly due to Irrigation and
Fertilizer use.
Ocean fertilization with Silica and Iron is similar to this.
Land has silica and metals but not water and N P K.
Water has N P K but not Silica and metals.
Providing the missing elements is obviously the simple solution.
If farmers can fertilize fields, why can't fishermen fertilize ocean?
LC / LP does not seem to have set up any mechanism for regulating Ocean
Fertilization research. An approval process and maximum limits should be
set up.
I would like to suggest the following rules -
1. Each institution / group should not use more than 100 tons of fertilizer
in a year.
This is minuscule compared to the 100 million tons of Urea and Phosphate
fertilizer used by farmers.
2. Not more than 100 sq km of ocean should be fertilized.
3. A representative of LC / LP should be present on the ship fertilizing,
the entire cost of this should be boarn by the experimenters.
4. The results should be released into public domain.
regards
Bhaskar
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Ken Caldeira <kcal...@carnegiescience.edu
Russell Seitz <russel...@gmail.com> Oct 16 12:46AM -0700
Today's iron fertilization 'experiment' pale in comparison to the actual
emission stats of the Age of Steam.
Over ten thousand ships burning several times their weigh in coal annually
created a bunker coal trade reckoned in hundreds of millions of tons with
an Fe content of several % or more .
Some serious data mining would seem in order to fathom the biological
consequences of this massive release, as well as some seabed coring to
check the obvious hypothesis- was more biomass captured and sequestered
along the shipping lanes than in the oceans at large ?
I published a note on this in *Science in 2007 : *
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/318/5855/1368/reply
If the impact over two generations went unremarked, - fly ash pales in
turn in comparison to aeolian aerosols like Saharan dust or Andean ash
plumes, why the rhetorical high dudgeon (*vide infra* ), about releases
four orders of magnitude smaller ?
On Monday, October 15, 2012 5:59:06 PM UTC-4, Georg P Koessler wrote:
Andrew Lockley <andrew....@gmail.com> Oct 15 08:11PM +0100
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2161733
Opening Up the Societal Debate on Climate Engineering: How Newspaper Frames
are Changing
Samantha Scholte
Eleftheria Vasileiadou
Arthur Petersen
October 15, 2012
Abstract:
The use of climate engineering or geo-engineering technologies to combat
climate change has been a controversial topic, even in the scientific
debate. In recent studies it has been claimed that the debate on climate
engineering technologies may be closing down prematurely, with detrimental
effects on the possibility of social and ethical reflection of the
discussion and development of policy guidelines around these controversial
technologies. We examined the extent to which the debate on climate
engineering is opening up or closing down, analyzing English-speaking
newspaper frames in the period 2006-2011. The results provide strong
support for an opening of the debate, especially since 2009, given the
decline of overly deterministic frames, the emergence of frames related to
socio-political issues, and an overall more even distribution of the
various frames. This provides evidence that different perspectives are
voiced in the public debate, which enable societies to critically reflect
on these emerging technologies.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 28
Keywords:
climate change, sustainability research, climate engineering, geoengineering
working papers series
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group geoengineering.
--
You can post via email.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an empty message.
For more options, visit this group.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages