ROGUE GEO-ENGINEERING
4 views
Skip to first unread message
spectre
Oct 19, 2012, 2:33:41 PM10/19/12
to spectre email archive
http://spectrevision.net/2012/10/19/rogue-geoengineering/
STILL ILLEGAL
"SALMON RESTORATION"
http://www.hsrc1.com/history/our-story/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/10/15/bc-iron-sulfate-dumping-haida-gwaii.html
"The $2-million project, initiated by the Haida Salmon Restoration
Corp., is intended to raise nutrient levels offshore in hopes of
reviving salmon populations, according to corporation president John
Disney. Disney said earlier reports that iron sulphate was used in the
dump were incorrect, and that a finely ground dirt-like substance with
trace amounts of iron was actually used. "The results were just
spectacular, like we created life where there wasn't life," Disney
said."
WORLD's LARGEST ILLEGAL GEO-ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT? (NOPE)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/17/canada-geoengineering-pacific
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/15/pacific-iron-fertilisation-geoengineering
World's biggest geoengineering experiment 'violates' UN rules
by Martin Lukacs / 15 October 2012
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 experiments Scientists 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 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
organizations 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."
OCEANIC IRON SEEDING
http://isisconsortium.org/
http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2008-07/carbon-discredit
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/companies/RussGeorge/RussGeorge.shtml
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=02963d59-385a-4a30-8828-424fd53d7012
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2008/02/11/daily49.html
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/project-to-harness-plankton-puts-to-sea/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/19/geoengineering-canada
US businessman defends controversial geoengineering experiment
by Martin Lukacs / 19 October 2012
The American businessman who dumped around 100 tonnes of iron sulphate
into the Pacific Ocean has become a lone defender of his project,
after a storm of criticism from indigenous peoples, the Canadian
government and a UN biodiversity meeting in India. Russ George, who
told the Globe and Mail that he is the world's leading "champion" of
geoengineering, says he has been under a "dark cloud of vilification"
since the Guardian broke news of an ocean fertilisation scheme, funded
by an indigenous village on the Haida Gwaii islands, that aimed to
make money in offset markets by sequestering carbon through artificial
plankton blooms. "I'm not a rich, scheming businessman, right," he
said. "That's not who I am … This is my heart's work, not my hip
pocket work, right?"
A US agency that loaned George's company 20 expensive ocean buoyssaid
they had been "misled," and the Canadian National Research Council
that provided funding said they "were not made aware" of plans for
ocean fertilisation. The Council of the Haida Nation, which represents
all Haida, issued a statement condemning George. "The consequences of
tampering with nature at this scale are not predictable and pose
unacceptable risks to the marine environment," it read. "Our people
along with the rest of humanity depend on the oceans and cannot leave
the fate of the oceans to the whim of the few."
The Canadian government announced on Thursday that they did not
"approve this non-scientific event" and enforcement officials were
continuing an investigation they launched on 30 August. "This
government takes very seriously our commitment to protect the
environment and anyone who contravenes environmental law should be
prosecuted to the full extent of the law," Canada's environment
minister, Peter Kent, said in parliament, after a Guardian article
revealed that the environment department had known that George was
planning an iron dump but had not done anything to prevent it.
According to the department, officials met in May with the Haida
Salmon Restoration Corporation, of which George was "chief scientist,"
and gave them "fact sheets" explaining that commercial ocean
fertilisation is prohibited under Canadian law and United Nations
rules. "It is critical that full enforcement action is taken by the
Canadian authorities. Canada will be aware that this very serious
matter will be addressed at a meeting in London at the end of this
month," said Duncan Currie, an international lawyer specialising in
sea law who is attending the United Nations Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD) meetings in Hyderabad, India, which closes today.
In a binding decision due to be agreed today, representatives from 192
states underlined the existing international moratoria on
geoengineering and ocean fertilisation and stressed the need for
precaution, noting that no single geoengineering technique "meets
basic criteria for effectiveness, safety and affordability", and "may
prove difficult to deploy or govern". The decision of the CBD also
requires that countries begin reporting on how they are implementing
the moratoria, a first step towards global monitoring and enforcement
against geoengineering.
EXPERIMENTING IN-SITU
http://isisconsortium.org/page.do?pid=52316
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/report-iron-fed-plankton-slow-to-remove-co2-4020/
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/press-releases/2009/05/06/ocean-carbon-iron/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fertilizing-ocean-with-iron-sequesters-co2
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/10/04/204747/nature-geoengineering-ocean-fertilization/
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/03/neurotoxic-geoengineering/
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528744.100-geoengineering-with-iron-might-work-after-all.html
Geoengineering with iron might work after all
by Michael Marshall / 18 July 2012
If you want to help stop climate change, try tipping some iron into
the sea. For years, this geoengineering idea has been considered a
busted flush, but new results suggest it really can work. Tiny
floating algae called phytoplankton pull carbon dioxide out of the
atmosphere. When they die, the plankton sink to the seabed, taking the
carbon with them. Over thousands of years, this strips CO2 from the
air, lowering temperatures. But many ocean regions are short of iron,
which plankton need to grow, so the process does not occur. Adding
iron should stimulate plankton growth in these areas. That was the
theory, at least. In practice, it is charitable to say the results
have been mixed. For many people, the idea died in 2009, when a field
trial called Lohafex failed in the South Atlantic. The iron triggered
a bloom, but it was eaten by crustaceans before it could sink.
However, another trial, called Eifex, was carried out in the Southern
Ocean in 2004. The results have finally been published - and they are
promising. The Eifex ship found an ideal testing ground: a slowly
rotating eddy 60 kilometres across and 4 kilometres deep, which was
more or less isolated from the surrounding waters. Victor Smetacek of
the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in
Bremerhaven, Germany, and colleagues dumped iron sulphate into the
eddy's core and studied the resulting bloom. The water was rich in
silicic acid, so the bloom was dominated by phytoplankton called
diatoms. These algae build silica cell walls, which makes them harder
to eat and more likely to sink than plankton with calcium carbonate
shells. "They are not the pastures of the ocean, they are the
thistles," Smetacek says. The diatom bloom grew for three weeks, then
died and sank. At least half of it sank far below 1 kilometre, and
probably reached the sea floor (Nature, DOI: 10.1038/nature11229).
No other study has tracked a sinking bloom. "This confirms what we
expected to happen," says Richard Lampitt of the UK's National
Oceanography Centre in Southampton, who was not involved in the study.
Lampitt says Lohafex failed because the trial site was low in silicon,
so the bloom contained few diatoms. Eifex's success is far from a
green light for iron fertilisation, though. At most, a global
programme could mop up about 1 gigatonne of carbon per year, about a
tenth of our current emissions, according to a modelling study by Ken
Caldeira at the Carnegie Institution of Washington in Stanford,
California (Climatic Change, DOI: 10.1007/s10584-010-9799-4). "It's
too little to be the solution," agrees Smetacek, "but it's too much to
ignore."
Fertilised patches create algal food sources but burn through ocean
nutrients. This could be a boon to some threads of the food web, but
it could suppress diatom formation elsewhere to the detriment of other
marine species. All those contacted by New Scientist agreed that any
tests should be run as a public good, not for profit. Some firms had
planned to use iron fertilisation to accrue carbon credits which they
could sell on, but in 2008 the London Convention and Protocol - an
international treaty - ruled that the practice should not be allowed.
Iron fertilisation and the whales
Iron fertilisation is mainly seen as a way to engineer the climate
(main story), but it could also help boost whale populations by
restoring their natural ecosystem, says Victor Smetacek of the Alfred
Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Bremerhaven,
Germany. Many Southern-Ocean whales feed on Antarctic krill (Euphausia
superba). This krill is one of the few species that eat algae called
diatoms in large quantities, but krill numbers have been plummeting
for decades. Increasingly, ecologists suspect that declining krill
numbers are linked to humanity's over-hunting of whales. Whale faeces
are rich in the iron that helps fuel diatom growth. This in turn
benefits the krill - and ultimately the whales. "Whales might be
effectively fertilising their own foods, and a reduction in whale
populations would impact on that food resource," says David
Raubenheimer of Massey University in Auckland, New Zealand. There is
no guarantee that the boosted diatoms would end up being eaten by
krill, though, or that the resulting increased krill would be eaten by
whales. "There are many other competitors in the ecosystem," notes Ian
Boyd at the University of St Andrews in the UK.
U.N. MORATORIUM on GEO-ENGINEERING (2010)
http://royalsociety.org/news/governance-geoengineering/
http://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2009/geoengineering-climate/
http://web.archive.org/web/20110517023252/http://www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/pdf_file/ETC_geopiracy_4web.pdf
http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2010/10/28/un-agrees-moratorium-on-geoengineering-experiments/
Geoengineering Moratorium at UN Ministerial in Japan / 29 October
2010
In a landmark consensus decision, the 193-member UN Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD) will close its tenth biennial meeting with
a de facto moratorium on geoengineering projects and experiments.
“Any private or public experimentation or adventurism intended to
manipulate the planetary thermostat will be in violation of this
carefully crafted UN consensus,” stated Silvia Ribeiro, Latin American
Director of ETC Group.
The agreement, reached during the ministerial portion of the two-week
meeting which included 110 environment ministers, asks governments to
ensure that no geoengineering activities take place until risks to
the environmental and biodiversity and associated social, cultural and
economic impacts risks have been appropriately considered as well as
the socio-economic impacts. The CBD secretariat was also instructed to
report back on various geoengineering proposals and potential
intergovernmental regulatory measures.
The unusually strong consensus decision builds on the 2008 moratorium
on ocean fertilization. That agreement, negotiated at COP 9 in Bonn,
put the brakes on a litany of failed “experiments” – both public and
private – to sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide in the oceans’
depths by spreading nutrients on the sea surface. Since then,
attention has turned to a range of futuristic proposals to block a
percentage of solar radiation via large-scale interventions in the
atmosphere, stratosphere and outer space that would alter global
temperatures and precipitation patterns.
“This decision clearly places the governance of geoengineering in the
United Nations where it belongs,” said ETC Group Executive Director
Pat Mooney. “This decision is a victory for common sense, and for
precaution. It will not inhibit legitimate scientific research.
Decisions on geoengineering cannot be made by small groups of
scientists from a small group of countries that establish self-serving
‘voluntary guidelines’ on climate hacking. What little credibility
such efforts may have had in some policy circles in the global North
has been shattered by this decision. The UK Royal Society and its
partners should cancel their Solar Radiation Management Governance
Initiative and respect that the world’s governments have collectively
decided that future deliberations on geoengineering should take place
in the UN, where all countries have a seat at the table and where
civil society can watch and influence what they are doing.”
Delegates in Nagoya have now clearly understood the potential threat
that deployment – or even field testing – of geoengineering
technologies poses to the protection of biodiversity. The decision was
hammered out in long and difficult late night sessions of a “Friends
of the chair” group, attended by ETC Group, and adopted by the Working
Group 1 Plenary on 27 October 2010. The Chair of the climate and
biodiversity negotiations called the final text “a highly delicate
compromise.”
“The decision is not perfect,” said Neth Dano of ETC Group
Philippines. “Some delegations are understandably concerned that the
interim definition of geoengineering is too narrow because it does not
include Carbon Capture and Storage technologies. Before the next CBD
meeting, there will be ample opportunity to consider these questions
in more detail. But climate techno-fixes are now firmly on the UN
agenda and will lead to important debates as the 20th anniversary of
the Earth Summit approaches. A change of course is essential, and
geoengineering is clearly not the way forward.”
U.S. NOT PARTICIPATING
http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/why-the-un-moratorium-on-geoengineering-is-a-good-thing-maybe.html
by Mat McDermott / November 1, 2010
At the Convention on Biodiversity a resolution was adopted which
places a moratorium on geoengineering unless it can be proven that the
method in question can be shown to not have an adverse effect on
biodiversity. Opponents of geoengineering cheered, TreeHugger's John
Laumer loudly jeered, and Fred Pearce, writing in New Scientist shrugs
his shoulders. Who's right? And is the ban really even a ban at all?
Research Still Permitted, Deployment Requires Precaution
Let's look at the crucial part of the text:
Climate-related geo-engineering activities [should not] take place
until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such
activities and appropriate consideration of the associated risks for
the environment and biodiversity and associated social, economic and
cultural impacts.
Furthermore, "small-scale scientific research studies" are
specifically exempted from the ban. So, no one is saying you can't do
basic research on any geoengineering method, no matter how potentially
risky or benign, effective or ineffective it might be, but if you want
to take that research beyond that small-scale you have to be able to
prove you're not going to radically screw up the environment that
previous human activity is already screwing up. Perhaps that's too
glib a phrasing of the precautionary principle, but it frankly doesn't
seem an unreasonable standard to set for activities design to affect
the global climate.
Impact of Ban, What Methods Get Approval, Unclear
In practice the impact of all this isn't exactly clear--though it's
not, as my colleague alleges, an anti-science eco-moralist crusade
straight out the 1600s, playing into the hands of libertarian small
government proponents. As Pearce points out the definition of
geoengineering here includes pretty much everything under the sun,
anything that reduces solar heating or increases carbon capture from
the atmosphere. Under that banner are a wide range of methods, with
varying degrees of efficacy and risk. He's also right in that almost
any activity that humans do can affect biodiversity, including
(prominently) not taking action to stop climate change. Complicating
matters, as Mongabay points out, the moratorium doesn't apply in the
United States, as it is not a member of the Convention on
Biodiversity.
International Oversight & Cooperation Essential
When it comes down to it though (vague wording aside), is something
that is both critically important and agreed upon by vocal anti-
geoengineering activists and the more sober voices of the Royal
Society alike: There needs to be international oversight of
geoengineering schemes.
It's Getting Hot In Here quotes ETC Group executive director Pat
Mooney:
This decision clearly places the governance of geoengineering in the
United Nations where it belongs...Decisions on geoengineering cannot
be made by small groups of scientists from a small group of countries
that establish self-serving 'voluntary guidelines' on climate hacking.
Perhaps the most important issue in all this is, as the Royal Society
pointed out in their assessment of geoengineering, the first and
foremost thing we have to do to stop climate change is radically limit
greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity--stopping
burning fossil fuels and stopping deforestation are at the top of list
for how to do that.
FIELD TRIALS (ONGOING)
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/10/04/204747/nature-geoengineering-ocean-fertilization/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/feb/18/geo-engineering
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128294.000-geoengineering-trials-get-under-way.html
by Michael Marshall / 14 September 2011
Field trials for experiments to engineer the climate have begun. Next
month a team of UK researchers will hoist one end of a 1-kilometre-
long hose aloft using a balloon, then attempt to pump water up it and
spray it into the atmosphere. The water will not affect the climate.
Rather, the experiment is a proof of principle to show that we can
pump large quantities of material to great heights. If it succeeds, a
larger-scale version could one day pump sulphate aerosols into the
stratosphere, creating a sunshade that will offset the greenhouse
effect. The trial, led by Matthew Watson of the University of Bristol,
UK, is part of a £2 million project called Stratospheric Particle
Injection for Climate Engineering (SPICE). Funded by two UK research
councils, it also aims to find out the ideal particles to use in an
atmospheric sunshade and will attempt to model their effects in
greater detail than ever before. The test is not alone: a string of
other technologies that could be used to "geoengineer" our environment
are being field-tested.
In his blog, The Reluctant Geoengineer, Watson argues that we need to
investigate the effects of sulphate aerosols as a last-resort remedy
should the climate start to change rapidly. Researchers contacted by
New Scientistagreed with Watson that such research should continue, if
only to find out whether the techniques are feasible. "I'd say there's
a 50-50 chance we'll end up doing it, because it'll get too warm and
people will demand the planet be cooled off," says Wallace Broecker of
Columbia University in New York. But there was less enthusiasm for
SPICE's approach to the problem. There are "large gaps" in our
understanding of geoengineering, says Thomas Stocker of the University
of Bern in Switzerland. Stocker helped to organise an expert meeting
on geoengineering in June for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. It identified key unanswered questions that should be a focus
for research. However, it is not clear that field trials like Watson's
will provide the answers.
One area of doubt over injecting aerosols into the stratosphere is
whether it will change the behaviour of high-altitude clouds. That
could in turn affect the climate in ways beyond what was intended -
and for now, we don't know how, or how much. Aerosols could also
deplete the ozone layer, contribute to air pollution and may alter
visibility in the same way as large volcanic eruptions can. The SPICE
test won't answer any of these questions, says David Keith of Harvard
University. "I think it's a little reckless." The most interesting
result will be how the public reacts, he says.
What's more, Keith adds, in the long run delivering sulphates to the
stratosphere with a hose would be a bad idea. Spraying aerosols
locally allows the particles to clump together, making them less
effective at reflecting sunlight and more likely to be swept down by
rain (Environmental Research Letters, DOI:
10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045108). Keith's own studies suggest that if we
were ever forced to try to screen out some of the sun's rays globally,
it would be more effective to spray sulphuric acid from aircraft
(Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1029/2010GL043975). It would
also be cheaper, costing a few billion dollars a year according to a
study by Aurora Flight Sciences, an aeronautical firm in Cambridge,
Massachusetts. Such figures are tiny compared to the trillions that
the consequences of climate change could cost the global economy if
emissions continue to rise at current rates. The point, says Ken
Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science in Stanford,
California, is that experiments like Watson's, which test relatively
simple delivery systems, address the issue of cost. But, since the
Aurora study has shown that cost is not a critical factor - a sunshade
will be relatively inexpensive - the critical questions relate to
potential risks. More importantly, since a stratospheric sunshade is
intended to have a global impact, all countries must agree to such a
project and to its precise extent, which is unlikely to happen.
One possibility that may help countries agree is that the sunshade
need not be applied evenly across the globe. Caldeira has created, in
a climate model, a sunshade with much larger quantities of aerosols
above the poles than above the tropics. This produced a temperature
distribution much closer to the pre-industrial climate than could be
achieved with a uniform sunshade (Environmental Research Letters, DOI:
10.1088/1748-9326/5/3/034009). Caldeira and others are now toying with
the idea of regional geoengineering, or "geoadaptation". Some
techniques, such as making clouds over the seas more reflective,
should have localised effects, so countries could in theory tinker
only with their own climate. But here too uncertainties need to be
resolved. Gavin Schmidt of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space
Studies in New York points out that changes in one area will have a
knock-on effect on the other side of the planet. "What happens in
Vegas does not stay in Vegas," he says. We could perhaps predict these
long-range effects, but we cannot eliminate them. Schmidt says that
what we need is not field tests, but better modelling studies. Most
simulations of geoengineering are "naive", he says, and cannot model
all the possible side effects. "People are not doing the right kinds
of experiments to assess these effects."
Coping with emissions
The pipe-to-the-sky experiment is not the only geoengineering method
that is being tested. In 2009, a team of Russian scientists sprayed a
small amount of sulphate aerosols into the atmosphere and found that
they blocked between 1 and 10 per cent of incoming solar radiation
(Russian Meteorology and Hydrology, DOI: 10.3103/S106837390905001X).
Iceland is testing a less contentious technique to deal with our
carbon emissions: turning them into rock. The CarbFix project aims to
capture carbon dioxide from a local geothermal power plant, dissolve
it in water and inject it into basalt rock, where it will react with
magnesium, calcium and iron to form carbonates. If it works, the CO2
should stay put even in an earthquake. It is the safest way of storing
CO2, according to project leader Sigurður Reynir Gíslasonof the
University of Iceland in Reykjavik. The team plans to start the gas
injections later this month.
Adding iron to the ocean can trigger plankton blooms that suck up CO2,
but a 2009 field test gave mixed results. That's because the test site
was unsuitable, says Richard Lampitt of the National Oceanography
Centre in Southampton, UK. He and colleagues hope to repeat the trial.
Elsewhere, Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science in
Stanford, California, has permission to add sodium hydroxide - an
alkali - to a small patch of ocean to see if it can reverse the
effects of ocean acidification. Finally, California-based engineer
Armand Neukermans is building a nozzle that will spray seawater into
clouds, making them whiter and better able to reflect sunlight into
space.
STILL ILLEGAL
"SALMON RESTORATION"
http://www.hsrc1.com/history/our-story/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/10/15/bc-iron-sulfate-dumping-haida-gwaii.html
"The $2-million project, initiated by the Haida Salmon Restoration
Corp., is intended to raise nutrient levels offshore in hopes of
reviving salmon populations, according to corporation president John
Disney. Disney said earlier reports that iron sulphate was used in the
dump were incorrect, and that a finely ground dirt-like substance with
trace amounts of iron was actually used. "The results were just
spectacular, like we created life where there wasn't life," Disney
said."
WORLD's LARGEST ILLEGAL GEO-ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT? (NOPE)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/17/canada-geoengineering-pacific
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/15/pacific-iron-fertilisation-geoengineering
World's biggest geoengineering experiment 'violates' UN rules
by Martin Lukacs / 15 October 2012
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 experiments Scientists 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 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
organizations 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."
OCEANIC IRON SEEDING
http://isisconsortium.org/
http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2008-07/carbon-discredit
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/companies/RussGeorge/RussGeorge.shtml
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=02963d59-385a-4a30-8828-424fd53d7012
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2008/02/11/daily49.html
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/project-to-harness-plankton-puts-to-sea/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/19/geoengineering-canada
US businessman defends controversial geoengineering experiment
by Martin Lukacs / 19 October 2012
The American businessman who dumped around 100 tonnes of iron sulphate
into the Pacific Ocean has become a lone defender of his project,
after a storm of criticism from indigenous peoples, the Canadian
government and a UN biodiversity meeting in India. Russ George, who
told the Globe and Mail that he is the world's leading "champion" of
geoengineering, says he has been under a "dark cloud of vilification"
since the Guardian broke news of an ocean fertilisation scheme, funded
by an indigenous village on the Haida Gwaii islands, that aimed to
make money in offset markets by sequestering carbon through artificial
plankton blooms. "I'm not a rich, scheming businessman, right," he
said. "That's not who I am … This is my heart's work, not my hip
pocket work, right?"
A US agency that loaned George's company 20 expensive ocean buoyssaid
they had been "misled," and the Canadian National Research Council
that provided funding said they "were not made aware" of plans for
ocean fertilisation. The Council of the Haida Nation, which represents
all Haida, issued a statement condemning George. "The consequences of
tampering with nature at this scale are not predictable and pose
unacceptable risks to the marine environment," it read. "Our people
along with the rest of humanity depend on the oceans and cannot leave
the fate of the oceans to the whim of the few."
The Canadian government announced on Thursday that they did not
"approve this non-scientific event" and enforcement officials were
continuing an investigation they launched on 30 August. "This
government takes very seriously our commitment to protect the
environment and anyone who contravenes environmental law should be
prosecuted to the full extent of the law," Canada's environment
minister, Peter Kent, said in parliament, after a Guardian article
revealed that the environment department had known that George was
planning an iron dump but had not done anything to prevent it.
According to the department, officials met in May with the Haida
Salmon Restoration Corporation, of which George was "chief scientist,"
and gave them "fact sheets" explaining that commercial ocean
fertilisation is prohibited under Canadian law and United Nations
rules. "It is critical that full enforcement action is taken by the
Canadian authorities. Canada will be aware that this very serious
matter will be addressed at a meeting in London at the end of this
month," said Duncan Currie, an international lawyer specialising in
sea law who is attending the United Nations Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD) meetings in Hyderabad, India, which closes today.
In a binding decision due to be agreed today, representatives from 192
states underlined the existing international moratoria on
geoengineering and ocean fertilisation and stressed the need for
precaution, noting that no single geoengineering technique "meets
basic criteria for effectiveness, safety and affordability", and "may
prove difficult to deploy or govern". The decision of the CBD also
requires that countries begin reporting on how they are implementing
the moratoria, a first step towards global monitoring and enforcement
against geoengineering.
EXPERIMENTING IN-SITU
http://isisconsortium.org/page.do?pid=52316
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/report-iron-fed-plankton-slow-to-remove-co2-4020/
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/press-releases/2009/05/06/ocean-carbon-iron/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fertilizing-ocean-with-iron-sequesters-co2
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/10/04/204747/nature-geoengineering-ocean-fertilization/
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/03/neurotoxic-geoengineering/
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528744.100-geoengineering-with-iron-might-work-after-all.html
Geoengineering with iron might work after all
by Michael Marshall / 18 July 2012
If you want to help stop climate change, try tipping some iron into
the sea. For years, this geoengineering idea has been considered a
busted flush, but new results suggest it really can work. Tiny
floating algae called phytoplankton pull carbon dioxide out of the
atmosphere. When they die, the plankton sink to the seabed, taking the
carbon with them. Over thousands of years, this strips CO2 from the
air, lowering temperatures. But many ocean regions are short of iron,
which plankton need to grow, so the process does not occur. Adding
iron should stimulate plankton growth in these areas. That was the
theory, at least. In practice, it is charitable to say the results
have been mixed. For many people, the idea died in 2009, when a field
trial called Lohafex failed in the South Atlantic. The iron triggered
a bloom, but it was eaten by crustaceans before it could sink.
However, another trial, called Eifex, was carried out in the Southern
Ocean in 2004. The results have finally been published - and they are
promising. The Eifex ship found an ideal testing ground: a slowly
rotating eddy 60 kilometres across and 4 kilometres deep, which was
more or less isolated from the surrounding waters. Victor Smetacek of
the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in
Bremerhaven, Germany, and colleagues dumped iron sulphate into the
eddy's core and studied the resulting bloom. The water was rich in
silicic acid, so the bloom was dominated by phytoplankton called
diatoms. These algae build silica cell walls, which makes them harder
to eat and more likely to sink than plankton with calcium carbonate
shells. "They are not the pastures of the ocean, they are the
thistles," Smetacek says. The diatom bloom grew for three weeks, then
died and sank. At least half of it sank far below 1 kilometre, and
probably reached the sea floor (Nature, DOI: 10.1038/nature11229).
No other study has tracked a sinking bloom. "This confirms what we
expected to happen," says Richard Lampitt of the UK's National
Oceanography Centre in Southampton, who was not involved in the study.
Lampitt says Lohafex failed because the trial site was low in silicon,
so the bloom contained few diatoms. Eifex's success is far from a
green light for iron fertilisation, though. At most, a global
programme could mop up about 1 gigatonne of carbon per year, about a
tenth of our current emissions, according to a modelling study by Ken
Caldeira at the Carnegie Institution of Washington in Stanford,
California (Climatic Change, DOI: 10.1007/s10584-010-9799-4). "It's
too little to be the solution," agrees Smetacek, "but it's too much to
ignore."
Fertilised patches create algal food sources but burn through ocean
nutrients. This could be a boon to some threads of the food web, but
it could suppress diatom formation elsewhere to the detriment of other
marine species. All those contacted by New Scientist agreed that any
tests should be run as a public good, not for profit. Some firms had
planned to use iron fertilisation to accrue carbon credits which they
could sell on, but in 2008 the London Convention and Protocol - an
international treaty - ruled that the practice should not be allowed.
Iron fertilisation and the whales
Iron fertilisation is mainly seen as a way to engineer the climate
(main story), but it could also help boost whale populations by
restoring their natural ecosystem, says Victor Smetacek of the Alfred
Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Bremerhaven,
Germany. Many Southern-Ocean whales feed on Antarctic krill (Euphausia
superba). This krill is one of the few species that eat algae called
diatoms in large quantities, but krill numbers have been plummeting
for decades. Increasingly, ecologists suspect that declining krill
numbers are linked to humanity's over-hunting of whales. Whale faeces
are rich in the iron that helps fuel diatom growth. This in turn
benefits the krill - and ultimately the whales. "Whales might be
effectively fertilising their own foods, and a reduction in whale
populations would impact on that food resource," says David
Raubenheimer of Massey University in Auckland, New Zealand. There is
no guarantee that the boosted diatoms would end up being eaten by
krill, though, or that the resulting increased krill would be eaten by
whales. "There are many other competitors in the ecosystem," notes Ian
Boyd at the University of St Andrews in the UK.
U.N. MORATORIUM on GEO-ENGINEERING (2010)
http://royalsociety.org/news/governance-geoengineering/
http://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2009/geoengineering-climate/
http://web.archive.org/web/20110517023252/http://www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/pdf_file/ETC_geopiracy_4web.pdf
http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2010/10/28/un-agrees-moratorium-on-geoengineering-experiments/
Geoengineering Moratorium at UN Ministerial in Japan / 29 October
2010
In a landmark consensus decision, the 193-member UN Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD) will close its tenth biennial meeting with
a de facto moratorium on geoengineering projects and experiments.
“Any private or public experimentation or adventurism intended to
manipulate the planetary thermostat will be in violation of this
carefully crafted UN consensus,” stated Silvia Ribeiro, Latin American
Director of ETC Group.
The agreement, reached during the ministerial portion of the two-week
meeting which included 110 environment ministers, asks governments to
ensure that no geoengineering activities take place until risks to
the environmental and biodiversity and associated social, cultural and
economic impacts risks have been appropriately considered as well as
the socio-economic impacts. The CBD secretariat was also instructed to
report back on various geoengineering proposals and potential
intergovernmental regulatory measures.
The unusually strong consensus decision builds on the 2008 moratorium
on ocean fertilization. That agreement, negotiated at COP 9 in Bonn,
put the brakes on a litany of failed “experiments” – both public and
private – to sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide in the oceans’
depths by spreading nutrients on the sea surface. Since then,
attention has turned to a range of futuristic proposals to block a
percentage of solar radiation via large-scale interventions in the
atmosphere, stratosphere and outer space that would alter global
temperatures and precipitation patterns.
“This decision clearly places the governance of geoengineering in the
United Nations where it belongs,” said ETC Group Executive Director
Pat Mooney. “This decision is a victory for common sense, and for
precaution. It will not inhibit legitimate scientific research.
Decisions on geoengineering cannot be made by small groups of
scientists from a small group of countries that establish self-serving
‘voluntary guidelines’ on climate hacking. What little credibility
such efforts may have had in some policy circles in the global North
has been shattered by this decision. The UK Royal Society and its
partners should cancel their Solar Radiation Management Governance
Initiative and respect that the world’s governments have collectively
decided that future deliberations on geoengineering should take place
in the UN, where all countries have a seat at the table and where
civil society can watch and influence what they are doing.”
Delegates in Nagoya have now clearly understood the potential threat
that deployment – or even field testing – of geoengineering
technologies poses to the protection of biodiversity. The decision was
hammered out in long and difficult late night sessions of a “Friends
of the chair” group, attended by ETC Group, and adopted by the Working
Group 1 Plenary on 27 October 2010. The Chair of the climate and
biodiversity negotiations called the final text “a highly delicate
compromise.”
“The decision is not perfect,” said Neth Dano of ETC Group
Philippines. “Some delegations are understandably concerned that the
interim definition of geoengineering is too narrow because it does not
include Carbon Capture and Storage technologies. Before the next CBD
meeting, there will be ample opportunity to consider these questions
in more detail. But climate techno-fixes are now firmly on the UN
agenda and will lead to important debates as the 20th anniversary of
the Earth Summit approaches. A change of course is essential, and
geoengineering is clearly not the way forward.”
U.S. NOT PARTICIPATING
http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/why-the-un-moratorium-on-geoengineering-is-a-good-thing-maybe.html
by Mat McDermott / November 1, 2010
At the Convention on Biodiversity a resolution was adopted which
places a moratorium on geoengineering unless it can be proven that the
method in question can be shown to not have an adverse effect on
biodiversity. Opponents of geoengineering cheered, TreeHugger's John
Laumer loudly jeered, and Fred Pearce, writing in New Scientist shrugs
his shoulders. Who's right? And is the ban really even a ban at all?
Research Still Permitted, Deployment Requires Precaution
Let's look at the crucial part of the text:
Climate-related geo-engineering activities [should not] take place
until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such
activities and appropriate consideration of the associated risks for
the environment and biodiversity and associated social, economic and
cultural impacts.
Furthermore, "small-scale scientific research studies" are
specifically exempted from the ban. So, no one is saying you can't do
basic research on any geoengineering method, no matter how potentially
risky or benign, effective or ineffective it might be, but if you want
to take that research beyond that small-scale you have to be able to
prove you're not going to radically screw up the environment that
previous human activity is already screwing up. Perhaps that's too
glib a phrasing of the precautionary principle, but it frankly doesn't
seem an unreasonable standard to set for activities design to affect
the global climate.
Impact of Ban, What Methods Get Approval, Unclear
In practice the impact of all this isn't exactly clear--though it's
not, as my colleague alleges, an anti-science eco-moralist crusade
straight out the 1600s, playing into the hands of libertarian small
government proponents. As Pearce points out the definition of
geoengineering here includes pretty much everything under the sun,
anything that reduces solar heating or increases carbon capture from
the atmosphere. Under that banner are a wide range of methods, with
varying degrees of efficacy and risk. He's also right in that almost
any activity that humans do can affect biodiversity, including
(prominently) not taking action to stop climate change. Complicating
matters, as Mongabay points out, the moratorium doesn't apply in the
United States, as it is not a member of the Convention on
Biodiversity.
International Oversight & Cooperation Essential
When it comes down to it though (vague wording aside), is something
that is both critically important and agreed upon by vocal anti-
geoengineering activists and the more sober voices of the Royal
Society alike: There needs to be international oversight of
geoengineering schemes.
It's Getting Hot In Here quotes ETC Group executive director Pat
Mooney:
This decision clearly places the governance of geoengineering in the
United Nations where it belongs...Decisions on geoengineering cannot
be made by small groups of scientists from a small group of countries
that establish self-serving 'voluntary guidelines' on climate hacking.
Perhaps the most important issue in all this is, as the Royal Society
pointed out in their assessment of geoengineering, the first and
foremost thing we have to do to stop climate change is radically limit
greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity--stopping
burning fossil fuels and stopping deforestation are at the top of list
for how to do that.
FIELD TRIALS (ONGOING)
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/10/04/204747/nature-geoengineering-ocean-fertilization/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/feb/18/geo-engineering
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128294.000-geoengineering-trials-get-under-way.html
by Michael Marshall / 14 September 2011
Field trials for experiments to engineer the climate have begun. Next
month a team of UK researchers will hoist one end of a 1-kilometre-
long hose aloft using a balloon, then attempt to pump water up it and
spray it into the atmosphere. The water will not affect the climate.
Rather, the experiment is a proof of principle to show that we can
pump large quantities of material to great heights. If it succeeds, a
larger-scale version could one day pump sulphate aerosols into the
stratosphere, creating a sunshade that will offset the greenhouse
effect. The trial, led by Matthew Watson of the University of Bristol,
UK, is part of a £2 million project called Stratospheric Particle
Injection for Climate Engineering (SPICE). Funded by two UK research
councils, it also aims to find out the ideal particles to use in an
atmospheric sunshade and will attempt to model their effects in
greater detail than ever before. The test is not alone: a string of
other technologies that could be used to "geoengineer" our environment
are being field-tested.
In his blog, The Reluctant Geoengineer, Watson argues that we need to
investigate the effects of sulphate aerosols as a last-resort remedy
should the climate start to change rapidly. Researchers contacted by
New Scientistagreed with Watson that such research should continue, if
only to find out whether the techniques are feasible. "I'd say there's
a 50-50 chance we'll end up doing it, because it'll get too warm and
people will demand the planet be cooled off," says Wallace Broecker of
Columbia University in New York. But there was less enthusiasm for
SPICE's approach to the problem. There are "large gaps" in our
understanding of geoengineering, says Thomas Stocker of the University
of Bern in Switzerland. Stocker helped to organise an expert meeting
on geoengineering in June for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. It identified key unanswered questions that should be a focus
for research. However, it is not clear that field trials like Watson's
will provide the answers.
One area of doubt over injecting aerosols into the stratosphere is
whether it will change the behaviour of high-altitude clouds. That
could in turn affect the climate in ways beyond what was intended -
and for now, we don't know how, or how much. Aerosols could also
deplete the ozone layer, contribute to air pollution and may alter
visibility in the same way as large volcanic eruptions can. The SPICE
test won't answer any of these questions, says David Keith of Harvard
University. "I think it's a little reckless." The most interesting
result will be how the public reacts, he says.
What's more, Keith adds, in the long run delivering sulphates to the
stratosphere with a hose would be a bad idea. Spraying aerosols
locally allows the particles to clump together, making them less
effective at reflecting sunlight and more likely to be swept down by
rain (Environmental Research Letters, DOI:
10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045108). Keith's own studies suggest that if we
were ever forced to try to screen out some of the sun's rays globally,
it would be more effective to spray sulphuric acid from aircraft
(Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1029/2010GL043975). It would
also be cheaper, costing a few billion dollars a year according to a
study by Aurora Flight Sciences, an aeronautical firm in Cambridge,
Massachusetts. Such figures are tiny compared to the trillions that
the consequences of climate change could cost the global economy if
emissions continue to rise at current rates. The point, says Ken
Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science in Stanford,
California, is that experiments like Watson's, which test relatively
simple delivery systems, address the issue of cost. But, since the
Aurora study has shown that cost is not a critical factor - a sunshade
will be relatively inexpensive - the critical questions relate to
potential risks. More importantly, since a stratospheric sunshade is
intended to have a global impact, all countries must agree to such a
project and to its precise extent, which is unlikely to happen.
One possibility that may help countries agree is that the sunshade
need not be applied evenly across the globe. Caldeira has created, in
a climate model, a sunshade with much larger quantities of aerosols
above the poles than above the tropics. This produced a temperature
distribution much closer to the pre-industrial climate than could be
achieved with a uniform sunshade (Environmental Research Letters, DOI:
10.1088/1748-9326/5/3/034009). Caldeira and others are now toying with
the idea of regional geoengineering, or "geoadaptation". Some
techniques, such as making clouds over the seas more reflective,
should have localised effects, so countries could in theory tinker
only with their own climate. But here too uncertainties need to be
resolved. Gavin Schmidt of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space
Studies in New York points out that changes in one area will have a
knock-on effect on the other side of the planet. "What happens in
Vegas does not stay in Vegas," he says. We could perhaps predict these
long-range effects, but we cannot eliminate them. Schmidt says that
what we need is not field tests, but better modelling studies. Most
simulations of geoengineering are "naive", he says, and cannot model
all the possible side effects. "People are not doing the right kinds
of experiments to assess these effects."
Coping with emissions
The pipe-to-the-sky experiment is not the only geoengineering method
that is being tested. In 2009, a team of Russian scientists sprayed a
small amount of sulphate aerosols into the atmosphere and found that
they blocked between 1 and 10 per cent of incoming solar radiation
(Russian Meteorology and Hydrology, DOI: 10.3103/S106837390905001X).
Iceland is testing a less contentious technique to deal with our
carbon emissions: turning them into rock. The CarbFix project aims to
capture carbon dioxide from a local geothermal power plant, dissolve
it in water and inject it into basalt rock, where it will react with
magnesium, calcium and iron to form carbonates. If it works, the CO2
should stay put even in an earthquake. It is the safest way of storing
CO2, according to project leader Sigurður Reynir Gíslasonof the
University of Iceland in Reykjavik. The team plans to start the gas
injections later this month.
Adding iron to the ocean can trigger plankton blooms that suck up CO2,
but a 2009 field test gave mixed results. That's because the test site
was unsuitable, says Richard Lampitt of the National Oceanography
Centre in Southampton, UK. He and colleagues hope to repeat the trial.
Elsewhere, Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science in
Stanford, California, has permission to add sodium hydroxide - an
alkali - to a small patch of ocean to see if it can reverse the
effects of ocean acidification. Finally, California-based engineer
Armand Neukermans is building a nozzle that will spray seawater into
clouds, making them whiter and better able to reflect sunlight into
space.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages