Below is my correspondence with Jim from etcgroup about his luddite hate campaign.
A ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> Date: 2009/1/26 Subject: RE: LOHAFEX hate campaign To: jim thomas <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Jim, I would argue that it if your side of this debate that is being both unfair and inflammatory. I find it very disappointing that you are not being overt about your dogmatic objection to geoengineering. Even if the claims you were making and implying were true (which we both know they're not), then they would not be on a sufficient scale to overwhelm the benefits of new knowledge about geoengineering. It would be far more honourable of you to simply state that you are scared that fertilization works, and you think that society would be better off not knowing about this technology. Others have made similar arguments in the past in an overt and fair way. Your argument that the LOHAFEX operation is 'dumping' is ludicrous. This is a small and expensive scientific experiment, not a waste disposal operation. Any references to dumping, and subsequent attempts to motivate the general public or politicians, can only be in bad faith. You point to the lack of approval under a regulatory regime, but as well you know a credible regulatory regime is not possible without an experimental basis on which to ground any subsequent decisions. You are directly acting to prevent the establishment of the regulations you claim to be calling for. The claims made in this campaign should be based on reasonable assumptions and be moderated to those of significant scale only. Take fish for example - there will of course ultimately be more dead fish, simply because there will be more fish, and they are not immortal. Presenting this as an environmental disaster is frankly ludicrous. Your illustration of the campaign with an image of dead fish KILLED DIRECTLY BY THE FERTILIZATION motivates people to complain. They will assume that you have some evidence of a significant die-off of marine life as a result of direct toxicity. There is no such evidence. This is pseudo-science. Whether you are using this pseudo-science in an overt or subtle way is irrelevant - you are manipulating people by making claims that are unsupported or demonstrably false. The EIA for the LOHAFEX experiment has already been carried out and filed, as you are well aware. Please nail your luddite colours to the mast, state your ideological objects honestly, and stop hiding behind specious arguments about 'dumping' and pseudo-science claims of toxicity. A -----Original Message----- From: jim thomas [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 26 January 2009 04:33 To: Andrew Lockley Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: LOHAFEX hate campaign Dear Andrew, There is no "hate campaign" - that is unfair and inflammatory language. We have requested that the Lohafex expedition be halted because it breaches the terms of the de-facto moratorium on ocean fertilisation agreed by 191 nations at The Convention on Biological Diversity in Bonn last year - an agreement whose language was brokered by the German Government itself. Our concern is that the German and Indian governments, both party to that agreement, wrongly approved an expedition which they should not have authorised at this time and in that form. If it proceeds it undermines both the integrity of that decision and international confidence in India and Germany's commitment to enforcing multilateral environmental agreements. At no time have we made any scientific claims regarding the Lohafex expedition specifically - you can check our news releases online at http://www.etcgroup.org . In conversations with journalists we have referred to some of the well-founded concerns about ocean fertilization in general that were the basis of the moratorium - that it may give rise to unwelcome changes in marine ecosystems such as reduced oxygen in water, production of greenhouse gases and other atmospheric gases and may prompt growth of toxic algae. All of these concerns are documented by UN reports such as the IPCC working group four reports and the Millennium Ecosystem Assesment. I'm not sure why you say there is no evidence that fish may be harmed by ocean fertilisation. Professor John Cullen of Dalhaousie University is one of the world's leading oceanographers considering the ecological impacts of ocean fertilisation and in a recent interview he put it quite baldly: "I can predict with confidence there will be more dead fish with iron fertilization," Cullen said. "What I can't do is predict how many more." (see http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20071018/news_lz1c18seeding.html) You are correct that ETC Group does have "in principle" concerns about moving ahead with geo-engineering plans. That is why we welcomed the de facto moratorium at the CBD as the beginning of a much needed international debate on the subject and a process of putting in place international oversight of the field. If yourself or the Lohafex researchers wish to ammend the global rules around geo-engineering then the the CBD, a UN convention backed by almost every country on earth, is the more legitimate place to do that - not by unilateral actions on the high seas. With best wishes, Jim Thomas ETC Group. On Jan 25, 2009, at 4:59 PM, Andrew Lockley wrote: > Jim, > > This is a deeply irresponsible and alarmist campaign. There is no > evidence to suggest, as your image does, that fish will be harmed. > Quite the reverse is expected as the marine food chain is boosted - > as well you know. To oppose a small scale experiment with no likely > ill effects is shameless political manoeuvring disguised as rational > scientific argument. It is clear to anyone reasonably knowledgeable > that you opposition is to geo-engineering per se, as this experiment > is wholly benign. > > You should have the courage to actually say what you believe, rather > than hiding your politics behind pseudo science. Your current > stance discredits your organisation. > > Andrew Lockley > 5 Park View > MK16 9AD --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
