Germany OKs global warming experiment http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090126/sc_afp/climatewarmingenvironmentoceangermany_20090126183534
>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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
