I suspect that small, inconspicuous organisms will routinely be left out of any such programs. Trees and macroscopic animals may be transferred; nematodes and microscopic fungi won't be, at least not intentionally.
On May 26, 10:05 am, Albert Kallio <[email protected]> wrote: > Back in August 2006 I was invited to present a paper: "Preparing the Amazon > Ecosystems for the Changing Climate" at the World Water Week in Stockholm. > > I could not but agree with this with the latest reports coming from the > Amazon, i.e. below. > > Amazon hit by climate chaos of floods, drought. Across the Amazon basin, > river dwellers are adding new floors to their stilt houses, trying to stay > above rising floodwaters that have killed 44 people and left 376,000 > homeless. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30930409/from/ET/ > > I and my co-author Matti Lappalainen proposed a mixture of measures of > conventional, geoengineering and managed relocation types to secure the > biodiversity of the Amazon in case of severe and sustained droughts become > commonplace there. > > I also believe that the combinatory treatments will provide the best > ammunition to address the climate change where all the various techniques are > deployed. > > Our 5 point programme to mitigage the effects of the climate change was the > following: > > 1. Educate the riparian communities that the large dry riverbeds can be > extremely dangerous as a rain pour in upriver basin may happen with clear > skies down river. The children playing far out in dry river bed should not be > allowed nor any overnight camping. These cause most deaths in many desert > communities where there are dry rivers, wadis. > > 2. Intensify the fire-fighting capacity and rapid response by organising > airborne paratroopers and fire fighting planes with a network of support air > fields and depos to make far outback places more accessible to the fire > fighters and mobile airborne units. > > 3. Use of Mixox large water body oxygenation systems to prevent or reduce > oxygen depletion in the Amazon. The estimated amount of units were about > 40,000 for first 1,000 km from the estuary of the river, each unit > oxygenating about 1 million cubic metres of water per day at operating power > 2KW. Cost was estimated at Euro 500 million. The Large Water Body oxygenation > projects underday in the Baltic Sea, 27 km2, off Hanko will help in > understanding the viability and economic management of large water body > oxygenation projects such as the seas, coastal anoxic hot spots and the large > lakes and the rivers. > > 4. The clear-felling of the dried and dead forests. Felling down and piling > of the dead wood and other plant material in large heaps with large > firebreaks made in between. The purpose of felling down and piling the dead > wood is to cut the positive feedback loops of burning trees and materials > releasing CO2 back into the athmosphere, and the source thus being taken down > and felled and the heaps acting as a temporary / permanent carbon sink with > aim to prevent biomaterials from burning. > > 5. Creation of tree nurseries and collections of all the 40,000 trees of the > Amazon as well as artificially irrigated biodiversity reserves where secure > water supplies can be used to keep the small areas of the biodiversity > hotspots irrigated to preserve the plants and insects etc. Once climatic > conditions revert back to sustainable climate, the reserves can be used to > regenerate the previously lost areas of rain forest coverage. Managed > relocation planting of the trees to the east Andean highland forests and > planting trees to colder places in anticipation of the future warmer > temparatures. > > Kind regards, > > Albert > > Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 06:17:22 -0700 > Subject: [geo] Managed Relocation debate has a lot in common with > Geoengineering > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090525173542.htm > > Rapid Climate Change Forces Scientists To Evaluate 'Extreme' Conservation > Strategies > > A tortoise on the edge of Athens, Greece. (Credit: Dov Sax) > > ScienceDaily (May 26, 2009) — Scientists are, for the first time, objectively > evaluating ways to help species adapt to rapid climate change and other > environmental threats via strategies that were considered too radical for > serious consideration as recently as five or 10 years ago. Among these > radical strategies currently being considered is so-called "managed > relocation." Managed relocation, which is also known as "assisted migration," > involves manually moving species into more accommodating habitats where they > are not currently found. > > A new, ground-breaking tool to help decision-makers determine if, when and > how to use managed relocation is described in the May 25, 2009 issue of the > Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) by a > multi-disciplinary working group. > > Partially funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), the working group > is co-led by Jessica Hellmann and Jason McLachlan of the University of Notre > Dame, Dov Sax of Brown University, and Mark Schwartz of the University of > California at Davis. David Richardson of Stellenbosch University in South > Africa led the writing of the paper. > > The researchers' tool is ground-breaking because managed relocation has been > categorically eschewed by some scientists for fear that relocated species > would overpopulate their new habitats, cause extinctions of local species, or > clog water pipes as invasive zebra muscles have done in the Great Lakes. > Nevertheless, some conservationists and groups have already used managed > relocation or are currently considering doing so. > > Do Something or Do Nothing? > > So why is managed relocation, a once-taboo and potentially harmful strategy, > now being seriously considered? "Because," says Hellmann, "it is becomingly > overwhelmingly evident that climate change is a reality; and it is fast and > large. Consequences will arise within decades, not centuries." So action > seems much more important now than it did even five or 10 years ago when > atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases were lower. Now, we are > committed to greater degrees of climate change." > > What's more, a "do nothing" response to climate change involves significant > risks. Hellman says, "We have previously been able to say, 'let nature run > its course.' But because humans have already changed the world, there is no > letting nature run its course anymore. Now, action, like inaction, has > potential negative consequences." So, adds Richardson, "we must develop new > tools and new ways to balance the risks of inaction vs. action." > > Managed relocation is not the only controversial adaptation strategy > currently being considered by scientists. Other such strategies include > fertilizing the oceans to increase their absorption of greenhouse gases and > thereby reduce climate change, conserving huge migratory corridors that may > extend thousands of kilometers, and preserving the genetic diversity of > threatened species in seed banks. > > Speed Kills > > Many species have survived previous, slower periods of climate change by > evolving or by moving to more hospitable habitats via their own power. But > such survival strategies are now often precluded by: > > 1) the presence of cities and by other unnatural obstacles that prevent > organisms from reaching new destinations; and > > 2) the speed of climate change, which may raise the Earth's average > temperature by as much as 6 degrees Celsius in the next 100 years--a large, > rapid change by nature's standards. > > As temperatures increase, significant percentages of the Earth's species may > become trapped--like fish out of water--in habitats that have become too hot, > too dry, or too something else for them. They may therefore go extinct or > lose genetically important segments of their populations. Such losses may > disrupt large ecosystems and damage agricultural, cultural and economic > systems. > > Risky Business > > The working group's consideration of managed relocation has not ended the > controversies surrounding this strategy's use, which sometimes still even pit > members of the working group against one another. Why is managed relocation > so controversial? Because it begs the question: Do we really know enough to > predict how organisms will behave in new locations and whether they will harm > receiving habitats? > > "The results of intentional and accidental introductions of species into new > habitats have taught us a great deal about the implications of moving > organisms to new habitats," says Richardson. Nevertheless, predictions of > whether introduced species will 'take' in new areas and their likely impacts > will always involve uncertainty. But we can make informed predictions with > stated bounds of uncertainty." > > To this end, the researchers' tool is designed to help expose managed > relocation's risks, trade-offs and costs--considerations that are often > absent from decision-making on natural resources. Specifically, it provides > stakeholders with a system for individually scoring a proposed relocation > based on multi-disciplinary criteria. These multi-disciplinary criteria > include the probability of the success of a proposed relocation, its > potential for harming receiving ecosystems, its costs, its potential for > triggering violations of the Endangered Species Act, and the social and > cultural importance of impacted species. > > Comparisons of stakeholders' scores should help stakeholders identify the > sources of their disagreements so that they may be resolved. However, the > tool does not, by itself produce management recommendations. > > "The tool takes advantage of the fact that, although science can't tell us > exactly what will happen in the future, it can tell us how likely a favorable > result is--useful information for decision-makers," says NSF Program Director > Nancy Huntly. > > Not Just Applicable to Endangered Species > > In addition to addressing managed relocations of endangered species, the > researchers' tool may also address: > > * Managed relocations of species that are not endangered. For example, the > working group's PNAS paper applies the tool to the debate over whether > certain species of North American hardwood trees should be planted beyond > their northern range boundaries into... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
