Peter brewer's response to this article. Thanks peter. http://www.montereyherald.com/opinion/ci_14769560
Peter Brewer: The good and bad of science By PETER BREWER Guest commentary Posted: 03/27/2010 01:32:40 AM PDT Updated: 03/27/2010 01:32:41 AM PDT The guest commentary Wednesday by Rachel Smolker criticizing the holding of the Asilomar International Conference on Climate Intervention Technologies, and casting aspersions on participants and organizers, should not go unchallenged. History shows that knowledge is better than ignorance, and openness is better than secrecy — that is what our culture is founded on. For some reason, people tend to be unusually complacent when very large-scale, uncontrolled experiments on the planet are carried out, but exceptionally nervous when small-scale, controlled experiments are discussed as a basis for understanding. That is where we get it wrong. Governments come to scientists for factual knowledge about the impacts of our advanced industrial society on the environment. Scientists often cannot give adequate replies without some form of testing in a controlled manner. The Asilomar meeting was designed to advance the dialog between scientists and policy experts to explore the most effective ways of addressing experiments and for bringing in wider communities to ensure full and open discussion before any action could be planned. Right wing think tanks, imaginative citizens, and others produce many opinion pieces advocating all manner of solutions to the climate problem. How valid are these? Should they be dismissed out of hand, or examined for clues to effectiveness? What may be the unintended consequences and how can we effectively diagnose them? Are there solutions to rising CO2 levels that may be shown to be good or harmful — and how can we tell the difference? Examples abound. Brightening clouds reflect more light and reduce solar gain, cooling the Earth but doing nothing for the build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere and ocean. Ships now largely burn sulfur-rich bunker fuel; their smokestack emissions leave white cloud trails clearly visible from space. Dirty ship emissions brighten clouds and cool the planet a little. Yet the U.N. International Maritime Organization has ruled that bunker fuels must be phased out and replaced by clean diesel. This will help human health and decrease associated deaths. But we have a world accustomed to the small climate benefit of the associated clouds. Should we just accept the added warming that has been held at bay by shipping? Or would it make sense to think of some far less obnoxious way to maintain the clouds' status quo? We won't know unless we ask. A group of nations, led by Sweden, is considering the re-oxygenation of the dead deep-water basins of the Baltic Sea that arose in the 20th century. This could benefit the environment and reduce the noxious algal blooms that now plague the region — but it would release some of the stored CO2 and create a complex aqueous chemistry chain that we think we understand. Is this geoengineering? A new and carefully thought out path is being opened that is very likely to be good for mankind. I attended this meeting and applaud the intentions and actions of the organizers and attendees. The imputation that participant Dan Whaley is manipulating affairs for an outcome favorable for him is deeply regrettable. The science of ocean iron enrichment was created in Carmel Valley and Moss Landing by the late John Martin — a marvelously gifted scientist who created knowledge and whose insights were shown posthumously to be correct. Many experiments have now shown that large-scale growth of plankton can be induced by iron addition to the ocean; but also that there are secondary effects that make claims of carbon removal more doubtful. I have never seen Dan Whaley and colleagues be anything but honest and clear in their search for possible good uses for humankind in assessing this extraordinary gift of nature. Peter Brewer is an ocean chemist and senior scientist at the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, though he wrote this commentary as a private citizen, not an institute representative. Previously he spent 24 years as a researcher at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. He lives in Carmel. On Mar 23, 7:17 pm, jim thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > "you gals are full of it" > > Full of what exactly Alvia? > > As a defense of a conference that is 80% men, in a field that is > dominated by men and macho metaphors - this is pretty telling > language. Seems to me that the gender politics of geoengineering is > still stuck in playground namecalling.. > > best > > Jim > > ps. And how did this get through the 'no ad hominem attacks' rule? > > On Mar 23, 2010, at 5:24 PM, Alvia Gaskill wrote: > > > > > Since the conspirators at Asilomar are under some kind of self- > > imposed news blackout, I will speak for them regarding this > > article. You gals are full of it. And it's the Government > > Accountability Office, not the Government Accounting Office. They > > gave up on that one a long time ago. > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Diana Bronson > > To: [email protected] ; [email protected] > > Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 11:21 AM > > Subject: [clim] Article on Asilomar by Rachel Smolker > > >http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/03/23-4 > > > Published on Tuesday, March 23, 2010 by CommonDreams.org > > We Cannot 'Techno-Fix' Our Way to a Sustainable Future > > by Rachel Smolker > > This week, California will host the Asilomar International > > Conference on Climate Intervention Technologies. The conference > > follows hearings last week in the US House of Representatives and a > > report from the UK Committee on Science and Technology, as well as a > > recent report from the Government Accounting Office, all following > > on the heels of earlier reports from the Royal Society. In short, > > there is a lot of high level interest in the topic. > > > Given the failure of Copenhagen, the sellout of US Congress to > > special interests and the stalemated international negotiations, the > > "last resort" of geoengineering is gaining support. This is > > especially true as many are either in a state of panic or paralysis > > following recent announcements of methane seeping from the East > > Siberian Arctic Shelf, on top of the ongoing reports of emissions > > rising, ice melting, and temperatures reaching all time highs. > > > There are good reasons to be quite worried. But there may be good > > reasons to be even MORE worried by the climate geoengineering > > proponents and what is going on at Asilomar this week. > > > The conference holds as its intent to develop "voluntary guidelines" > > for further research on climate geoengineering technologies. > > Voluntary guidelines are most often designed to fend off > > "involuntary" regulation. The conference is organized by Margaret > > Leinen, who happens to be the mother of Dan Whaley, founder and CEO > > of Climos, a company with patents currently pending for methods to > > profit by selling carbon offsets from ocean fertilization, one > > proposed geoengineering technology. Other major players in > > geoengineering, some of whom will be at Asilomar, similarly have > > vested interests in ensuring cash flows for funding, experimentation > > and commercialization of their pet technologies. > > > We can pretty well guess that whatever "voluntary guidelines" they > > come up with for themselves will be designed with "don't take no for > > an answer" as their underlying mantra. > > > A letter signed by dozens of civil society groups was submitted to > > the conference organizers, challenging the entire premise of the > > conference in stating: "The priority at this time is not to sort > > out the conditions under which this experimentation might take place > > but, rather, whether or not the community of nations and peoples > > believes that geoengineering is technically, legally, socially, > > environmentally and economically acceptable." > > > Asilomar seeks to step right on past any process for determination > > of acceptability, assume it as a given, and carry on with business. > > > This is deeply troubling on many fronts given the technofixes being > > put on the table, the scale of their impacts, and the track record > > so far. > > > The technologies for "climate intervention"(aka, geoengineering) > > fall into two broad categories: Carbon sequestration and solar > > radiation management. Ocean fertilization falls into the former. The > > idea is to dump iron particles into ocean waters to stimulate > > plankton blooms. The plankton absorb CO2, and when they die, > > (hopefully) carry their carbon to the ocean floor to remain > > sequestered. There are many known risk factors, including one newly > > discovered and described just last week in Proceedings of the > > National Academy of Sciences. This study revealed that the kinds of > > plankton that are stimulated by iron fertilization include those > > that produce domoic acid, cause of shellfish poisoning in humans and > > lethal to marine animals. Oops. > > > Ocean fertilization has already been tested numerous times. The > > controversial "Lohafex" test last year failed to illustrate any > > carbon sequestration after dumping more than 6 tons of iron into the > > Southern Ocean. To make matters worse, these tests were undertaken > > in spite of a moratorium agreed to by close to 200 nations under the > > Convention on Biological Diversity, also defying the London > > Convention on Ocean Dumping. Such treaties and agreements are, > > apparently, just pieces of paper. Biochar is another carbon > > sequestration technology proposed. Advocates claim that by growing > > hundreds of millions of hectares of tree plantations, burning the > > trees to make charcoal and then tilling the charcoal into soils, we > > can sequester carbon under ground. The scale that would be entailed > > here is monumental, especially given that only 12-40% of the carbon > > from the trees is retained in the charcoal. The impacts, on forests, > > soils, and from small particles (soot) becoming airborne, could very > > well outweigh any supposed gain. > > > Another broad category of climate intervention technologies involve > > "solar radiation management" (SRM), i.e. blocking or reflecting > > sunlight. Examples include using jets or rockets to blast small > > reflective sulphate particles into the stratosphere, "cloud > > whitening" to increase reflectivity by injecting saltwater mist into > > clouds, vast plantations of plants engineered to have shiny, > > reflective leaves, or covering large areas of the desert with a > > white/reflective coating or deplying huge arrays of mirrors into > > space. > > > These technologies are virtually all extremely risky, expensive and/ > > or downright nuts. But, frighteningly, they are gaining mainstream > > acceptability! Among the advocates are some, like Bjorn Lomberg the > > "Skeptical Envrionmentalist", who have denied global warming is even > > real. Some claim that these approaches are prefereable to reducing > > emissions. Julian Morris, of the International Policy Network, for > > example stated: "Diverting money into controlling carbon emissions > > and away from geoengineering is probably morally irresponsible." > > > The potential for "weaponization" of climate geoengineering > > technologies adds fuel to the fires for those who find this issue > > troubling. Who will control and have access to the power to control > > rainfall or deflect (or not) sunlight in a drought, flood, famine > > and water deprived future world? > > > Perhaps it is time for a collective pause and some deep reflection? > > First of all, our faith in science and technology seems to be > > teetering precipitously. On the one hand, we appear shocked when > > scientists err, as if we somehow expect the scientific method and > > its practitioners to be godlike in their ability to predict the > > future of global systems and dynamics. On the other hand, many are > > prepared to deny the validity of literally thousand of studies all > > converging towards the conclusion that global warming is in fact a > > reality. Further, we fail to recognize that science is merely a > > tool, and it's ability to uncover "truths" depends utterly on the > > skill and integrity of its' users. Scientific rigor demands a lag > > time between asking a question and offering "proof" for an answer. > > That time delay is inconveniently long under the current > > circumstances. > > > How do we reconcile? The decision to resort to technofixes to > > geoengineer our only planet is not up to the handful of profit- > > seeking businessmen donning lab coats at Asilomar this week. The > > planet is our collective responsibility. The world views held by > > many earth inhabitants, including most if not all indigenous > > peoples, is that we are not Mother Earth's "mechanics", but rather > > integral parts of her. This view is part of the conciousness of > > "Pachamama" which will be visibly present at the "negotiating > > tables" in the upcoming World Peoples Conference on Climate Change > > and the Rights of Mother Earth, being held in Bolivia next month. > > > I, for one, will feel far more hopeful about my children's future if > > decisions about climate geoengineering come not from Asilomar and > > the "profitable technofix" mindset, but rather out of Bolivia, with > > the Rights of Mother Earth as their basis. > > > Rachel Smolker is codirector of Biofuelwatch, and an organizer with > > Climate SOS. She has a Ph.D. in behavioral ecology from the > > University of Michigan and worked as a field biologist before > > turning to activism. She is the daughter of Environmental Defense > > Fund cofounder, Robert Smolker, and she engaged in direct action at > > EDF offices to oppose their advocacy for carbon trade. She has > > written on the topic of bioenergy, carbon trade and climate justice. > > She was arrested protesting outside the Chicago Climate Exchange in > > November as part of theMobilization for Climate Justice day of > > actions, which she wrote about for CommonDreams.org. > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups "Climate Intervention" 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 > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/climateintervention?hl=en > > . > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups "Climate Intervention" 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 > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/climateintervention?hl=en > > . > > Jim Thomas > ETC Group (Montreal) > [email protected] > +1 514 2739994 -- 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.
