This is a little bit like an ETC press release in the sense that it is a little misleading.
The definition of "legislation" is "is law which has been promulgated (or enacted) by a legislature or other governing body". Kerry has proposed legislation but there is no legislation yet. So, what I see is a discussion draft of a bill. http://kerry.senate.gov/americanpoweract/pdf/APAbill.pdf So the headline should not be: *Iron Fertilization Dead in the Water? Controversial Geoengineering Proposal Banned in US Climate Change Legislation* but rather *Iron Fertilization Dead in the Water? Controversial Geoengineering Proposal Banned in DISCUSSION DRAFT OF PROPOSED US Climate Change Legislation* Secondly, the proposed legislation does not ban ocean fertilization, but it does say that such activities would not be credited as carbon sequestration. So, a more accurate headline would be: *Iron Fertilization Dead in the Water? Controversial Geoengineering Proposal NOT CONSIDERED CARBON SEQUESTRATION in DISCUSSION DRAFT OF PROPOSED US Climate Change Legislation* There is a trend in which political organizations are issuing political statements disguised as press releases, which then get picked up by the media as news stories because the new organizations do not have the resources available to check the stories out. ___________________________________________________ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 [email protected] http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 8:26 AM, Josh <[email protected]> wrote: > I think most of us would support "blue carbon" initiatives, but where > does one draw the line between restoring coastal ecosystems (to what > exactly?) and ocean fertilization? Aren't they both ecosystem > interventions designed to promote carbon sinks? > > Josh Horton > [email protected] > > > On May 28, 8:27 am, Steven Lutz <[email protected]> wrote: > > http://bluecarbonblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/iron-fertilization-out-blu... > > > > *Iron Fertilization Dead in the Water? Controversial Geoengineering > Proposal > > Banned in US Climate Change Legislation* > > > > MIAMI, FL (May 27, 2010) -- Climate change legislation released by > Senators > > John Kerry and Joseph Lieberman earlier this month delivered a major blow > to > > ocean fertilization, a controversial geoengineering proposal. Language in > > the American Power Act essentially bans iron and urea fertilization, the > > dumping of iron ferrites or urea to stimulate blooms of carbon-capturing > > plankton as a means to mitigate climate change. > > > > Ocean fertilization has been considered by some entrepreneurs and > scientists > > as a quick and easy fix for climate change. In theory blooms of > ‘fertilized’ > > algae would store atmospheric carbon, which then sink to depth. Other > > scientists have argued that the concept offers a too simplistic of view > of > > ocean dynamics and lacks scientific merit. International ocean studies > > examining the fertilization effects of iron have produced results that > fall > > far short of expectations. > > > > Environmentalists have raised concern over potential impacts, including > the > > triggering of toxic algal blooms which could kill fish and create oceanic > > dead zones, increased ocean acidification, poisoning of marine mammals, > and > > release of greenhouse gasses. > > > > *Blue carbon supported* - The Act supports measures to enhance the > ocean’s > > natural carbon function, a concept that has been termed ‘blue carbon’ by > the > > environmental community. The restoration and conservation of certain > coastal > > and marine ecosystems, which capture and store atmospheric carbon, are > > included in the Act’s list of eligible climate mitigation projects. > > > > Recent reports produced by the United Nations Environment Programme and > > International Union for Conservation of Nature found that, when healthy, > > mangrove forests, saltwater marshlands and seagrass meadows are extremely > > effective at storing atmospheric carbon, thereby mitigating climate > change. > > The reports are titled ‘Blue Carbon’ and ‘The Management of Natural > Coastal > > Carbon Sinks,’ respectfully. > > > > “The Senators should be commended for their strong environmental and > climate > > change leadership, and for demonstrating the precautionary principal with > > regard to potentially dangerous ocean fertilization,” said Steven Lutz, > > Executive Director of Blue Climate Solutions, a marine conservation > > organization that supports blue carbon policies. “Environmental impacts > > associated with ocean fertilization schemes could dwarf the current Gulf > oil > > spill disaster.” > > > ____________________________________________________________________________ > > -- > 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]<geoengineering%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > > -- 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.
