Josh, as you well know this was not carried out by 'the Haida' and folks should be as careful ascribing this to 'the Haida' as ascribing the action of any small american town council to 'the americans' .
Last years ocean fertilization was carried out by a vancouver-based company calling itself the "Haida Salmon Restoration Company" whose CEO, head of the board and Chief Scientist is a non-Haida American, whose president is a non-Haida British Canadian, whose senior engineer is a non-haida canadian and most of the crew were non-Haida canadians and a non-Haida Australian. The only legitimately 'haida' part of this was that they had managed to convince a single village band council to establish the company as a band council corporation and then through a series of 3 poorly attended local meetings achieved enough majority for agreement to invest band council funds into the project. The key person pushing the project in the village was the same non-haida brit who is the company's president and also economic development officer at the band council. Additionally the chief counciller of the village (who is Haida) has been persuaded to defend the project in public. They promised a very poor community an incredibly high return on investment through unbelievable amount of promised carbon credits and then late in the day began also suggesting that the project might additionally bring back the salmon - a highly emotive topic in BC indigenous communities. When it became public that the project had occurred, teh two institutions that most closely represent 'the Haida' as a whole, The Council of Haida Nations and the Hereditary Chiefs council issued a statement opposing the dump and distancing themselves from the activities of HSRC and the Old Masset Village Council: http://www.haidanation.ca/Pages/Splash/Public_Notices/PDF/Joint_Statement.pdf . if there is an official position of 'the Haida' - that is it. There have since been several acrimonious public meetings on Haida Gwaii as well as less public meetings in which its quite clear that this was not a project supported by 'the Haida' as a whole - see for example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhnEVhcS5hs . if anyone has followed the reporting by canadian,BC and other journalists actually visiting the islands and interviewing locals its also clear that feeling is such that this is very far from widely supported by 'the Haida' I encourage everyone on this list, regardless of how you feel about geoengineering, the ETC group or whatever bee is in your bonnet - to at least be accurate in not tarring 'The Haida' as a whole with what occurred. Thanks Jim Thomas On Apr 28, 2013, at 10:11 AM, Josh Horton wrote: > One of the more interesting aspects of all this is the spectacle of the ETC > Group, a self-described defender of indigenous rights, accusing a First > Nations company of trying to "get away with" something, to borrow Jim Thomas' > words. The typical response to this observation is that the Haida have been > swindled by Russ George (of whom I am no fan), but this response can easily > be read as dismissive and disempowering with regard to the Haida. If the > Haida have chosen to do this, does that mean ETC Group has more insight into > indigenous values and worldviews than actual indigenous people? Does the ETC > Group just "know what's best" for them? That would be rich indeed. > > Josh Horton > > On Saturday, April 27, 2013 3:55:13 PM UTC-4, Greg Rau wrote: > Or could the SRM crowd offer some solutions? Drop the iron out of the sky > (planes, rockets, balloons etc, launched from secure land sites? Simulate > volcanic dust?) Monitor the results from satellite and by sensors mounted on > commercial cargo ships normally traversing the patch. Perhaps more > importantly, get involvement and buy-in from the science community, > governments, and NGO's to conduct carefully controlled and monitored field > studies, rather than launch rogue, pirate operations (at indigenous peoples' > expense). May I also suggest that adding ground limestone rather than iron to > the ocean (Harvey 2008) might be a safer, less biologically impactful and > hence less controversial way to mitigate CO2, though I can't promise > increased salmon returns (but neither can George). > -Greg > > From: Fred Zimmerman <geoengin...@gmail.com> > To: Andrew Lockley <andrew....@gmail.com> > Cc: David Lewis <jrando...@gmail.com>; Ken Caldeira > <kcal...@carnegiescience.edu>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com> > Sent: Sat, April 27, 2013 12:11:50 PM > Subject: Re: [geo] Haida readying for second round of iron dumping in ocean - > News - Times Colonist > > 1) I generally agree with proposition that there is complacency about > security. > 2) I do not think it is a good idea to put heavy machine guns on research > vessels. > 3) I would extend the concern about security to information security. > > > --- > Fred Zimmerman > Geoengineering IT! > Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology > GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080 > > > On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 5:53 AM, Andrew Lockley <andrew....@gmail.com> wrote: > I have to say, I think those in this field are generally somewhat complacent > about security. The animal rights movement shows what can happen. We > shouldn't wait until after an attack to beef up security. Some of the larger > conferences or specially convened meetings (eg Asilomar) may be a > particularly appealing target for violent extremists. > > In this specific case, my suggestion is that for all the bombast, George's > enemies are unlikely to ram his boat if it's firing warning shots at him. > > I've no particular love for Russ George methods, but killing his crew isn't > the way to solve anything. > > As a first step, it would seem reasonable to have SSOs (ship security > officers) or weapons on board research vessels where it's legal. A heavy > machine gun costs only a few thousand dollars. It's a sad state of affairs > when scientists have to be armed, but better armed than dead. The threat > level seems to suggest this isn't an over reaction. > > On Apr 27, 2013 6:16 AM, "David Lewis" <jrando...@gmail.com> wrote: > Paul Watson wrote a "commentary" on Russ George entitled "The Return of a > Dangerous Ecological Criminal" published by his Sea Shepherd Society online > October 29 2012. This Watson "commentary" seems to be all the Toronto Globe > and Mail had as a source for Paul Watson's views on Russ George and > geoengineering as described in their Nov 7 2012 article (I cited previously). > Watson, in his article, states his Sea Shepherd Society "did not make any > judgement on the scientific merits, if any, of this scheme [Russ George's > 2007 plan to use PLANKTOS to dump iron into waters west of the Galapagos > Islands]". Watson, apparently, was anxious that "Ecuadorian, American and > International law" be upheld. (This is what his article states). The Globe > and Mail reporter couldn't talk to Watson directly because "Mr Watson hasn't > been seen in public since July when he skipped bail in Germany..." > > As for ETC, their Geopiracy: The Case against Geoengineering webpage is still > up. ETC concludes, obviously, that "A moratorium on real-world > geoengineering experimentation is urgent", apparently because we don't know > what will happen if the slightest thing is done that ETC classifies as > geoengineering. From their first paragraph, ETC takes geoengineering to be a > technological strategy "that could reduce or delay climate change, at least > until social forces make a practical agreement [to "mitigate climate chaos" > by reducing GHG emissions]" > > Naturally, no one wants that. Reasonable people, obviously, would want to > increase or accelerate climate change, before social forces develop and make > a practical agreement that might mitigate it.... ? > > From Alice in Wonderland, by Lewis Carroll: "I don't think they play at all > fairly,' Alice began, in rather a complaining tone, 'and they all quarrel so > dreadfully one can't hear oneself speak — and they don't seem to have any > rules in particular; at least, if there are, nobody attends to them". > > > On Friday, April 26, 2013 7:19:50 PM UTC-7, Ken Caldeira wrote: > Does it matter to ETC or Paul Watson whether the intent is to increase > fishery yields versus reduce the magnitude of climate change? > > Would the action be 'geoengineering' in the latter case but not the former? > > > On Friday, April 26, 2013, David Lewis wrote: > Paul Watson is known for going as far as attempting to sink ships in > international waters that he feels are in violation of his conservation > principles. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > Jim Thomas ETC Group (Montreal) j...@etcgroup.org +1 514 2739994 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
