There seems to be some room for large scale mariculture in this IMO work, as well as, further need for clarification(s).
*"Ocean fertilization does not include conventional aquaculture, or mariculture, or the creation of artificial reefs.”.* This distinction does possibly leave open the door for large scale *OMEGA*<http://blog.marinexplore.com/nasa-omega-project-the-ocean-as-a-platform-for-biofuel/> projects which utilize nutricline <http://www.pnas.org/content/105/51/20344.short>water for the main nutrient input for algae cultivation. Also, the algae would use the dissolved CO2 within the nutricline water and thus "lowers the partial pressure of carbon dioxide (pCO2) in the upper ocean and facilitates the diffusive drawdown of atmospheric CO2." (see The role of nutricline depth in regulating the ocean carbon cycle<http://www.pnas.org/content/105/51/20344.short> ). The DIC component (An Open Ocean Trial of Controlled Upwelling Using Wave Pump Technology<http://hahana.soest.hawaii.edu/lab/dkarl/2010JAtmosOceanTech27-385-396.pdf> see figure 2) of the nutricline water is readily used by the microalgae. The addition of Olivine (please see Geoengineering impact of open ocean dissolution of olivine on atmospheric CO2, surface ocean pH and marine biology <http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/1/014009/article> and the works by Dr. Schuiling<http://www.innovationconcepts.eu/res/literatuurSchuiling/encyclopediaweatheringapproaches.pdf>) to the OMEGA cultivation photobioreactors would help insure proper mineral content for robust microalgae cultivation, pH adjustment and enhance the overall “biological pump” effect of the the OMEGA operation. The primary contention, most likely, would be the commercial nature of this 'mariculture' approach to oceanic based GE. The commercialization of GE, in any form, can safely be predicted to create its own high level debate. We have to begin, however, to ask how should *any* GE project be funded? The OMEGA method does provide significant profit potential while addressing food/fuel/fertilizer/fresh water (etc.) needs. Although the profit potential is present and is needed to propagate/maintain such large installations, the OMEGA concept seems to offer the greatest good for the greatest number through large scale mariculture output while addressing ocean acidification, surface cooling within temperature critical waters (i.e. ENSO and/or Eastern Equatorial Atlantic), and atmospheric CDR. It is the global demand and conventional means of producing food/fuel/fertilizer etc. which seems to do the most damage to our planetary environment. Any GE concept which can substantially address these important and highly problematic needs, would seem to be worth supporting...at all levels. Large scale mariculture can address both short term and long term GE needs and address our escalating demands for food, biofuel, organic fertilizer, fresh water and polymers. It would be useful to get clarification from the LC/LP on their view of large scale OMEGA type projects on the specific point of such projects being "*conventional aquaculture, or mariculture",* or not. Best, Michael On Friday, October 18, 2013 4:24:02 PM UTC-7, andrewjlockley wrote: > > > http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/Marine-Geoengineering-to-be-Regulated-Under-Amendments-to-International-Treaty-2013-10-18/ > > Marine Geoengineering to be Regulated Under Amendments to International > Treaty > > 35th Consultative Meeting of Contracting Parties to the Convention on the > Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972 > (London Convention) 8th meeting of Contracting Parties to the 1996 Protocol > thereto (London Protocol) > > BY MAREX > > Marine geoengineering, including ocean fertilization, will be regulated > under amendments to the 1996 Protocol to the international treaty which > regulates the dumping of wastes and other matter at sea. > > > The amendments, adopted on Friday by Parties to the 1996 Protocol to the > Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and > Other Matter, 1972, add a new article 6bis which states that “Contracting > Parties shall not allow the placement of matter into the sea from vessels, > aircraft, platforms or other man-made structures at sea for marine > geoengineering activities listed in Annex 4, unless the listing provides > that the activity or the sub-category of an activity may be authorized > under a permit”. > > > Marine geoengineering is defined as “a deliberate intervention in the > marine environment to manipulate natural processes, including to counteract > anthropogenic climate change and/or its impacts, and that has the potential > to result in deleterious effects, especially where those effects may be > widespread, long-lasting or severe”. > > > A new Annex 4 on “Marine geoengineering” lists “Ocean fertilization”, > defined as “any activity undertaken by humans with the principal intention > of stimulating primary productivity in the oceans. Ocean fertilization > does not include conventional aquaculture, or mariculture, or the creation > of artificial reefs.” > > > The Annex provides that all ocean fertilization activities other than > those referred to above shall not be permitted. An ocean fertilization > activity may only be considered for a permit if it is assessed as > constituting legitimate scientific research taking into account any > specific placement assessment framework. > > > A new annex V adds the Assessment Framework for matter that may be > considered for placement under Annex 4. The Assessment framework provides > that Contracting Parties should consider any advice on proposals for > activities listed from independent international experts or an independent > international advisory group of experts. > > > The amendments will enter into force 60 days after two thirds of the > Contracting Parties have deposited an instrument of acceptance of the > amendment with IMO. (The London Protocol currently has 43 Parties.) > > > Mr. Stefan Micallef, Director, Marine Environment Division, International > Maritime Organization (IMO) commended the adoption of the amendment to > regulate the placement of matter for ocean fertilization and other marine > geoengineering activities. “This is a true testament to the fact that the > London Protocol continues to be among the most advanced international > regulatory instruments addressing human activities in the marine > environment and there is no doubt that this much-awaited amendment will be > appreciated by other international bodies. The amendment also reflects the > scientific-based approach of the London Convention and its 1996 Protocol,” > Mr. Micallef said. > > > Representatives of the Contracting Parties to the Convention on the > Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972 > (London Convention) and to the 1996 Protocol thereto (London Protocol), > were in London for their 35th/8th meeting, held from 14 to 18 October at > the Headquarters of IMO, which hosts the Office for the London Convention > and Protocol. > > > The London Protocol prohibits the dumping of wastes and other matter at > sea except for those on a short permitted list, for which permits must be > sought. > > > The adoption of amendments relating to marine geoengineering follows > discussion on the matter in previous LC/LP meetings. An agreement issued in > 2008 stated that ocean fertilization activities, other than legitimate > scientific research, should not be allowed. In 2010, the Parties approved > an “Assessment Framework for Scientific Research Involving Ocean > Fertilization.” > -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
