Ron, Greg et al, Ron's input on this thread has not been fully posted by the moderator. Below is a copy of his missing input on Jan. 11th. My response to both Ron and Greg's input is below that re-posted section.
The re-post: List, Michael, Greg and 4 more ccs 1. I am trying here to respond to both Greg and Michael, because Prof. Rayfuse’s Ppt material is quite important for this list: As with most Ppts, I hoped for the language that went with it. Eventually, I found this was one of five talks given as a side event at CEC-2014, The full video for Prof. Rayfuse’s presentation is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhP2xvlfRrw . The full 1 2/3 hours all-ocean side event video for 7 speakers is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bTJ6ZcC3WI (and I recommend all also). 2. The message from all speakers, including Prof Rayfuse, was a surprise to me - that AR5 and the entire IPCC process are virtually of no value in protecting the ocean. The IPCC is directed at the atmosphere. I agree with Michael and Greg (and possibly all the panelists??) that CDR/NET analyses should be considering many more approaches than only Ocean Iron Fertilization (OIF). In particular, carbon capture in oceans need not require sequestration/storage there. As Michael’s IMBECS proposes (but does not mention) below, the placement of ocean generated carbon can be in soils (as biochar). 3. Many (maybe all) of the speakers of course talked about ocean acidification. But there was a lot also on two more: ocean warming (helped by SRM) and deoxygenation. Our CDR/NET methods can attack all three. 4. Greg wrote today: “*Via aqueous- and geo-chemistry, the ocean is already the proven savior of the planet wrt excess CO2 https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2009.ann_rev_tail.pdf <https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2009.ann_rev_tail.pdf> . Guess the Cinderella part is whether or not sufficient numbers of (influential) humans become aware of this and the gravity of the excess CO2 problem forces them to consider helping "our savior" do her job. In any case, looks like the lawyers will do quite well.” **Greg* This is a fine article, but it was apparently not written with CDR/NET in mind. Storing excess carbon in soils is a quite new idea (barely a score of years old; the word “biochar” only became “official” 7 years ago). To repeat: placement of char or CO2 can be independent of where its predecessor photosynthesis took place. 5. Few inserts on Michael’s work: On Jan 10, 2015, at 2:12 PM, Michael Hayes <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Folks, The complexity of the oceanic CE legal arena <https://drive.google.com/viewerng/viewer?a=v&pid=forums&srcid=MDE0NTY3NTk0NzY2MTMxMzQ4MjEBMDg0NjYzMTgwMjE2NzAxOTY1NDABSTh5cEVDbkRTeXdKATAuMQEBdjI> is well presented by Prof. Rayfuse. One approach which can be employed requires looking past OIF and focusing upon *contained* oceanic biomass production (i.e. tank and bag farms) and create a sub-treaty organization which works to synthesize the legal language and intent of the treaty organizations and take responsibility for establishing and enforcing strong environmental standards and practices which reflect the treaty language and intent synthesis. *[RWL: The key here is “sub-treaty”. At the above side event, the international lawyers (including Prof. Rayfuse) have other suggestions. I have zero competence to make a suggestion - but I now believe CDR/NET ideas have not yet been much a part of how to proceed. OIF is not the only alternative.* In brief, it may be needed to lead through example, at the sub-treaty level, and allow the treaty organizations time to observe and advise until they themselves feel confident that the governance is working at the sub-treaty level and is worth instituting at the treaty level (or not). At this time, there are no treaty restrictions for a well designed/operated enclosed (i.e. tank/bag) oceanic biomass farming operations...regardless of scale. This sub-treaty governance approach is depicted in the IMBECS Protocol <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m9VXozADC0IIE6mYx5NsnJLrUvF_fWJN_GyigCzDLn0/edit> : 2.2) Political Risk reduction: The core IMBECS technology is well within the current STEM arts and providing the basic technology to all energy importing nations would reduce political risk as such support should be widely welcomed at the public level. The IMBECS option offers an abundant and low cost energy supply, as well as food, feed, fertilizer, freshwater, polymers/fabrics and a vast expanse of new territory offering jobs, recreation and habitation. Strong acceptance at the public level reduces political risk for all policy makers. Interestingly, marine GWM already has a relevant fledgling intergovernmental governance matrix in place. The IMO and CBD are currently evolving language which is attempting to encompass the concept of marine based geoengineering. Thus, this project is an attempt to bring to the table a concept which can, at the practical level, evaluate and test both the contemporary STEM and governance realities of large scale GWM operations while opening a path to intergovernmental and intergenerational global environmental management . This technology would be managed by an intergovernmentally sanctioned B Corporation <http://www.bcorporation.net/> which would have the following functions/mission: 1) Synthesizes relevant treaty language 2) Performs R&D activities and purchases relevant patents 3) Under intergovernmental commission, functions as the primary responsible international actor <http://www.dictionnaire.enap.ca/dictionnaire/docs/definitions/definitions_anglais/international_actor.pdf> for environmental standards, production quotas and operational integrity 4) Enforce production and environmental standards along with production quotas 5) Licence technology to for-profit actors under strict production/environmental standards 6) Provide a high level of transparency to all stakeholders 7) Provide legal defense 8) Provide the best possible return on the investment while maintaining social mission goals Regrettably, most people working on the oceanic CE issue have stopped listening and talking past* open water* OIF and are overlooking the advantages offered by controlled farming of biomass which can and does provide us with a wide spectrum of critical commodities while reducing both atmospheric and oceanic CO2 levels. We must talk and listen past OIF and it's limitations. Vast scale biomass production and refinement, within the STCZ oceanic deserts <http://www.pifsc.noaa.gov/media/news/polovinaetal_Feb08.php> and using cultivation confinement means and methods, simply does not have the environmental and governance problems of OIF and vast scale biomass farming would address far more global scale issues than just CDR via OIF. *[RWL: Michael - thank you for all you are doing to bring ocean resources more fully into the CDR/NET world. OIF has been given too central a role.* *Ron* End of Ron's email/GE Group post of Jan. 11th. Greg; You have succinctly distilled the importance of the oceans with your view that "*Via aqueous- and geo-chemistry, the ocean is already the proven savior of the planet...".* I would like to add that the oceans are also the most vulnerable to systemic or cascading failure. We see this cascading failure happening on multiple levels and within all regions. The impact of elevated temperatures, alone, represent a globally significant threat to the lowest levels of the nutrient cycle on this planet. The following NOAA instructional paper is somewhat old (6 yrs.) yet the thermal threat has simply grown. Expansion of Low-Productivity Regions in Mid Ocean Gyres Tied to Global Warming <http://www.pifsc.noaa.gov/media/news/polovinaetal_Feb08.php> *"The central regions of mid-ocean subtropical gyres are characterized by low levels of phytoplankton production. Biological oceanographers define these "oligotrophic" regions — essentially open ocean deserts — as waters with chlorophyll concentrations of 0.07 milligrams per cubic meter or less. The PIFSC study showed that during the 9-year period 1998—2006, oligotrophic waters within subtropical gyres of the North Pacific, South Pacific, North Atlantic, and South Atlantic expanded. The low-chlorophyll regions increased at rates ranging from 0.8% per year in the South Atlantic to 4.3% per year in the North Atlantic. In the North Pacific subtropical gyre, the oligotrophic region grew by 2.2% per year, and expansion of low-chlorophyll surface waters was particularly evident in a wide band of the central Pacific east and west of the Hawaiian Archipelago.".* The above description of the global expansion of the oligotropical regions, and the resulting effects on the microbial loop/fisheries, is further supported within the *CEC14 / Side Event Panel:* *Sea and Air* (18:09 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bTJ6ZcC3WI>). The combination of increased thermal factors* and* hypoxia *and* ocean acidification create a perfect storm of assaults on the oceans which makes all other aspects of climate change mitigation/CE look pale in importance (21:05). The South China Sea <https://books.google.com/books?id=hseaBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA246&lpg=PA246&dq=south+china+sea+fisheries+collapse&source=bl&ots=EMtgkwnjkJ&sig=WqMJqtQrzcy3FBh_-eIdKpYhZHI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sJu1VMn6K4mQyQSPqYCQBw&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=south%20china%20sea%20fisheries%20collapse&f=false> will be (is) the primary/first area to see this wide area collapse of the oceanic primary production. The political fallout from that global region loosing it's primary (preferred) wild caught protein supply is of strategic importance for all nations on this planet. The potential for wide spread political conflict (regional/global war) spawned over this near term certainty of loss of food supplies, *within the most densely populated region on the planet*, should be disturbing to all policy actors, environmental/CE academics and the global media. Ron; Thank you for linking us to this important YouTube presentations covering the full *CEC14 / Side Event Panel:* *Sea and Air*. It is a mark of just how far the subject of climate engineering, in general, has become blinded by conflict centric media hype, that the protection of the foundation of our planet's food web is a "*Side Event*". Further, your comment of " *carbon capture in oceans need not require sequestration/storage there. As Michael’s IMBECS proposes (but does not mention) below, the placement of ocean generated carbon can be in soils (as biochar)." *is highly welcomed as that is the core environmental mitigation innovation of the IMBECS Protocol. An extremely high volume of oceanic biomass production/farming potential can be achieved through: (1) the confinement of the micro algal cultivation within oceanic tank/bag farms which maximizes both micro and macro nutrients use (unlike OIF) while limiting CO2 out gassing (and DIC <http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/microbialweb.htm> associated CO2 production) associated with the use of *nutricline resources <http://The role of nutricline depth in regulating the ocean carbon cycle>.* As an important technical note: *Macro* algal cultivation is a substantial yet less versatile form of vast scale oceanic biomass cultivation and thus should be viewed as an important yet secondary biomass 'crop'... *within the STCZs*. I expect macro algal experts will find this ranking of STCZ oceanic crops as questionable yet the micro algal on-shore cultivation industry provides us with good reason to support micro algal cultivation first with macro algal crops second. Regardless of this conflicted view, both will be important in meeting globally significant (i.e. CE) oceanic biomass production needs. (2) the stationing of vast scale oceanic farms within the STCZs (oligotropical regions) as these regions are both in need of wide area surface cooling and the use of local nutrients (via the nutricline), that will be drawn into the vast cultivation operations, does not deprive the local microbial loop of needed nutrients as there simply is...no... surface microbial loop activity in these oceanic deserts nor are there indigenous species of any kind beyond a few bacterial/viral stragglers. The STCZs are biologically isolated, to a high degree. (3) the use of olivine derived from shoreline installations (per Olaf, Sec. 10 Fig. 3) <https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4dTSYGhZ8XnUGo1dFRiMFlpdndjd01HRjhfVHI0bFVkR3ZV/view?usp=sharing> , or supplied through mid-oceanic ridge mining, to round out the micro/macro nutrient supply needs that are not fully supplied by the nutricline, enables a high throughput level of basic oceanic biomass production at a cost well below most, if not all, contemporary/conventional means of biomass production. Thus, the vast scale output of globally important carbon based commodities such as biochar and biofuel (e.g. together they represent a n <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_carbon_dioxide_emission>egative carbon dioxide emission <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_carbon_dioxide_emission> scenario) , feed, food, polymers (and vast supplies of fresh water) can be achieved *without:* a) spatial displacement of indigenous species or environmental ecosystems...of any kind b) depletion of natural resources actively being used by species or environmental ecosystems...of any kind c) triggering trans-boarder resource/climate change mitigation conflicts...of any kind d) limiting the resource options of future generations...in any way e) nor, ignoring the basic need for a rapid global scale systemic change in our fuel matrix from FFs to fuels which provide negative CO2 emissions. In conclusion, the view that all three threats to our oceans, thermal/hypoxia/acidification can be addressed with our current understanding of, *and current availability of*, CDR/negative emissions technologies is highly supportable for those who are.... objectively.... seeking answers to the overall climate change threat. However, unless the oceanic factor reaches beyond the '*Side Event*' level of conference planning (and hopefully the general environmental scientific community and media as well), this entire discussion on climate change mitigation/CE will simply miss the foundational importance of our oceans in allowing us to re-establishing environmental balance and avoid regional or even global environmental and political collapse. This position is not hyperbolic by most, if not all, objective measures. Thank you Greg and Ron for not letting this thread or subject be neglected. Best regards, Michael On Sunday, January 11, 2015 at 8:19:43 PM UTC-8, Ron wrote: > > List, Michael, Greg and 4 more ccs > > 1. I am trying here to respond to both Greg and Michael, because Prof. > Rayfuse’s Ppt material is quite important for this list: > -- 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/d/optout.
