Copying also to Russ George, whose work on the Haida Salmon Project prompted
much of this debate.
It is clear that the Haida iron fertilization work successfully produced a
massive salmon population boom, and that failure to fertilize the oceans -
along the lines Russ proposes in his "ocean pasture" concept - is causing
catastrophe.
The UN Convention on Biological Diversity campaign against ocean geoengineering
deserves primary blame and censure for this catastrophe - see
http://www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/2016/12/un-to-extend-freeze-on-geoengineering/
A review of the Haida experiment at Ocean Fertilization: A Dangerous Experiment
Gone Right | PlanetSave rightly states that "satellite imagery showed that a
massive 10,000 square kilometer phytoplankton bloom had developed in the Gulf
of Alaska, centred around the area which was seeded with iron sulfate. The
following year, in 2013, catches of pink salmon from the Pacific Northwest
showed a 400% increase over the previous year."
As Russ George explains at
http://russgeorge.net/2017/03/22/alaska-salmon-emergency-order-halts-2017-king-salmon-season/
the prevention of fertilization means salmon are starving at sea.
As Greg Rau says in his comment below, emission reduction will very likely
fail. The UN is using emission reduction as a futile gesture, while preventing
essential action to protect biodiversity.
Robert Tulip
From: Greg Rau <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Cc: geoengineering <[email protected]>; "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>; Jim Thomas <[email protected]>; "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, 12 April 2017, 5:07
Subject: Re: [geo] Consensus, Certainty, and Catastrophe: Discourse,
Governance, and Ocean Iron Fertilization
Roger that, Doug. As we've learned casting doubt and fear can be very
effective in countering reason in the climate change arena, and now applied by
fringe elements to potential climate solutions. Given that their apparently
favored solution, emissions reduction, will very likely fail to single handedly
solve the problem (IPCC), it would seem counterproductive to attack additional
actions without making sure that a particular action's risks an impacts in fact
do out weight its benefits. I'm no fan of OIF, but under the circumstances it
would seem unwise to ignore the ocean's CO2 and climate management potential -
Mother Nature doesn't.
I cite the following, little-noticed legal review as a counter to the "hands
off the ocean" governance mentality that dominates some quarters:
http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2771&context=lawreview
which concludes:"Until nations sit down for real discussions to support risk
assessments of ocean fertilization experiments,rogue environmentalists will
likely continue to act as a distraction using the lack of international
progress as a rationale for their actions."
Greg
On Apr 11, 2017, at 8:21 AM, Douglas MacMartin <[email protected]> wrote:
#yiv2565813334 -- filtered {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}#yiv2565813334
filtered {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv2565813334
p.yiv2565813334MsoNormal, #yiv2565813334 li.yiv2565813334MsoNormal,
#yiv2565813334 div.yiv2565813334MsoNormal
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv2565813334 h1
{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:24.0pt;font-weight:bold;}#yiv2565813334
a:link, #yiv2565813334 span.yiv2565813334MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2565813334 a:visited, #yiv2565813334
span.yiv2565813334MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2565813334 p
{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv2565813334
span.yiv2565813334Heading1Char {color:#2E74B5;}#yiv2565813334
span.yiv2565813334EmailStyle19 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv2565813334
.yiv2565813334MsoChpDefault {}#yiv2565813334 filtered {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in
1.0in;}#yiv2565813334 div.yiv2565813334WordSection1 {}#yiv2565813334 I haven’t
read the article, but just in case there’s anyone who hasn’t been following
this, the abstract by itself is extremely misleading. It would be pretty
stupid and irresponsible to issue carbon credits for an approach for which
there is no evidence for the claimed amount of net drawdown of atmospheric CO2.
I suppose that being aware of big uncertainty could be labeled as an
“interpretation” of uncertainty. And contrary to what ETC folk keep repeating
endlessly no matter how many times people point out that they are wrong, the
governance that was put in place doesn’t ban further research on OIF. This
basically elevates the role of the extreme anti-geoengineering rhetoric of ETC
rather than emphasizing the role played by basic common sense. From:
[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 3:33 PM
To: geoengineering <[email protected]>
Subject: [geo] Consensus, Certainty, and Catastrophe: Discourse, Governance,
and Ocean Iron Fertilization
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/GLEP_a_00404#.WOvbW9LyuUk
Consensus, Certainty, and Catastrophe: Discourse, Governance, and Ocean Iron
Fertilization
Kemi Fuentes-GeorgeI thank my three anonymous reviewers, as well as the
following, for their helpful comments: Chris Klyza, Bert Johnson, Sarah Stroup,
and Jessica Teets. I also thank my invaluable research assistants, Sam Wegner,
Evelin Töth, and Katie Theiss. Finally, I am grateful to the Undergraduate
Collaborative Research Fund and the Summer Research Assistant Fund administered
by Middlebury College for supporting this research project.
Global Environmental Politics
Vol. Early Access: Issue. Early Access: Pages. 125-143
(Issue publication date: 0)
DOI: 10.1162/GLEP_a_00404
States, transnational networks of scientists, corporate actors, and
institutions in the climate change regime have known for decades that iron ore,
when dumped in the ocean, can stimulate the growth of plankton. Over the past
twenty years, normative disagreements about appropriate behavior have shaped
international governance of the phenomenon. Prior to 2007, firms lobbied
governments to treat the oceans as a carbon sink and to allow corporations that
dumped iron to sell carbon credits on the international market. However, after
2007 a transnational coalition of oceanographers and advocates opposed this
agenda by linking it to an emergent antigeoengineering discourse. Crucial to
their efforts was their interpretation of uncertainty: for opponents,
scientific uncertainty implied possibly devastating consequences of iron
dumping, which was thus best addressed with extreme caution. This normative
approach ultimately shaped governance, since advocates successfully used it to
lobby institutions in ocean governance to prevent carbon credits from being
issued for ocean fertilization. Since these subjective understandings of
certainty influenced global ocean governance, this article explains
international behavior as a consequence of changing norms.--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. --
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
