Within the carbon cycle all kind of natural iron input into the oceans
like volcanic ash aerosol, ice age mineral dust aerosol, mineral
particle suspension generating ice bergs, black smoker exhalations, as
well as suspensed and dissolved iron input by rivers and sediments are
well-known actors that activate the sustainable CO2 carbon burial as
organic carbon or carbonate rock within oceanic sediment and crust. Any
iron input into the ocean accelerates the carbon transfer between
atmosphere and carbon burial ground. More than 99 % of all of carbon
captured by the iron-fertilized phytoplankton will arrive at the burial
ground - independent how much of the phytoplankton litter or further
food chain litter becomes oxidized to hydrogen carbonate. Only the very
small part of carbon by capture like fish or seaweed by men or birds or
by independent escape from ocean to continent like salmon or eel, will
return to the atmosphere.
If any kind of climate engineering by iron fertilization would be done
in a similar way like the natural operation it would not do any harm to
any ocean ecosystem. But the harm to any ecosystem would be serious, if
we go on to do nothing against the man-made climate catastrophe!
Franz
------ Originalnachricht ------
Von: "'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering"
<[email protected]>
An: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>;
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Cc: "geoengineering" <[email protected]>;
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "Jim Thomas"
<[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>;
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Gesendet: 12.04.2017 03:19:21
Betreff: Re: [geo] Consensus, Certainty, and Catastrophe: Discourse,
Governance, and Ocean Iron Fertilization
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
<http://planetsave.com/2014/07/02/ocean-fertilization-dangerous-experiment-gone-right/>
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
<http://bluelivingideas.com/2012/07/19/glacier-retreat-affects-salmon-fisheries/>
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:
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-George
I 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
<http://www.mitpressjournals.org/journal/glep>Vol. Early Access: Issue.
Early Access
<http://www.mitpressjournals.org/toc/glep/Early+Access/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.
--
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.
