Dear all,
I am starting a project assessing greenhouse gas removal
technologies. I was wondering if some of you know some experts in ocean
alkalinisation, ocean fertilisation and on the socio-political-economical
drivers which would affect the introduction of these technologies.
Thanks a lot for the collaboration.
Kind regards
Pietro Goglio PhD
Lecturer in Life Cycle Assesment and Systems Modelling
School of Water, Energy and Environment
Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedfordshire MK43 0AL
Tel: +44 (0) 1234 750111 (extension 4293)
E: [email protected]
W: www.cranfield.ac.uk
This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended only
for the named addressee. If you are not the named addressee, please accept our
apology, notify the sender immediately and then delete the email. We request
that you do not disclose, use, copy or distribute any information within it.
Any opinions expressed are not necessarily the corporate view of Cranfield
University. This email is not intended to be contractually binding unless
specifically stated and the sender is an authorised University signatory.
Whilst we have taken steps to ensure that this email and all attachments are
free from any virus, we advise that, in keeping with good computing practice,
the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free.
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
On Behalf Of Franz Dietrich Oeste
Sent: 12 April 2017 10:46
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: geoengineering <[email protected]>; [email protected];
Jim Thomas <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re[2]: [geo] Consensus, Certainty, and Catastrophe: Discourse,
Governance, and Ocean Iron Fertilization
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]<mailto:[email protected]>>
An: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>;
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: "geoengineering"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>;
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; "Jim Thomas"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>;
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>;
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>>
To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: geoengineering
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>;
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Jim Thomas
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>;
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>;
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]>
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 3:33 PM
To: geoengineering
<[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to
[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to
[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to
[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to
[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to
[email protected]<mailto:[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.
