Robert -
The fact that Russ George wasn't allowed into the UN Ocean Conference is almost certainly irrelevant. UN meetings are not public meetings, but are for representatives of governments who are UN members. Representatives of UN-accredited organisations (including NGOs and academic bodies) may also attend, within quotas, if they apply sufficiently in advance and obtain the necessary documentation. With regard to Russ's "highly informed scientific approach", that is debatable. It is unfortunate that his 2012 iron addition in the NE Pacific did not seek formal approval, and was not carried out in ways that would allow a much more comprehensive (and independent) scientific assessment. The increased salmon catches in 2013 may or may not have been causally linked to the bloom that developed in the area of the iron addition - and that bloom may anyway have occurred regardless, in a very heterogenous part of the ocean. These linkages are far from clear-cut. I am in agreement with you that some of the criticisms of OIF are also misplaced. Nevertheless, a governance structure for OIF has been developed, and that was disregarded in this case. Regards Phil School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ ________________________________ From: 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> Sent: 07 June 2017 13:39 To: Geoengineering Subject: Fw: [geo] Iron-dumping ocean experiment sparks controversy ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> To: Robert Tulip <rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au> Sent: Wednesday, 7 June 2017, 18:00 Subject: Re: [geo] Iron-dumping ocean experiment sparks controversy Suggest you post this to the list On 7 Jun 2017 00:10, "Robert Tulip" <rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au<mailto:rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au>> wrote: Hi Andrew I have been thinking about your email below, and looking at some of the sources. I had thought Ocean Iron Fertilization (OIF) and biodiversity was a 'no-brainer', but can see that this analysis is not shared by others. Today Russ George posted a really good summary of why ocean restoration including OIF is key to planetary biodiversity at [X] [X] http://russgeorge.net/2017/ 06/06/un-ocean-conference- denies-oceans-what-it-offers- lands/<http://russgeorge.net/2017/06/06/un-ocean-conference-denies-oceans-what-it-offers-lands/> I have been reading some of the scientific papers on OIF against the challenge you raise and look forward to further discussion on how we can best focus on ocean biodiversity. Russ was physically banned at the gate from attending the UN Ocean Conference. To me this is a highly disturbing and puzzling occurrence, in view of his highly informed scientific approach, and indicates that the UN is unable to cope with legitimate debate. Regards, Robert ________________________________ From: Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com<mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>> To: Robert Tulip <rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au<mailto:rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au>> Sent: Saturday, 27 May 2017, 16:46 Subject: Re: [geo] Iron-dumping ocean experiment sparks controversy I suggest you've yet to successfully make your case on biodiversity benefits of OIF On 27 May 2017 04:19, "Robert Tulip" <rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au<mailto:rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au>> wrote: Thanks Andrew, I understand your policy and am sorry if you considered any of my statements to be personal criticisms rather than responses to specific statements and policies. My comments were not intended as personal criticisms, but as factual statements about ideological views that are widespread among climate activists. It is a scandal that OIF action that promotes biodiversity is prevented by activists who hypocritically claim to represent biodiversity. Robert ________________________________ From: Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com<mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>> To: Robert Tulip <rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au<mailto:rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au>> Sent: Saturday, 27 May 2017, 3:04 Subject: Re: [geo] Iron-dumping ocean experiment sparks controversy Ad hominem attacks are not permissible A On 26 May 2017 13:28, "Robert Tulip" <rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au<mailto:rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au>> wrote: This [X] [X] [X] [X] article from Nature<https://www.nature.com/news/iron-dumping-ocean-experiment-sparks-controversy-1.22031> contains an appalling lie about the 2012 Haida Salmon Experiment. The Nature article falsely states "scientists have seen no evidence that the experiment worked." This alleged failure to see any evidence ignores extensive data and theory supporting the Haida Salmon results. Here is one link to the scientific evidence that Nature claims does not exist. [X] [X] [X] [X] Ocean Fertilization: A Dangerous Experiment Gone Right | PlanetSave<http://planetsave.com/2014/07/02/ocean-fertilization-dangerous-experiment-gone-right/> states the Haida Salmon Restoration Project may have "worked much more dramatically than anyone could have foreseen... 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." The corrupted politics of the climate lobby are vividly illustrated by this failure of Nature magazine to apply basic standards of rigour and fact checking to its false statement about evidence for the Haida Salmon experiment. Best of luck to the Chile entrepreneurs. You are up against a venal climate lobby who do not appear to care about biodiversity or climate repair, and who are happy to promote false claims denigrating ocean iron fertilization in support of dubious political objectives. Robert Tulip [X][X][X][X] <http://planetsave.com/2014/07/02/ocean-fertilization-dangerous-experiment-gone-right/> Ocean Fertilization: A Dangerous Experiment Gone Right | PlanetSave A rogue ocean fertilization experiment carried out in 2012 may well prove to be the saviour of the world-renowne... ________________________________ From: Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com<mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>> To: geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups. com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> Sent: Thursday, 25 May 2017, 17:11 Subject: [geo] Iron-dumping ocean experiment sparks controversy [X][X][X][X]https://www.nature.com/news/ iron-dumping-ocean-experiment- sparks-controversy-1.22031<https://www.nature.com/news/iron-dumping-ocean-experiment-sparks-controversy-1.22031> Iron-dumping ocean experiment sparks controversy Canadian foundation says its field research could boost fisheries in Chile, but researchers doubt its motives. * [X] [X] [X] [X] Jeff Tollefson<https://www.nature.com/news/iron-dumping-ocean-experiment-sparks-controversy-1.22031#auth-1> 23 May 2017 Article tools * [X] [X] [X] [X] PDF<http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/1.22031!/menu/main/topColumns/topLeftColumn/pdf/545393a.pdf> * [X] [X] [X] [X] Rights & Permissions<https://s100.copyright.com/AppDispatchServlet?author=Jeff+Tollefson&title=Iron-dumping+ocean+experiment+sparks+controversy&publisherName=NPG&contentID=10.1038%2F545393a&publicationDate=05%2F23%2F2017&publication=Nature+News> [https://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/7.44297.1495540320!/image/CNWPNTweb.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/CNWPNTweb.jpg] Blickwinkel/Alamy Phytoplankton need iron to make energy by photosynthesis. Marine scientists are raising the alarm about a proposal to drop tonnes of iron into the Pacific Ocean to stimulate the growth of phytoplankton, the base of the food web. The non-profit group behind the plan says that it wants to revive Chilean fisheries. It also has ties to a controversial 2012 project in Canada that was accused of violating an international moratorium on commercial ocean fertilization. The Oceaneos Marine Research Foundation of Vancouver, Canada, says that it is seeking permits from the Chilean government to release up to 10 tonnes of iron particles 130 kilometres off the coast of Coquimbo as early as 2018. But Chilean scientists are worried because the organization grew out of a for-profit company, Oceaneos Environmental Solutions of Vancouver, that has sought to patent iron-fertilization technologies. Some researchers suspect that the foundation is ultimately seeking to profit from an unproven and potentially harmful activity. “They claim that by producing more phytoplankton, they could help the recovery of the fisheries,” says Osvaldo Ulloa, director of the Millennium Institute of Oceanography in Concepción, Chile. “We don’t see any evidence to support that claim.” Related stories * [X] [X] [X] [X] Emissions reduction: Scrutinize CO2 removal methods<https://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/530153a> * [X] [X] [X] [X] Climate geoengineering schemes come under fire<https://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nature.2015.16887> * [X] [X] [X] [X] Climate tinkerers thrash out a plan<https://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/516020a> [X][X][X][X]More related stories<https://www.nature.com/news/iron-dumping-ocean-experiment-sparks-controversy-1.22031#related-links> Tensions flared in April, when researchers at the institute went public with their concerns in response to Chilean media reports on the project. The government has since requested input from the Chilean Academy of Science, and the institute is organizing a forum on the project and related research on 25 May, at a marine-sciences meeting in Valparaíso, Chile. The Oceaneos foundation, which declined an invitation, has accused the scientists of improperly classifying its work as geoengineering, rather than ocean restoration. Oceaneos president Michael Riedijk says that his team wants to work with Chilean scientists and will make all the data from its experiment public. The foundation plans to hold its own forum later, but if scientists aren’t willing to engage, he says, “we’ll just move on without them”. Researchers worldwide have conducted 13 major iron-fertilization experiments in the open ocean since 1990. All have sought to test whether [X] [X] [X] [X] stimulating phytoplankton growth<http://www.nature.com/news/dumping-iron-at-sea-does-sink-carbon-1.11028> can increase the amount of carbon dioxide that the organisms pull out of the atmosphere and deposit in the deep ocean when they die. Determining how much carbon is sequestered during such experiments has proved difficult, however, and scientists have raised concerns about potential adverse effects, such as toxic algal blooms. In 2008, the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity [X] [X] [X] [X] put in place a moratorium on all ocean-fertilization projects<https://www.nature.com/news/2008/080603/full/453704b.html> apart from small ones in coastal waters. Five years later, the London Convention on ocean pollution adopted rules for evaluating such studies. Because Oceaneos’s planned experiment would take place in Chilean waters, it is allowed under those rules. Riedijk says that the foundation will voluntarily follow international protocols for such studies; it is unclear whether that will allay fears that the group is promoting an unproven technology, rather than conducting basic research. “If they want to partner with academics, then surely transparency is their best foot forward.” Philip Boyd, a marine ecologist at the University of Tasmania in Hobart, Australia, wants to see the foundation publish research based on lab experiments before heading out into the field. “If they are a not-for-profit scientific venture that wants to partner with academics, then surely transparency is their best foot forward,” he says. Oceaneos’s links to a 2012 iron-fertilization project off the coast of British Columbia, Canada, have made some researchers wary. In that project, US entrepreneur Russ George convinced a Haida Nation village to pursue iron fertilization to boost salmon populations, with the potential to sell carbon credits based on the amount of CO2 that would be sequestered in the ocean. News of the plan broke after project organizers had dumped around 100 tonnes of iron sulfate into the open ocean. In the years since, scientists have seen no evidence that the experiment worked. Riedijk says he was intrigued when he read about the Haida experiment in 2013, and contacted one of its organizers, Jason McNamee. McNamee later served as chief operating officer of Oceaneos Environmental Solutions — which Riedijk co-founded — before leaving the company last year. Despite the Haida project’s problems, Riedijk says that ocean fertilization merits further research: “If this actually does work, it does have global implications.” Oceaneos Environ-mental Solutions has developed an iron compound that can be consumed efficiently by phytoplankton, he adds, but he declined to release details. Riedijk also says that the foundation is working on a method to trace the movement of iron up the food chain and into fish populations. In the meantime, scientists say that it will be difficult to get solid data from the Oceaneos foundation’s planned experiment. The geology off the Chilean coast, and the patterns of currents there, create a mosaic of low- and high-iron waters. Anchovies, horse mackerel and other fish move freely between these areas. And adding iron could shift the location and timing of phytoplankton blooms to favour fast-growing species, says Adrian Marchetti, a biological oceanographer at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. One of those, the diatom Pseudo-nitzschia, produces domoic acid, a neurotoxin that can kill mammals and birds. Oceaneos’s experiment will probably increase plankton growth in low-iron waters, Marchetti says, “but it’s not to say that that is actually good for the higher levels of the food chain”. Nature 545, 393–394 ( 25 May 2017 ) doi :10.1038/545393a -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscribe@ googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups. com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>. Visit this group at [X] [X] [X] [X] https://groups.google.com/ group/geoengineering<https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering>. For more options, visit [X] [X] [X] [X] https://groups.google.com/d/ optout<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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>. 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
