[geo] Second Haida OIF Test Set for June Cancelled
I think most of us will regard this as a very good development: http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/dumping-of-iron-into-sea-off-haida-gwaii-suspended-amid-acrimony-1.229839 Dumping of iron into sea off Haida Gwaii suspended amid acrimony *Judith Lavoie* http://www.timescolonist.com/authors?author=Judith Lavoie/ Times Colonist May 23, 2013 - *Email* javascript:void(0); - *Print* javascript:window.print() ** *Previous*http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/dumping-of-iron-into-sea-off-haida-gwaii-suspended-amid-acrimony-1.229839#story-carousel *Next*http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/dumping-of-iron-into-sea-off-haida-gwaii-suspended-amid-acrimony-1.229839#story-carousel - - - Controversial U.S businessman Russ George, who orchestrated a dump of more than 100 tonnes of iron sulfate into international waters off the coast of Haida Gwaii last year, has been fired by the Old Massett-based Haida Salmon Restoration Corp. “We have parted ways,” Old Massett Village chief councillor Ken Rea said in an interview. The unauthorized iron experiment, which was designed to increase salmon runs by creating an algae bloom for fish to feed on, led to international controversy and accusations of geoengineering. The Haida Salmon Restoration Corp., which was funded to the tune of $2.5 million through the Gwaii Trust Society and a village reserve fund, will undergo a strategic review, Rea said. That means greater community input and restructuring the business “so that it … effectively responds to legitimate concerns raised by various stakeholders around the world,” he said. “It starts with some bold steps — like parting ways with Russ George,” he said. Old Massett economic development officer John Disney, who will serve as interim CEO, said he is confident in the technology but the right leadership and business plan are needed. “We have a responsibility, not only to the shareholders but the citizens of Old Massett and Haida Gwaii to get it right,” he said. However, in a twist, George denied in an email that he had been fired. “The reports that I have been removed as a director of Haida Salmon Restoration Corp. are, unfortunately, inaccurate,” he wrote. “The other board members of HSRC did not have any authority to remove me as a director.” Ocean Pastures, a company owned by George, holds 48 per cent of HSRC shares and has the right to appoint two out of the four board members, he said. “I shall remain a director of HSRC and look forward to moving the business plan of the company forward,” he said. That will include commercialization of last year’s experiment, he said. For Rea, the future does not include George. The strategic review means that the second iron fertilization test, planned for June, will not take place, Rea said. “I can’t say if it will be done again ever. I won’t know until we get the results of the strategic review,” he said. Rea would not speculate whether the village has lost out financially. “There’s value in the company and value in the data, and we intend to preserve that value,” he said. The unauthorized test was heavily criticized by the Council of the Haida Nation and federal Environment Minister Peter Kent, who called it a “demonstration of rogue science.” In March, Environment Canada officials seized scientific data, journals and files from the company’s Vancouver headquarters, and the corporation is now fighting to have them returned. It is too early to say whether the algae bloom will mean better salmon survival, but anecdotally other marine species are doing well, Rea said. George previously told Old Massett council that there was money to be made through the sale of carbon credits, although there is no proof it is a viable method of carbon capture. It was the second time that George had proposed a carbon-credit scheme for Old Massett. The first plan, to cut down alders beside creeks and replace them with fast-growing evergreens, was scuttled by Fisheries and Oceans. George has a history of trying to conduct iron fertilization experiments around the world, resulting in his ships being banned from ports by the Spanish and Ecuadorian governments. *jlav...@timescolonist.com* jlav...@timescolonist.com © Copyright 2013 -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] Second Haida OIF Test Set for June Cancelled
George - “The reports that I have been removed as a director of Haida Salmon Restoration Corp. are, unfortunately, inaccurate,” Unfortunate for whom? - Greg From: Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, May 28, 2013 12:09:23 PM Subject: [geo] Second Haida OIF Test Set for June Cancelled I think most of us will regard this as a very good development: http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/dumping-of-iron-into-sea-off-haida-gwaii-suspended-amid-acrimony-1.229839 Dumping of iron into sea off Haida Gwaii suspended amid acrimony Judith Lavoie / Times Colonist May 23, 2013 * Email * Print Previous Next * * * Controversial U.S businessman Russ George, who orchestrated a dump of more than 100 tonnes of iron sulfate into international waters off the coast of Haida Gwaii last year, has been fired by the Old Massett-based Haida Salmon Restoration Corp. “We have parted ways,” Old Massett Village chief councillor Ken Rea said in an interview. The unauthorized iron experiment, which was designed to increase salmon runs by creating an algae bloom for fish to feed on, led to international controversy and accusations of geoengineering. The Haida Salmon Restoration Corp., which was funded to the tune of $2.5 million through the Gwaii Trust Society and a village reserve fund, will undergo a strategic review, Rea said. That means greater community input and restructuring the business “so that it … effectively responds to legitimate concerns raised by various stakeholders around the world,” he said. “It starts with some bold steps — like parting ways with Russ George,” he said. Old Massett economic development officer John Disney, who will serve as interim CEO, said he is confident in the technology but the right leadership and business plan are needed. “We have a responsibility, not only to the shareholders but the citizens of Old Massett and Haida Gwaii to get it right,” he said. However, in a twist, George denied in an email that he had been fired. “The reports that I have been removed as a director of Haida Salmon Restoration Corp. are, unfortunately, inaccurate,” he wrote. “The other board members of HSRC did not have any authority to remove me as a director.” Ocean Pastures, a company owned by George, holds 48 per cent of HSRC shares and has the right to appoint two out of the four board members, he said. “I shall remain a director of HSRC and look forward to moving the business plan of the company forward,” he said. That will include commercialization of last year’s experiment, he said. For Rea, the future does not include George. The strategic review means that the second iron fertilization test, planned for June, will not take place, Rea said. “I can’t say if it will be done again ever. I won’t know until we get the results of the strategic review,” he said. Rea would not speculate whether the village has lost out financially. “There’s value in the company and value in the data, and we intend to preserve that value,” he said. The unauthorized test was heavily criticized by the Council of the Haida Nation and federal Environment Minister Peter Kent, who called it a “demonstration of rogue science.” In March, Environment Canada officials seized scientific data, journals and files from the company’s Vancouver headquarters, and the corporation is now fighting to have them returned. It is too early to say whether the algae bloom will mean better salmon survival, but anecdotally other marine species are doing well, Rea said. George previously told Old Massett council that there was money to be made through the sale of carbon credits, although there is no proof it is a viable method of carbon capture. It was the second time that George had proposed a carbon-credit scheme for Old Massett. The first plan, to cut down alders beside creeks and replace them with fast-growing evergreens, was scuttled by Fisheries and Oceans. George has a history of trying to conduct iron fertilization experiments around the world, resulting in his ships being banned from ports by the Spanish and Ecuadorian governments. jlav...@timescolonist.com © Copyright 2013 -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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
Re: [geo] Transcript of Keith, Shiva, Hamilton, Goodman interview
Dear All, I received an invitation to link to your group several months ago and have been receiving your mails since, although I have not had the time to read all the detail or participate, as I am pretty overwhelmed keeping up with the flood of literature and results in a related field. Some of you may know that Jim Lovelock and I once wrote a letter to the Nature Editor suggesting that it would be good to find ways to stimulate the planet's natural systems to draw down more CO2. We suggested that ocean pipes might offer a way to do so - and were thoroughly beaten up by the ocean biologists for our pains! Good to see that the idea lives on, much improved! Anyway, I have been a bit disturbed at some of your recent correspondence about Clive Hamilton, which i felt were quite tribal. I met Clive when he came to the UK a couple of years ago, and formed a good opinion of him. I have found his writings thoughtful and interesting - if sometimes challenging. In fact I have invited him to come and spend a few weeks at UCL later this year. I haven't yet read his latest book on geo-engineering, but I did read the article he wrote a few weeks ago urging caution. It seems to me he reflects the worries a lot of people have about the risks of unintended consequences and the potential for agents with agendas and little of no accountability to intervene in the Earth system in ways that we could all regret. So I was relieved to see Lou and Ken's messages (below) as they give me an opening to encourage you to open up a discourse with Clive, establish where you all agree, and where you disagree - see if the differences can be reconciled - and if not discuss how things might be taken forward constructively anyway. I haven't copied Clive in to this mail, and haven't copied any of your correspondence to him, although I did mention to him in a mail a few weeks ago that he seemed to have made himself pretty unpopular and controversial, and he replied that he felt misunderstood. So my suggestion is that you start a conversation with Clive. If it doesn't go anywhere useful, nothing much is lost, but it could lead to some interesting new progress on this really tricky and important topic. His email address if you don't have it is cl...@clivehamilton.net.aumailto:cl...@clivehamilton.net.au Best regards, Chris Prof Chris Rapley CBE University College London Department of Earth Sciences Room 224 Pearson Building Gower Street London WC1E 6BT christopher.rap...@ucl.ac.ukmailto:christopher.rap...@ucl.ac.uk m: 07590 680372 Can we make contact with Hamilton and simply ask him about his thoughts on these points? Speculating about them like this is likely to lead to some wildly inaccurate conclusions. I think it's just as likely that his view is: [1] the political system in some places, most notably the US, is horribly broken in terms of dealing with CC, [2] a major part of [1] is the huge influence of large corporations, [3] because of [1] and [2] we're playing with fire by attempting geoengineering -- i.e. we'll make horribly wrong decisions about what to do, when, how, etc. -- so we shouldn't even go down that road, and should instead focus on fixing the political system and making the swiftest possible cuts in GHG emissions. I'm NOT saying this is his view, merely that as I read his published work and interviews, it's one possible interpretation. And given his fairly high and (seemingly) rising profile, it seems like a good idea to find out how he views this incredibly messy situation. On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 1:10:40 AM UTC-4, David Lewis wrote: The root of Clive Hamilton's thought on geoengineering appeared more clearly in this interview. When discussing the fact that The Heartland Institute and the American Enterprise Institute have endorsed geoengineering as a solution for the problem they have denied exists more emphatically than anyone else on the planet, Clive said: They see it—see geoengineering as a way of protecting the system, of preserving the political economic system,whereas others say the problem IS the political and economic system, and it’s that which we have to change. And later in the interview, after Clive states that the risks to civilization that scientists such as David Keith and Alan Robock are concerned about are one thing, i.e. scientific risks whereas Clive sees an additional factor, which he calls political risks, he says this: [edited to make my point clear] the danger that geoengineering becomes... ...a way of protecting the political economic system from the kind of change that should be necessary A way to interpret this is to say Clive wants our system of economic and political relationships as they exist to fail to cope with climate change in order that civilization will change in ways he thinks will make it more likely that the changed civilization will survive for a longer term. Another way to say this is he wants everyone in
Re: [geo] Transcript of Keith, Shiva, Hamilton, Goodman interview
Ken list, My apologies if standards have slipped on this thread. In practical terms, it's difficult to moderate all messages. It slows traffic on the group significantly, and takes a not insignificant amount of time. The more thorough the checking, the slower the work. Consequently, I tend to moderate only new people, overly-frequent posters, and those who repeatedly post borderline or unacceptable content. Moderation is not the norm. Even when it is used, I of course don't have perfect judgement - nor do I always read every word of a post before approving it. Posters therefore remain responsible for their own content, and shouldn't use moderation as a safety net. Out of preference, I tend to mention privately to posters if I have concerns over their style and content. Quite a lot of issues are handled in the background, without resorting to moderation. As a point of general information, I spend about two thirds of my time finding 3rd-party content to post, and one third managing people their posts. I'd like to think that's a productive balance, as the list ends up being a pretty comprehensive wellspring of relevant new content - something which may not be as easy to achieve if I had to vet content more carefully. The list is run for the benefit of the members. There are 850 now, which seems to suggest that the community finds it a useful resource. While not a democracy as such, I certainly wouldn't want to moderate the list if it wasn't with the consent and confidence of its members. If anyone thinks that moderation should be done differently, please let me know. I genuinely welcome comments, so please do email me suggestions/praise/abuse. Thanks A On 28 May 2013 22:41, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu wrote: Chris, The rule in this group is no ad hominem attacks, that you can criticize statements but not people. I admit that I have sometimes strayed from strict adherence to this valuable rule. I think we all, both contributors and moderators, must increase our efforts to be adhere to this rule and be more respectful and generous. So, everyone, let's increase the civility of our discourse, and I ask Andrew Lockley (who is moderating most of the time) to redouble his vigilance and reject messages that are critical of persons. So, the rule is: Posts to the geoengineering googlegroup may criticize statements and actions, but not people or organizations. Best, Ken On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Rapley, Chris christopher.rap...@ucl.ac.uk wrote: Dear All, I received an invitation to link to your group several months ago and have been receiving your mails since, although I have not had the time to read all the detail or participate, as I am pretty overwhelmed keeping up with the flood of literature and results in a related field. Some of you may know that Jim Lovelock and I once wrote a letter to the Nature Editor suggesting that it would be good to find ways to stimulate the planet's natural systems to draw down more CO2. We suggested that ocean pipes might offer a way to do so - and were thoroughly beaten up by the ocean biologists for our pains! Good to see that the idea lives on, much improved! Anyway, I have been a bit disturbed at some of your recent correspondence about Clive Hamilton, which i felt were quite tribal. I met Clive when he came to the UK a couple of years ago, and formed a good opinion of him. I have found his writings thoughtful and interesting - if sometimes challenging. In fact I have invited him to come and spend a few weeks at UCL later this year. I haven't yet read his latest book on geo-engineering, but I did read the article he wrote a few weeks ago urging caution. It seems to me he reflects the worries a lot of people have about the risks of unintended consequences and the potential for agents with agendas and little of no accountability to intervene in the Earth system in ways that we could all regret. So I was relieved to see Lou and Ken's messages (below) as they give me an opening to encourage you to open up a discourse with Clive, establish where you all agree, and where you disagree - see if the differences can be reconciled - and if not discuss how things might be taken forward constructively anyway. I haven't copied Clive in to this mail, and haven't copied any of your correspondence to him, although I did mention to him in a mail a few weeks ago that he seemed to have made himself pretty unpopular and controversial, and he replied that he felt misunderstood. So my suggestion is that you start a conversation with Clive. If it doesn't go anywhere useful, nothing much is lost, but it could lead to some interesting new progress on this really tricky and important topic. His email address if you don't have it is cl...@clivehamilton.net.au Best regards, Chris Prof Chris Rapley CBE University College London Department of Earth Sciences Room 224 Pearson Building Gower Street
