Re: [geo] Haida readying for second round of iron dumping in ocean - News - Times Colonist
One of the more interesting aspects of all this is the spectacle of the ETC Group, a self-described defender of indigenous rights, accusing a First Nations company of trying to get away with something, to borrow Jim Thomas' words. The typical response to this observation is that the Haida have been swindled by Russ George (of whom I am no fan), but this response can easily be read as dismissive and disempowering with regard to the Haida. If the Haida have chosen to do this, does that mean ETC Group has more insight into indigenous values and worldviews than actual indigenous people? Does the ETC Group just know what's best for them? That would be rich indeed. Josh Horton On Saturday, April 27, 2013 3:55:13 PM UTC-4, Greg Rau wrote: Or could the SRM crowd offer some solutions? Drop the iron out of the sky (planes, rockets, balloons etc, launched from secure land sites? Simulate volcanic dust?) Monitor the results from satellite and by sensors mounted on commercial cargo ships normally traversing the patch. Perhaps more importantly, get involvement and buy-in from the science community, governments, and NGO's to conduct carefully controlled and monitored field studies, rather than launch rogue, pirate operations (at indigenous peoples' expense). May I also suggest that adding ground limestone rather than iron to the ocean (Harvey 2008) might be a safer, less biologically impactful and hence less controversial way to mitigate CO2, though I can't promise increased salmon returns (but neither can George). -Greg -- *From:* Fred Zimmerman geoengin...@gmail.com javascript: *To:* Andrew Lockley andrew@gmail.com javascript: *Cc:* David Lewis jrando...@gmail.com javascript:; Ken Caldeira kcal...@carnegiescience.edu javascript:; geoengineering geoengi...@googlegroups.com javascript: *Sent:* Sat, April 27, 2013 12:11:50 PM *Subject:* Re: [geo] Haida readying for second round of iron dumping in ocean - News - Times Colonist 1) I generally agree with proposition that there is complacency about security. 2) I do not think it is a good idea to put heavy machine guns on research vessels. 3) I would extend the concern about security to information security. --- Fred Zimmerman Geoengineering IT! Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080 On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 5:53 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: I have to say, I think those in this field are generally somewhat complacent about security. The animal rights movement shows what can happen. We shouldn't wait until after an attack to beef up security. Some of the larger conferences or specially convened meetings (eg Asilomar) may be a particularly appealing target for violent extremists. In this specific case, my suggestion is that for all the bombast, George's enemies are unlikely to ram his boat if it's firing warning shots at him. I've no particular love for Russ George methods, but killing his crew isn't the way to solve anything. As a first step, it would seem reasonable to have SSOs (ship security officers) or weapons on board research vessels where it's legal. A heavy machine gun costs only a few thousand dollars. It's a sad state of affairs when scientists have to be armed, but better armed than dead. The threat level seems to suggest this isn't an over reaction. On Apr 27, 2013 6:16 AM, David Lewis jrando...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: Paul Watson wrote a commentary on Russ George entitled *The Return of a Dangerous Ecological Criminal*http://www.seashepherd.org/commentary-and-editorials/2012/10/29/the-return-of-a-dangerous-ecological-criminal-574 published by his Sea Shepherd Society online October 29 2012. This Watson commentary seems to be all the Toronto Globe and Mail had as a source for Paul Watson's views on Russ George and *geoengineering* as described in their Nov 7 2012 article (I cited previously). Watson, in his article, states his Sea Shepherd Society did not make any judgement on the scientific merits, if any, of this scheme [Russ George's 2007 plan to use PLANKTOS to dump iron into waters west of the Galapagos Islands]. Watson, apparently, was anxious that Ecuadorian, American and International law *be upheld*. * (This is what his article states*). The Globe and Mail reporter couldn't talk to Watson directly because Mr Watson hasn't been seen in public since July when *he skipped bail in Germany*... As for ETC, their *Geopiracy: The Case against Geoengineeringhttp://www.etcgroup.org/content/geopiracy-case-against-geoengineering *webpage is still up. ETC concludes, obviously, that A moratorium on real-world geoengineering experimentation is urgent, apparently because we don't know what will happen if the *slightest thing* is done that ETC classifies as
RE: [geo] Haida readying for second round of iron dumping in ocean - News - Times Colonist
Is there any way for this group to back up and deal with the George experiment, setting aside for a day or so all visceral feelings about ETC? Does the George experiment produce its own visceral feelings in any of you? It does in me. Geoengineering has no future if it is not embedded in science, which to me means embedded in well-designed experiments and the give-and-take of peer review at the front and back ends. Some of you see George as Robin Hood and tell us how much you are cheering him on. I cannot imagine a less productive strategy. Robert Socolow From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Josh Horton Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013 10:12 AM To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Cc: geoengineerin...@gmail.com; Andrew Lockley; David Lewis; Ken Caldeira; j...@etcgroup.org Subject: Re: [geo] Haida readying for second round of iron dumping in ocean - News - Times Colonist One of the more interesting aspects of all this is the spectacle of the ETC Group, a self-described defender of indigenous rights, accusing a First Nations company of trying to get away with something, to borrow Jim Thomas' words. The typical response to this observation is that the Haida have been swindled by Russ George (of whom I am no fan), but this response can easily be read as dismissive and disempowering with regard to the Haida. If the Haida have chosen to do this, does that mean ETC Group has more insight into indigenous values and worldviews than actual indigenous people? Does the ETC Group just know what's best for them? That would be rich indeed. Josh Horton On Saturday, April 27, 2013 3:55:13 PM UTC-4, Greg Rau wrote: Or could the SRM crowd offer some solutions? Drop the iron out of the sky (planes, rockets, balloons etc, launched from secure land sites? Simulate volcanic dust?) Monitor the results from satellite and by sensors mounted on commercial cargo ships normally traversing the patch. Perhaps more importantly, get involvement and buy-in from the science community, governments, and NGO's to conduct carefully controlled and monitored field studies, rather than launch rogue, pirate operations (at indigenous peoples' expense). May I also suggest that adding ground limestone rather than iron to the ocean (Harvey 2008) might be a safer, less biologically impactful and hence less controversial way to mitigate CO2, though I can't promise increased salmon returns (but neither can George). -Greg From: Fred Zimmerman geoengin...@gmail.comjavascript: To: Andrew Lockley andrew@gmail.comjavascript: Cc: David Lewis jrando...@gmail.comjavascript:; Ken Caldeira kcal...@carnegiescience.edujavascript:; geoengineering geoengi...@googlegroups.comjavascript: Sent: Sat, April 27, 2013 12:11:50 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Haida readying for second round of iron dumping in ocean - News - Times Colonist 1) I generally agree with proposition that there is complacency about security. 2) I do not think it is a good idea to put heavy machine guns on research vessels. 3) I would extend the concern about security to information security. --- Fred Zimmerman Geoengineering IT! Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080 On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 5:53 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: I have to say, I think those in this field are generally somewhat complacent about security. The animal rights movement shows what can happen. We shouldn't wait until after an attack to beef up security. Some of the larger conferences or specially convened meetings (eg Asilomar) may be a particularly appealing target for violent extremists. In this specific case, my suggestion is that for all the bombast, George's enemies are unlikely to ram his boat if it's firing warning shots at him. I've no particular love for Russ George methods, but killing his crew isn't the way to solve anything. As a first step, it would seem reasonable to have SSOs (ship security officers) or weapons on board research vessels where it's legal. A heavy machine gun costs only a few thousand dollars. It's a sad state of affairs when scientists have to be armed, but better armed than dead. The threat level seems to suggest this isn't an over reaction. On Apr 27, 2013 6:16 AM, David Lewis jrando...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: Paul Watson wrote a commentary on Russ George entitled The Return of a Dangerous Ecological Criminalhttp://www.seashepherd.org/commentary-and-editorials/2012/10/29/the-return-of-a-dangerous-ecological-criminal-574 published by his Sea Shepherd Society online October 29 2012. This Watson commentary seems to be all the Toronto Globe and Mail had as a source for Paul Watson's views on Russ George and geoengineering as described in their Nov 7 2012 article (I cited previously). Watson, in his article, states his Sea Shepherd Society
RE: [geo] Haida readying for second round of iron dumping in ocean - News - Times Colonist
Sorry to split hairs, but science often isn't about well designed experiments. It's often about taking messy, real world data and trying to tease it into meaningful cohorts. If the George experiment teaches us anything about the scientific investigation of geoengineering , it should be teaching us that intervention-based experiments are likely very hard to get approval for. We therefore need to do much more to get data by passive collection and monitoring, so that we're not over-reliant on experiments that are either never consented (greenfinger geoengineering) , or can only be conducted with quasi-military protection. We do need reliable, real world data, but we need to be much cuter about how we get it (if we want to avoid getting ostracized, sunk, pelted with fruit, or bombed) . A On Apr 28, 2013 3:24 PM, Robert H. Socolow soco...@princeton.edu wrote: Is there any way for this group to back up and deal with the George experiment, setting aside for a day or so all visceral feelings about ETC? Does the George experiment produce its own visceral feelings in any of you? It does in me. Geoengineering has no future if it is not embedded in science, which to me means embedded in well-designed experiments and the give-and-take of peer review at the front and back ends. Some of you see George as Robin Hood and tell us how much you are cheering him on. I cannot imagine a less productive strategy. ** ** Robert Socolow ** ** *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto: geoengineering@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Josh Horton *Sent:* Sunday, April 28, 2013 10:12 AM *To:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com *Cc:* geoengineerin...@gmail.com; Andrew Lockley; David Lewis; Ken Caldeira; j...@etcgroup.org *Subject:* Re: [geo] Haida readying for second round of iron dumping in ocean - News - Times Colonist ** ** One of the more interesting aspects of all this is the spectacle of the ETC Group, a self-described defender of indigenous rights, accusing a First Nations company of trying to get away with something, to borrow Jim Thomas' words. The typical response to this observation is that the Haida have been swindled by Russ George (of whom I am no fan), but this response can easily be read as dismissive and disempowering with regard to the Haida. If the Haida have chosen to do this, does that mean ETC Group has more insight into indigenous values and worldviews than actual indigenous people? Does the ETC Group just know what's best for them? That would be rich indeed. ** ** Josh Horton On Saturday, April 27, 2013 3:55:13 PM UTC-4, Greg Rau wrote: Or could the SRM crowd offer some solutions? Drop the iron out of the sky (planes, rockets, balloons etc, launched from secure land sites? Simulate volcanic dust?) Monitor the results from satellite and by sensors mounted on commercial cargo ships normally traversing the patch. Perhaps more importantly, get involvement and buy-in from the science community, governments, and NGO's to conduct carefully controlled and monitored field studies, rather than launch rogue, pirate operations (at indigenous peoples' expense). May I also suggest that adding ground limestone rather than iron to the ocean (Harvey 2008) might be a safer, less biologically impactful and hence less controversial way to mitigate CO2, though I can't promise increased salmon returns (but neither can George). -Greg ** ** -- *From:* Fred Zimmerman geoengin...@gmail.com *To:* Andrew Lockley andrew@gmail.com *Cc:* David Lewis jrando...@gmail.com; Ken Caldeira kcal...@carnegiescience.edu; geoengineering geoengi...@googlegroups.com *Sent:* Sat, April 27, 2013 12:11:50 PM *Subject:* Re: [geo] Haida readying for second round of iron dumping in ocean - News - Times Colonist 1) I generally agree with proposition that there is complacency about security. 2) I do not think it is a good idea to put heavy machine guns on research vessels. 3) I would extend the concern about security to information security. *** * ** ** --- Fred Zimmerman Geoengineering IT! Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology* *** GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080 ** ** On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 5:53 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew@gmail.com wrote: I have to say, I think those in this field are generally somewhat complacent about security. The animal rights movement shows what can happen. We shouldn't wait until after an attack to beef up security. Some of the larger conferences or specially convened meetings (eg Asilomar) may be a particularly appealing target for violent extremists. In this specific case, my suggestion is that for all the bombast, George's enemies are unlikely to ram his boat if it's firing warning shots at him. I've no particular love for Russ George methods,
Re: [geo] Haida readying for second round of iron dumping in ocean - News - Times Colonist
Josh, as you well know this was not carried out by 'the Haida' and folks should be as careful ascribing this to 'the Haida' as ascribing the action of any small american town council to 'the americans' . Last years ocean fertilization was carried out by a vancouver-based company calling itself the Haida Salmon Restoration Company whose CEO, head of the board and Chief Scientist is a non-Haida American, whose president is a non-Haida British Canadian, whose senior engineer is a non-haida canadian and most of the crew were non-Haida canadians and a non-Haida Australian. The only legitimately 'haida' part of this was that they had managed to convince a single village band council to establish the company as a band council corporation and then through a series of 3 poorly attended local meetings achieved enough majority for agreement to invest band council funds into the project. The key person pushing the project in the village was the same non-haida brit who is the company's president and also economic development officer at the band council. Additionally the chief counciller of the village (who is Haida) has been persuaded to defend the project in public. They promised a very poor community an incredibly high return on investment through unbelievable amount of promised carbon credits and then late in the day began also suggesting that the project might additionally bring back the salmon - a highly emotive topic in BC indigenous communities. When it became public that the project had occurred, teh two institutions that most closely represent 'the Haida' as a whole, The Council of Haida Nations and the Hereditary Chiefs council issued a statement opposing the dump and distancing themselves from the activities of HSRC and the Old Masset Village Council: http://www.haidanation.ca/Pages/Splash/Public_Notices/PDF/Joint_Statement.pdf . if there is an official position of 'the Haida' - that is it. There have since been several acrimonious public meetings on Haida Gwaii as well as less public meetings in which its quite clear that this was not a project supported by 'the Haida' as a whole - see for example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhnEVhcS5hs . if anyone has followed the reporting by canadian,BC and other journalists actually visiting the islands and interviewing locals its also clear that feeling is such that this is very far from widely supported by 'the Haida' I encourage everyone on this list, regardless of how you feel about geoengineering, the ETC group or whatever bee is in your bonnet - to at least be accurate in not tarring 'The Haida' as a whole with what occurred. Thanks Jim Thomas On Apr 28, 2013, at 10:11 AM, Josh Horton wrote: One of the more interesting aspects of all this is the spectacle of the ETC Group, a self-described defender of indigenous rights, accusing a First Nations company of trying to get away with something, to borrow Jim Thomas' words. The typical response to this observation is that the Haida have been swindled by Russ George (of whom I am no fan), but this response can easily be read as dismissive and disempowering with regard to the Haida. If the Haida have chosen to do this, does that mean ETC Group has more insight into indigenous values and worldviews than actual indigenous people? Does the ETC Group just know what's best for them? That would be rich indeed. Josh Horton On Saturday, April 27, 2013 3:55:13 PM UTC-4, Greg Rau wrote: Or could the SRM crowd offer some solutions? Drop the iron out of the sky (planes, rockets, balloons etc, launched from secure land sites? Simulate volcanic dust?) Monitor the results from satellite and by sensors mounted on commercial cargo ships normally traversing the patch. Perhaps more importantly, get involvement and buy-in from the science community, governments, and NGO's to conduct carefully controlled and monitored field studies, rather than launch rogue, pirate operations (at indigenous peoples' expense). May I also suggest that adding ground limestone rather than iron to the ocean (Harvey 2008) might be a safer, less biologically impactful and hence less controversial way to mitigate CO2, though I can't promise increased salmon returns (but neither can George). -Greg From: Fred Zimmerman geoengin...@gmail.com To: Andrew Lockley andrew@gmail.com Cc: David Lewis jrando...@gmail.com; Ken Caldeira kcal...@carnegiescience.edu; geoengineering geoengi...@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, April 27, 2013 12:11:50 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Haida readying for second round of iron dumping in ocean - News - Times Colonist 1) I generally agree with proposition that there is complacency about security. 2) I do not think it is a good idea to put heavy machine guns on research vessels. 3) I would extend the concern about security to information security. --- Fred Zimmerman Geoengineering IT! Bringing together the worlds
Re: [geo] Haida readying for second round of iron dumping in ocean - News - Times Colonist
Canada's public broadcaster, the CBC, produced an episode of their Fifth Estate TV show, on Russ George entitled Ironman, which aired in Canada March 29. If you live in Canada, the show can be streamed from their website,* here http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2012-2013/2013/03/ironman.html*. The website is hosting some supplementary video that can be viewed from the US and perhaps the rest of the world. This material includes a 15 minute interview with Frank Whitney, co author of *Did volcanic ash from Mt. Kasatoshi in 2008 contribute to a phenomenal increase in Fraser River Sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) in 2010*?. The paper is available * herehttps://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=2cad=rjaved=0CEEQFjABurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cohencommission.ca%2FDownloadExhibit.php%3FExhibitID%3D1341ei=4F59UaTXGsaIiALHz4G4Bwusg=AFQjCNEPuxeP2ijOsZNjTO_Dbd4R0ZZmEQsig2=ugxzFqUSeoPmmTrhUd5PCAbvm=bv.45645796,d.cGE *. Dr. Whitney is Emeritus Scientist at the Institute for Ocean Sciences, Fisheries and Oceans Canada. The video of the interview is *here*http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2012-2013/2013/03/more-with-frank-whitney.html. Whitney is asked what he thinks of Russ George, ocean fertilization in general, Mr. George's experiment in particular, etc. Exerpts: Whitney: In our paper Tim and I wanted to raise the point that this is a very probable cause of enhanced salmon return. We sent our paper out to review and most other salmon scientists *would not agree* with us. So, clearly, it's not a proven fact. Tim and I still feel, strongly, that the correlation between this massive bloom of plankton triggered by volcanic ash and a substantial return of sockeye in 2010 - those must be correlated. Gillian Findlay, CBC TV interviewer: But its a stretch for him [ *her reference is to Russ George* ] to be saying its a proven link Whitney: I agree with you. I wouldn't say its proven. It's a leading contender And that's the difference between a scientist whose always going to put a provision on what they're stating - we feel this is the case, we're confident, at 50% or 90% certainty, and you see somebody whose maybe more business driven, if that's what Russ George is, and he's stating fact, fact, fact. In my career I've seen so much science fact evolve into some other knowledge. We don't deal in hard facts. We deal much more in probabilities. TV interviewer: is what he's done, in your opinion as a scientist, a scientific experiment? Whitney: I think the proof of that will be in papers published. He talks about having a world class group of scientists looking at his data. But nobody knows who those people are. I certainly don't know ...That's not the way we do science. We want to be absolutely open about what we are doing. ...TV interviewer: [they say] give us time. We are going to show you that we've done something really significant here, something scientifically important. Are you holding your breath for that? Whitney: I really hope they do. It's clear that they've taken a lot of measurements. I'm aware of lots of the kinds of measurements that they've taken I hope they will tell us before long what they've learned from this study. On Sunday, April 28, 2013 7:23:17 AM UTC-7, Robert Socolow wrote: Is there any way for this group to back up and deal with the George experiment, setting aside for a day or so all visceral feelings about ETC? Does the George experiment produce its own visceral feelings in any of you? It does in me. Geoengineering has no future if it is not embedded in science, which to me means embedded in well-designed experiments and the give-and-take of peer review at the front and back ends. Some of you see George as Robin Hood and tell us how much you are cheering him on. I cannot imagine a less productive strategy. Robert Socolow *From:* geoengi...@googlegroups.com javascript: [mailto: geoengi...@googlegroups.com javascript:] *On Behalf Of *Josh Horton *Sent:* Sunday, April 28, 2013 10:12 AM *To:* geoengi...@googlegroups.com javascript: *Cc:* geoengin...@gmail.com javascript:; Andrew Lockley; David Lewis; Ken Caldeira; j...@etcgroup.org javascript: *Subject:* Re: [geo] Haida readying for second round of iron dumping in ocean - News - Times Colonist One of the more interesting aspects of all this is the spectacle of the ETC Group, a self-described defender of indigenous rights, accusing a First Nations company of trying to get away with something, to borrow Jim Thomas' words. The typical response to this observation is that the Haida have been swindled by Russ George (of whom I am no fan), but this response can easily be read as dismissive and disempowering with regard to the Haida. If the Haida have chosen to do this, does that mean ETC Group has more insight into indigenous values and worldviews than actual indigenous people? Does the ETC Group just
Re: [geo] Haida readying for second round of iron dumping in ocean - News - Times Colonist
Certainly the George experiment should be judged as an experiment, which means disclosure. Seems doubtful that it's illegal. And violence against it must be condemned. Gregory Benford On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 11:13 AM, David Lewis jrandomwin...@gmail.comwrote: Canada's public broadcaster, the CBC, produced an episode of their Fifth Estate TV show, on Russ George entitled Ironman, which aired in Canada March 29. If you live in Canada, the show can be streamed from their website,* here http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2012-2013/2013/03/ironman.html*. The website is hosting some supplementary video that can be viewed from the US and perhaps the rest of the world. This material includes a 15 minute interview with Frank Whitney, co author of *Did volcanic ash from Mt. Kasatoshi in 2008 contribute to a phenomenal increase in Fraser River Sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) in 2010*?. The paper is available * herehttps://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=2cad=rjaved=0CEEQFjABurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cohencommission.ca%2FDownloadExhibit.php%3FExhibitID%3D1341ei=4F59UaTXGsaIiALHz4G4Bwusg=AFQjCNEPuxeP2ijOsZNjTO_Dbd4R0ZZmEQsig2=ugxzFqUSeoPmmTrhUd5PCAbvm=bv.45645796,d.cGE *. Dr. Whitney is Emeritus Scientist at the Institute for Ocean Sciences, Fisheries and Oceans Canada. The video of the interview is * here*http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2012-2013/2013/03/more-with-frank-whitney.html. Whitney is asked what he thinks of Russ George, ocean fertilization in general, Mr. George's experiment in particular, etc. Exerpts: Whitney: In our paper Tim and I wanted to raise the point that this is a very probable cause of enhanced salmon return. We sent our paper out to review and most other salmon scientists *would not agree* with us. So, clearly, it's not a proven fact. Tim and I still feel, strongly, that the correlation between this massive bloom of plankton triggered by volcanic ash and a substantial return of sockeye in 2010 - those must be correlated. Gillian Findlay, CBC TV interviewer: But its a stretch for him [ *her reference is to Russ George* ] to be saying its a proven link Whitney: I agree with you. I wouldn't say its proven. It's a leading contender And that's the difference between a scientist whose always going to put a provision on what they're stating - we feel this is the case, we're confident, at 50% or 90% certainty, and you see somebody whose maybe more business driven, if that's what Russ George is, and he's stating fact, fact, fact. In my career I've seen so much science fact evolve into some other knowledge. We don't deal in hard facts. We deal much more in probabilities. TV interviewer: is what he's done, in your opinion as a scientist, a scientific experiment? Whitney: I think the proof of that will be in papers published. He talks about having a world class group of scientists looking at his data. But nobody knows who those people are. I certainly don't know ...That's not the way we do science. We want to be absolutely open about what we are doing. ...TV interviewer: [they say] give us time. We are going to show you that we've done something really significant here, something scientifically important. Are you holding your breath for that? Whitney: I really hope they do. It's clear that they've taken a lot of measurements. I'm aware of lots of the kinds of measurements that they've taken I hope they will tell us before long what they've learned from this study. On Sunday, April 28, 2013 7:23:17 AM UTC-7, Robert Socolow wrote: Is there any way for this group to back up and deal with the George experiment, setting aside for a day or so all visceral feelings about ETC? Does the George experiment produce its own visceral feelings in any of you? It does in me. Geoengineering has no future if it is not embedded in science, which to me means embedded in well-designed experiments and the give-and-take of peer review at the front and back ends. Some of you see George as Robin Hood and tell us how much you are cheering him on. I cannot imagine a less productive strategy. Robert Socolow *From:* geoengi...@googlegroups.**com [mailto:geoengi...@** googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Josh Horton *Sent:* Sunday, April 28, 2013 10:12 AM *To:* geoengi...@googlegroups.**com *Cc:* geoengin...@gmail.com; Andrew Lockley; David Lewis; Ken Caldeira; j...@etcgroup.org *Subject:* Re: [geo] Haida readying for second round of iron dumping in ocean - News - Times Colonist One of the more interesting aspects of all this is the spectacle of the ETC Group, a self-described defender of indigenous rights, accusing a First Nations company of trying to get away with something, to borrow Jim Thomas' words. The typical response to this observation is that the Haida have been swindled by Russ George (of whom I am no fan), but this response can easily be read as dismissive and disempowering with regard
Re: [geo] Haida readying for second round of iron dumping in ocean - News - Times Colonist
I have to say, I think those in this field are generally somewhat complacent about security. The animal rights movement shows what can happen. We shouldn't wait until after an attack to beef up security. Some of the larger conferences or specially convened meetings (eg Asilomar) may be a particularly appealing target for violent extremists. In this specific case, my suggestion is that for all the bombast, George's enemies are unlikely to ram his boat if it's firing warning shots at him. I've no particular love for Russ George methods, but killing his crew isn't the way to solve anything. As a first step, it would seem reasonable to have SSOs (ship security officers) or weapons on board research vessels where it's legal. A heavy machine gun costs only a few thousand dollars. It's a sad state of affairs when scientists have to be armed, but better armed than dead. The threat level seems to suggest this isn't an over reaction. On Apr 27, 2013 6:16 AM, David Lewis jrandomwin...@gmail.com wrote: Paul Watson wrote a commentary on Russ George entitled *The Return of a Dangerous Ecological Criminal*http://www.seashepherd.org/commentary-and-editorials/2012/10/29/the-return-of-a-dangerous-ecological-criminal-574 published by his Sea Shepherd Society online October 29 2012. This Watson commentary seems to be all the Toronto Globe and Mail had as a source for Paul Watson's views on Russ George and *geoengineering* as described in their Nov 7 2012 article (I cited previously). Watson, in his article, states his Sea Shepherd Society did not make any judgement on the scientific merits, if any, of this scheme [Russ George's 2007 plan to use PLANKTOS to dump iron into waters west of the Galapagos Islands]. Watson, apparently, was anxious that Ecuadorian, American and International law *be upheld*. * (This is what his article states*). The Globe and Mail reporter couldn't talk to Watson directly because Mr Watson hasn't been seen in public since July when *he skipped bail in Germany*... As for ETC, their *Geopiracy: The Case against Geoengineeringhttp://www.etcgroup.org/content/geopiracy-case-against-geoengineering *webpage is still up. ETC concludes, obviously, that A moratorium on real-world geoengineering experimentation is urgent, apparently because we don't know what will happen if the *slightest thing* is done that ETC classifies as geoengineering. From their first paragraph, ETC takes geoengineering to be a* technological* strategy that could reduce or delay climate change, at least until social forces make a practical agreement [to mitigate climate chaos by reducing GHG emissions] Naturally,* no one wants that*. *Reasonable people, obviously, would want to increase or accelerate climate change, before social forces develop and make a practical agreement that might mitigate it? * From Alice in Wonderland, by Lewis Carroll: ***I don't think they play at all fairly,' Alice began, in rather a complaining tone, 'and they all quarrel so dreadfully one can't hear oneself speak — and they don't seem to have any rules in particular; at least, if there are, nobody attends to them *. On Friday, April 26, 2013 7:19:50 PM UTC-7, Ken Caldeira wrote: Does it matter to ETC or Paul Watson whether the intent is to increase fishery yields versus reduce the magnitude of climate change? Would the action be 'geoengineering' in the latter case but not the former? On Friday, April 26, 2013, David Lewis wrote: Paul Watson is known for going as far as attempting to sink ships in international waters that he feels are in violation of his conservation principles. -- 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] Haida readying for second round of iron dumping in ocean - News - Times Colonist
Hi All We let farmers put fertilizer on their fields. Without this we would not have enough food. Some fertilizer drains into the rivers and gets to the sea where we know that too much causes nasty blooms and oxygen reduction. Two wrongs do not make a right but what is the difference between direct and indirect fertilization? We know that very large amounts of iron are blown by winds for deserts and provide essential nutrients to the marine food chain. It would be useful to know if this can be controlled to advantage and how much would be good. Stephen Salter Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering University of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland s.sal...@ed.ac.uk Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704 Cell 07795 203 195 WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs On 27/04/2013 06:16, David Lewis wrote: Paul Watson wrote a commentary on Russ George entitled *The Return of a Dangerous Ecological Criminal* http://www.seashepherd.org/commentary-and-editorials/2012/10/29/the-return-of-a-dangerous-ecological-criminal-574 published by his Sea Shepherd Society online October 29 2012. This Watson commentary seems to be all the Toronto Globe and Mail had as a source for Paul Watson's views on Russ George and *geoengineering* as described in their Nov 7 2012 article (I cited previously). Watson, in his article, states his Sea Shepherd Society did not make any judgement on the scientific merits, if any, of this scheme [Russ George's 2007 plan to use PLANKTOS to dump iron into waters west of the Galapagos Islands]. Watson, apparently, was anxious that Ecuadorian, American and International law *be upheld*. / (This is what his article states/). The Globe and Mail reporter couldn't talk to Watson directly because Mr Watson hasn't been seen in public since July when *he skipped bail in Germany*... As for ETC, their /Geopiracy: The Case against Geoengineering http://www.etcgroup.org/content/geopiracy-case-against-geoengineering /webpage is still up. ETC concludes, obviously, that A moratorium on real-world geoengineering experimentation is urgent, apparently because we don't know what will happen if the /slightest thing/ is done that ETC classifies as geoengineering. From their first paragraph, ETC takes geoengineering to be a/technological/ strategy that could reduce or delay climate change, at least until social forces make a practical agreement [to mitigate climate chaos by reducing GHG emissions] Naturally,*no one wants that*. /Reasonable people, obviously, would want to*increase or accelerate* climate change, before social forces develop and make a practical agreement that might mitigate it ? / From Alice in Wonderland, by Lewis Carroll: ///I don't think they play at all fairly,' Alice began, in rather a complaining tone, 'and they all quarrel so dreadfully one can't hear oneself speak — and they don't seem to have any rules in particular; at least, if there are, nobody attends to them/. On Friday, April 26, 2013 7:19:50 PM UTC-7, Ken Caldeira wrote: Does it matter to ETC or Paul Watson whether the intent is to increase fishery yields versus reduce the magnitude of climate change? Would the action be 'geoengineering' in the latter case but not the former? On Friday, April 26, 2013, David Lewis wrote: Paul Watson is known for going as far as attempting to sink ships in international waters that he feels are in violation of his conservation principles. -- 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. -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. -- 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] Haida readying for second round of iron dumping in ocean - News - Times Colonist
A scientific expedition aiming to do ocean fertilization or geoengineering research would be playing into the hands of types like Paul Watson if they decided that having weapons on board was a defense. Watson is looking for an image the media he is playing to can use - armed rogue geoengineers fire upon unarmed protest boat would be better than anything he ever got from whalers he was harassing. Watson's possible target, Russ George, is the same man who not long ago was proclaiming that his publicly traded company *expects to have a cold-fusion heater ready for market as soon as 2007*. (Look under the subhead Cold Fusion on* this webpagehttp://www.newenergymovement.org/recapsa-cofeii.php?p=recapsa.php )*. This time, the bottle of snake oil that Mr. George is selling may have an actual ingredient in it, i.e. a large salmon run may indeed show up for the Haida to harvest in 2014 as a result of the 100 or so tonnes of iron compounds he talked them into dumping into the ocean last year. Scientists would want to be cautious about identifying themselves or their discipline with anything Mr. George is or is doing, i.e. defending Mr. George on the basis he is a scientist or that he is doing research unless they had carefully examined what Mr. George is doing. He sounds more like a very flamboyant consultant to would be ocean farmers than anything else. The senior political leadership of the Haida, the Hereditary Chiefs Council, and the Council of the Haida Nation, have distanced themselves from what one of their village councils is doing with Mr. George. They published this statementhttp://www.haidanation.ca/Pages/Splash/Public_Notices/PDF/Joint_Statement.pdf. It will be interesting to see if all the fish Mr. George is promising so confidently actually show up. On Saturday, April 27, 2013 2:53:22 AM UTC-7, andrewjlockley wrote: ... In this specific case, my suggestion is that for all the bombast, George's enemies are unlikely to ram his boat if it's firing warning shots at him. I've no particular love for Russ George methods, but killing his crew isn't the way to solve anything. -- 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] Haida readying for second round of iron dumping in ocean - News - Times Colonist
1) I generally agree with proposition that there is complacency about security. 2) I do not think it is a good idea to put heavy machine guns on research vessels. 3) I would extend the concern about security to information security. --- Fred Zimmerman Geoengineering IT! Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080 On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 5:53 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.comwrote: I have to say, I think those in this field are generally somewhat complacent about security. The animal rights movement shows what can happen. We shouldn't wait until after an attack to beef up security. Some of the larger conferences or specially convened meetings (eg Asilomar) may be a particularly appealing target for violent extremists. In this specific case, my suggestion is that for all the bombast, George's enemies are unlikely to ram his boat if it's firing warning shots at him. I've no particular love for Russ George methods, but killing his crew isn't the way to solve anything. As a first step, it would seem reasonable to have SSOs (ship security officers) or weapons on board research vessels where it's legal. A heavy machine gun costs only a few thousand dollars. It's a sad state of affairs when scientists have to be armed, but better armed than dead. The threat level seems to suggest this isn't an over reaction. On Apr 27, 2013 6:16 AM, David Lewis jrandomwin...@gmail.com wrote: Paul Watson wrote a commentary on Russ George entitled *The Return of a Dangerous Ecological Criminal*http://www.seashepherd.org/commentary-and-editorials/2012/10/29/the-return-of-a-dangerous-ecological-criminal-574 published by his Sea Shepherd Society online October 29 2012. This Watson commentary seems to be all the Toronto Globe and Mail had as a source for Paul Watson's views on Russ George and *geoengineering* as described in their Nov 7 2012 article (I cited previously). Watson, in his article, states his Sea Shepherd Society did not make any judgement on the scientific merits, if any, of this scheme [Russ George's 2007 plan to use PLANKTOS to dump iron into waters west of the Galapagos Islands]. Watson, apparently, was anxious that Ecuadorian, American and International law *be upheld*. * (This is what his article states*). The Globe and Mail reporter couldn't talk to Watson directly because Mr Watson hasn't been seen in public since July when *he skipped bail in Germany*... As for ETC, their *Geopiracy: The Case against Geoengineeringhttp://www.etcgroup.org/content/geopiracy-case-against-geoengineering *webpage is still up. ETC concludes, obviously, that A moratorium on real-world geoengineering experimentation is urgent, apparently because we don't know what will happen if the *slightest thing* is done that ETC classifies as geoengineering. From their first paragraph, ETC takes geoengineering to be a* technological* strategy that could reduce or delay climate change, at least until social forces make a practical agreement [to mitigate climate chaos by reducing GHG emissions] Naturally,* no one wants that*. *Reasonable people, obviously, would want to increase or accelerate climate change, before social forces develop and make a practical agreement that might mitigate it? * From Alice in Wonderland, by Lewis Carroll: ***I don't think they play at all fairly,' Alice began, in rather a complaining tone, 'and they all quarrel so dreadfully one can't hear oneself speak — and they don't seem to have any rules in particular; at least, if there are, nobody attends to them *. On Friday, April 26, 2013 7:19:50 PM UTC-7, Ken Caldeira wrote: Does it matter to ETC or Paul Watson whether the intent is to increase fishery yields versus reduce the magnitude of climate change? Would the action be 'geoengineering' in the latter case but not the former? On Friday, April 26, 2013, David Lewis wrote: Paul Watson is known for going as far as attempting to sink ships in international waters that he feels are in violation of his conservation principles. -- 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 geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more
Re: [geo] Haida readying for second round of iron dumping in ocean - News - Times Colonist
Or could the SRM crowd offer some solutions? Drop the iron out of the sky (planes, rockets, balloons etc, launched from secure land sites? Simulate volcanic dust?) Monitor the results from satellite and by sensors mounted on commercial cargo ships normally traversing the patch. Perhaps more importantly, get involvement and buy-in from the science community, governments, and NGO's to conduct carefully controlled and monitored field studies, rather than launch rogue, pirate operations (at indigenous peoples' expense). May I also suggest that adding ground limestone rather than iron to the ocean (Harvey 2008) might be a safer, less biologically impactful and hence less controversial way to mitigate CO2, though I can't promise increased salmon returns (but neither can George). -Greg From: Fred Zimmerman geoengineerin...@gmail.com To: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com Cc: David Lewis jrandomwin...@gmail.com; Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu; geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, April 27, 2013 12:11:50 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Haida readying for second round of iron dumping in ocean - News - Times Colonist 1) I generally agree with proposition that there is complacency about security. 2) I do not think it is a good idea to put heavy machine guns on research vessels. 3) I would extend the concern about security to information security. --- Fred Zimmerman Geoengineering IT! Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080 On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 5:53 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: I have to say, I think those in this field are generally somewhat complacent about security. The animal rights movement shows what can happen. We shouldn't wait until after an attack to beef up security. Some of the larger conferences or specially convened meetings (eg Asilomar) may be a particularly appealing target for violent extremists. In this specific case, my suggestion is that for all the bombast, George's enemies are unlikely to ram his boat if it's firing warning shots at him. I've no particular love for Russ George methods, but killing his crew isn't the way to solve anything. As a first step, it would seem reasonable to have SSOs (ship security officers) or weapons on board research vessels where it's legal. A heavy machine gun costs only a few thousand dollars. It's a sad state of affairs when scientists have to be armed, but better armed than dead. The threat level seems to suggest this isn't an over reaction. On Apr 27, 2013 6:16 AM, David Lewis jrandomwin...@gmail.com wrote: Paul Watson wrote a commentary on Russ George entitled The Return of a Dangerous Ecological Criminal published by his Sea Shepherd Society online October 29 2012. This Watson commentary seems to be all the Toronto Globe and Mail had as a source for Paul Watson's views on Russ George and geoengineering as described in their Nov 7 2012 article (I cited previously). Watson, in his article, states his Sea Shepherd Society did not make any judgement on the scientific merits, if any, of this scheme [Russ George's 2007 plan to use PLANKTOS to dump iron into waters west of the Galapagos Islands]. Watson, apparently, was anxious that Ecuadorian, American and International law be upheld. (This is what his article states). The Globe and Mail reporter couldn't talk to Watson directly because Mr Watson hasn't been seen in public since July when he skipped bail in Germany... As for ETC, their Geopiracy: The Case against Geoengineering webpage is still up. ETC concludes, obviously, that A moratorium on real-world geoengineering experimentation is urgent, apparently because we don't know what will happen if the slightest thing is done that ETC classifies as geoengineering. From their first paragraph, ETC takes geoengineering to be atechnological strategy that could reduce or delay climate change, at least until social forces make a practical agreement [to mitigate climate chaos by reducing GHG emissions] Naturally,no one wants that. Reasonable people, obviously, would want toincrease or accelerate climate change, before social forces develop and make a practical agreement that might mitigate it? From Alice in Wonderland, by Lewis Carroll: I don't think they play at all fairly,' Alice began, in rather a complaining tone, 'and they all quarrel so dreadfully one can't hear oneself speak — and they don't seem to have any rules in particular; at least, if there are, nobody attends to them. On Friday, April 26, 2013 7:19:50 PM UTC-7, Ken Caldeira wrote: Does it matter to ETC or Paul Watson whether the intent is to increase fishery yields versus reduce the magnitude of climate change? Would the action be 'geoengineering' in the latter case but not the former? On Friday, April 26, 2013, David
Re: [geo] Haida readying for second round of iron dumping in ocean - News - Times Colonist
Does it matter to ETC or Paul Watson whether the intent is to increase
fishery yields versus reduce the magnitude of climate change?
Would the action be 'geoengineering' in the latter case but not the former?
On Friday, April 26, 2013, David Lewis wrote:
Paul Watson is known for going as far as attempting to sink ships in
international waters that he feels are in violation of his conservation
principles.
The New Yorker profiled him in this
articlehttp://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/11/05/071105fa_fact_khatchadourian?currentPage=allin
2007 . A quote from that article:
He calls his fleet Neptune’s Navy, and he regards it as a law-enforcement
agency. Moments before* ramming a vessel*, Watson will radio its captain
and say something that sounds very official, such as “Please remove
yourselves from these waters. You are in violation of international
conservation regulations.” At times, he loses his cool. “We’re no protest
ship,” he once told an intransigent captain. “Now, get out of here.” His
sense of urgency, his impressive ego, his argumentativeness, his love of
theatrics, his tendency to bend the truth, his willingness to risk lives or
injury for his beliefs (or for publicity), and his courage (or
recklessness) have earned him both loathing and veneration from those who
are familiar with his activism.
This quote from the Wikipedia page on
Watsonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Watson#cite_note-DOWNED-98
fleshes out his we're no protest ship remark above: Watson has stated
that he does not consider himself a 'protester', but an 'interventionist',
as he considers protesting as too submissive.
One thing that is interesting about Watson's clash with Russ George is the
fact that the Haida or at least some of them, are on the side of Mr.
George.
I believe this would be the first time Watson will be publicly allowing
himself to be seen to be conducting one of his harassment/publicity
campaigns that is aimed at stopping something a Native group is doing. The
broader environment movement Watson derives much of his support from is
very much not in favor of confronting Native groups. Watson may find
himself in direct opposition to Haida elders.
Also, it is interesting to see Watson taking an interest in the
geoengineering issue to this extent. Watson made his name drawing
attention to the plight of whales.
Here is a typical report on his activities: Japan obtains arrest warrant
for anti-whaling group leader where Japan accuses Watson of endangering
the lives of whaling crews with Watson saying he will continue no matter
what. The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/30/japan-whaling-sea-shepherd
Here is a 2013 report by a newspaper that has covered Watson and published
his reporting from his earliest days
http://www.straight.com/news/342241/sea-shepherds-paul-watson-steps-down-captain-still-sails-against-japanese-whalers
On 4/26/2013 10:43 AM, Andrew Lockley wrote:
...However, I suggest that the allegations of a planned attack might not
bear close scrutiny.
On Apr 26, 2013 6:27 PM, David Lewis
jrandomwin...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'jrandomwin...@gmail.com');
wrote:
ETC isn't the only NGO green group paying attention to Russ George and
the Haida.
*It was their intention to ram and rip our ship open from stem to
stern and sink it along with the 40 scientists aboard*, said Russ
George, 29 minutes and 30 seconds into this videohttp://vimeo.com/8038030
--
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 javascript:_e({},
'cvml', 'geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com');.
To post to this group, send email to
geoengineering@googlegroups.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'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.
--
___
Ken Caldeira
Carnegie Institution for Science
Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
+1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira
*Caldeira Lab is hiring postdoctoral researchers.*
*http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_employment.html*
Our YouTube videos http://www.youtube.com/user/CarnegieGlobEcology/videos
--
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] Haida readying for second round of iron dumping in ocean - News - Times Colonist
Paul Watson wrote a commentary on Russ George entitled *The Return of a Dangerous Ecological Criminal*http://www.seashepherd.org/commentary-and-editorials/2012/10/29/the-return-of-a-dangerous-ecological-criminal-574 published by his Sea Shepherd Society online October 29 2012. This Watson commentary seems to be all the Toronto Globe and Mail had as a source for Paul Watson's views on Russ George and *geoengineering* as described in their Nov 7 2012 article (I cited previously). Watson, in his article, states his Sea Shepherd Society did not make any judgement on the scientific merits, if any, of this scheme [Russ George's 2007 plan to use PLANKTOS to dump iron into waters west of the Galapagos Islands]. Watson, apparently, was anxious that Ecuadorian, American and International law *be upheld*. * (This is what his article states*). The Globe and Mail reporter couldn't talk to Watson directly because Mr Watson hasn't been seen in public since July when *he skipped bail in Germany*... As for ETC, their *Geopiracy: The Case against Geoengineeringhttp://www.etcgroup.org/content/geopiracy-case-against-geoengineering *webpage is still up. ETC concludes, obviously, that A moratorium on real-world geoengineering experimentation is urgent, apparently because we don't know what will happen if the *slightest thing* is done that ETC classifies as geoengineering. From their first paragraph, ETC takes geoengineering to be a* technological* strategy that could reduce or delay climate change, at least until social forces make a practical agreement [to mitigate climate chaos by reducing GHG emissions] Naturally,* no one wants that*. *Reasonable people, obviously, would want to increase or accelerate climate change, before social forces develop and make a practical agreement that might mitigate it? * From Alice in Wonderland, by Lewis Carroll: ***I don't think they play at all fairly,' Alice began, in rather a complaining tone, 'and they all quarrel so dreadfully one can't hear oneself speak — and they don't seem to have any rules in particular; at least, if there are, nobody attends to them *. On Friday, April 26, 2013 7:19:50 PM UTC-7, Ken Caldeira wrote: Does it matter to ETC or Paul Watson whether the intent is to increase fishery yields versus reduce the magnitude of climate change? Would the action be 'geoengineering' in the latter case but not the former? On Friday, April 26, 2013, David Lewis wrote: Paul Watson is known for going as far as attempting to sink ships in international waters that he feels are in violation of his conservation principles. -- 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.
[geo] Haida readying for second round of iron dumping in ocean - News - Times Colonist
http://www.timescolonist.com/news/haida-readying-for-second-round-of-iron-dumping-in-ocean-1.115880 The controversial Haida Salmon Restoration Corp. wants Environment Canada to return scientific data and samples — seized during office searches last month — so it can prepare for a second ocean fertilization experiment this summer.Last year, the Old Massett-based corporation unloaded more than 100 tonnes of iron sulfate, plus iron oxide and iron dust, into the ocean 320 kilometres off the coast of Haida Gwaii.The experiment, which was designed to increase salmon runs by creating an algae bloom for the fish to feed on, led to international controversy and accusations of geoengineering.Debate raged over which government departments were aware of the experiment, with Old Massett economic development officer John Disney saying the government had been informed and federal Environment Minister Peter Kent describing it as a “demonstration of rogue science.”In March, 11 Environment Canada officials spent 23 hours at the corporation’s Vancouver headquarters and other locations seizing scientific data, journals and files, said Jay Straith, the company’s lawyer.“They took samples and let samples thaw out,” he said.So far, Environment Canada has not indicated what they are going to do with the seized items and time is running out as the group prepares to collect baseline information in May, followed by a second iron dump in June, said Old Massett legal counsel Joe Spears.“We have basically been crippled while Environment Canada fiddles around with it. At least, they should give us our copies back.”The legal team has applied for an order setting aside the search warrant, saying the search and seizures were unconstitutional as there is no Canadian law that applies to the company’s activities.Spears wants the application heard within a month, so preparations can get underway for the next experiment.“They don’t want to go to sea without this thing being cleared up,” he said.Environment Canada spokesman Mark Johnson said questions about potential violations or charges cannot be answered as they are the subject of an ongoing investigation by the enforcement branch.“Ocean fertilization is not allowed under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act,” Johnson said in an email.“The only exception to the above would be in circumstances whereby the project had been assessed … and found to qualify as legitimate scientific research.”The aim of the iron experiment, led by California businessman Russ George, who was previously prevented from conducting iron dumps near the Canary and Galapagos islands, was to stimulate plankton growth to feed crashing salmon populations.The Old Massett community was told the $2.5-million cost would be recouped through carbon-credit sales.“From the science the Haida have done, we are pretty sure what we are going to see are salmon returning in 2014,” Spears said. If the federal government stops the experiment this year, they will have to answer for a drop in returning salmon in 2015, he said.Disney said the experiment has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams, but 170 million data sets have to be “crunched and catalogued and then published” to prove it.Returning fish will be “the big, visual sign,” he said. “But we are looking scientifically at the microscopic levels, and the results are phenomenal.”Jim Thomas of the international technology watchdog ETC Group said plans for a second dump are not entirely surprising.“It seems to me they are trying to force Environment Canada’s hand to say whether it’s legal or illegal,” said Thomas, who believes there will be an international outcry if Environment Canada does not declare the practice illegal.“But I can’t see them getting away with this again.” jlav...@timescolonist.com -- 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.
