Ken, from our legal analysis that doesn't wash.
Firstly, mariculture and acquaculture doesn't come into COP Decision IX/16 so obviously it's a breach of that in any case COP 9 DECISION IX/16 4. Bearing in mind the ongoing scientific and legal analysis occurring under the auspices of the London Convention (1972) and the 1996 London Protocol, requests Parties and urges other Governments, in accordance with the precautionary approach, to ensure that ocean fertilization activities do not take place until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities, including assessing associated risks, and a global, transparent and effective control and regulatory mechanism is in place for these activities; with the exception of small scale scientific research studies within coastal waters. Such studies should only be authorized if justified by the need to gather specific scientific data, and should also be subject to a thorough prior assessment of the potential impacts of the research studies on the marine environment, and be strictly controlled, and not be used for generating and selling carbon offsets or any other commercial purposes regarding LC/LP LC/LP.1 (2008) reads "2. AGREE that for the purposes of this resolution, ocean fertilization is any activity undertaken by humans with the principal intention of stimulating primary productivity in the oceans" That is the definition. So whether it's carbon or fish is irrelevant. The principal intention needs to be 'stimulating primary productivity in the oceans" The footnote "Ocean fertilization does not include conventional aquaculture, or mariculture, or the creation of artificial reefs." must be read in the light of the sentence it's noting i.e.''stimulating primary productivity in the oceans". Without doubt, the exercise by Russ George and his band was with the intention of stimulating primary productivity in the oceans. An activity which qualifies as mariculture which nevertheless is 'stimulating primary productivity in the oceans" is still ocean fertilization. The footnote is simply to avoid an argument that feeding fish as part of aquaculture or mariculture is ocean fertilisation since it is inadvertently stimulating primary productivity in the oceans.Clearly putting iron in the oceans was done with the intention of stimulating primary productivity in the oceans and was neither mariculture nor aquaculture, and I am sure no country would seriously argue that it is. Nor can the addition of the word 'conventional' mean that 'unconventional' aquaculture (or mariculture) is somehow exempt even if it is done with the primary intention of stimulating primary productivity in the oceans. The meaning of para 2 is clear. Further everything we have learned from the Haida and also public financial documents around a loan for the project clearly indicate that the aim of the project was to sequester carbon in order to sell carbon credits - ie in financial terms this is primarily about carbon not fish. Quite who was expected to issue such carbon credits is beyond me but thats what those paying for the project were led to believe (by Russ George one assumes). Jim On Oct 15, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Ken Caldeira wrote: > It would be useful if any legal minds in the group would assess exactly the > relevant language that Russ George has supposedly violated. > > I recall that in negotiations under the London Convention / London Protocol, > there was concern not to impact fish farms which of course supply copious > nutrients to surrounding waters. > > If my recollection was correct, somebody proposed an exception for > mariculture. I piped up and said that all ocean fertilization could be > considered mariculture and that the CO2 storage could be regarded as a > co-benefit, achieved knowingly but not intentionally (just as when we drive a > car we knowingly heat the planet although that is not our intent). > > My recollection was that in response to this comment, the word 'conventional' > was added to the language, so that it now reads: > > "Ocean fertilization does not include conventional aquaculture, or > mariculture, .. ". > Resolution LC-LP.1(2008) - IMO > > Incidentally, it seems that they have a misplaced comma, as I believe the > word 'conventional' was meant to apply to both 'aquaculture'' and > 'mariculture', but with the placement of the comma, I read this as > 'conventional aquaculture' or 'mariculture'. I am not enough of a lawyer to > know whether the intended meaning or the literal meaning is the one likely to > prevail under some sort of adjudication process. > > --- > > It is interesting to see the level of interest that intentional ocean > fertilization draws relative to, say, nutrients added to the ocean as a > result of farm runoff or inadequately processed sewage. We are very sensitive > to the intent with which actions are conducted, and are willing to overlook > travesties caused in the normal course of business so that we can focus on > physically insignificant acts where the presumed intentions do not meet our > high ethical standards. > > We do not choose to focus on problems based on an objective appraisal of > threats posed, but rather largely based on which actions we find to be most > ethically repugnant. Apparently, dumping raw sewage simply to save the cost > of sewage processing is less repugnant than fertilizing the ocean in hopes of > increasing fish yields. One suspects that the real ethical boundary that Russ > George is inferred to have transgressed is the desire to personally profit > from unconventional mariculture. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVCu158FqvE > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voXiJ5t23sY > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5gcZ4rojsI > > _______________ > 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 > > Our YouTube videos > The Great Climate Experiment: How far can we push the planet? > Geophysical Limits to Global Wind Power > More videos > > > > On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 7:08 AM, M V Bhaskar <bhaskarmv...@gmail.com> wrote: > Andrew > > One view is that fertilizing to grow / restore fish is NOT prohibited under > LC / LP > > Pl see the presentation by Dr David Schnare > - http://www.thomasjeffersoninst.org/pdf/articles/geo_and_4climatetruths.ppt > > Geoengineering and the Four Climate Change Truths: > Perspectives of a Lawyer-Scientist > A Presentation at the > Research Triangle Institute, International > November 18, 2008 > Slide 59 > .... > • The London Convention / London Protocol: You may fertilize if the > intent is to grow fish but not if the intent is to dispose of carbon in the > ocean. Hence, focus on “restoration”. > > The Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation seems to aim at restoring the Salmon > population. > > regards > > Bhaskar > > On Monday, 15 October 2012 17:03:21 UTC+5:30, andrewjlockley wrote: > http://m.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/15/pacific-iron-fertilisation-geoengineering?cat=environment&type=article > > Pacific iron fertilisation is 'blatant violation' of international regulations > > Controversial US businessman's geoengineering scheme off west coast of Canada > contravenes two UN conventions > > A controversial American businessman dumped around 100 tonnes of iron > sulphate into the Pacific Ocean as part of a geoengineering scheme off the > west coast of Canada in July, a Guardian investigation can reveal.Lawyers, > environmentalists and civil society groups are calling it a "blatant > violation" of two international moratoria and the news is likely to spark > outrage at a United Nations environmental summit taking place in India this > week.Satellite images appear to confirm the claim by Californian Russ George > that the iron has spawned an artificial plankton bloom as large as 10,000 > square kilometres. The intention is for the plankton to absorb carbon dioxide > and then sink to the ocean bed – a geoengineering technique known as ocean > fertilisation that he hopes will net lucrative carbon credits.George is the > former chief executive of Planktos Inc, whose previous failed efforts to > conduct large-scale commercial dumps near the Galapagos and Canary Islands > led to his vessels being barred from ports by the Spanish and Ecuadorean > governments. The US Environmental Protection Agency warned him that flying a > US flag for his Galapagos project would violate US laws, and his activities > are credited in part to the passing of international moratoria at the United > Nations limiting ocean fertilisation experimentsScientists are debating > whether iron fertilisation can lock carbon into the deep ocean over the long > term, and have raised concerns that it can irreparably harm ocean ecosystems, > produce toxic tides and lifeless waters, and worsen ocean acidification and > global warming."It is difficult if not impossible to detect and describe > important effects that we know might occur months or years later," said John > Cullen , an oceanographer at Dalhousie University. "Some possible effects, > such as deep-water oxygen depletion and alteration of distant food webs, > should rule out ocean manipulation. History is full of examples of ecological > manipulations that backfired."George says his team of unidentified scientists > has been monitoring the results of what may be the biggest ever > geoengineering experiment with equipment loaned from US agencies like Nasa > and the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration. He told the Guardian > that it is the "most substantial ocean restoration project in history," and > has collected a "greater density and depth of scientific data than ever > before"."We've gathered data targeting all the possible fears that have been > raised [about ocean fertilisation]," George said. "And the news is good news, > all around, for the planet."The dump took place from a fishing boat in an > eddy 200 nautical miles west of the islands of Haida Gwaii, one of the > world's most celebrated, diverse ecosystems, where George convinced the local > council of an indigenous village to establish the Haida Salmon Restoration > Corporation to channel more than $1m of its own funds into the project.The > president of the Haida nation, Guujaaw, said the village was told the dump > would environmentally benefit the ocean, which is crucial to their livelihood > and culture."The village people voted to support what they were told was a > 'salmon enhancement project' and would not have agreed if they had been told > of any potential negative effects or that it was in breach of an > international convention," Guujaaw said.International legal experts say > George's project has contravened the UN's convention on biological diversity > (CBD) and London convention on the dumping of wastes at sea, which both > prohibit for-profit ocean fertilisation activities."It appears to be a > blatant violation of two international resolutions," said Kristina M Gjerde, > a senior high seas adviser for the International Union for Conservation of > Nature. "Even the placement of iron particles into the ocean, whether for > carbon sequestration or fish replenishment, should not take place, unless it > is assessed and found to be legitimate scientific research without commercial > motivation. This does not appear to even have had the guise of legitimate > scientific research."George told the Guardian that the two moratoria are a > "mythology" and do not apply to his project.The parties to the UN CBD are > currently meeting in Hyderabad, India, where the governments of Bolivia, the > Philippines and African nations as well as indigenous peoples are calling for > the current moratorium to be upgraded to a comprehensive test ban of > geoengineering that includes enforcement mechanisms."If rogue geoengineer > Russ George really has misled this indigenous community, and dumped iron into > their waters, we hope to see swift legal response to his behavior and strong > action taken to the heights of the Canadian and US governments," said Silvia > Ribeiro of the international technology watchdog ETC Group, which first > discovered the existence of the scheme. "It is now more urgent than ever that > governments unequivocally ban such open-air geoengineering experiments. They > are a dangerous distraction providing governments and industry with an excuse > to avoid reducing fossil fuel emissions. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/5a3alkqu5RUJ. > > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. Jim Thomas ETC Group (Montreal) j...@etcgroup.org +1 514 2739994 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
