Were HSRC really interested in solid and verifiable carbon credits, investing their money and effort in improving efficiency almost anywhere in the world would seem to have been a much better investment and chance of return. In addition to the actual costs of doing iron fertilization, the transaction costs in terms of lawyers and legal vulnerability would seem to me so high it is hard to understand on what basis they would be drawing in investors. Thus, in addition to being ecologically and legally suspect, isn¹t the whole idea economically suspect as well? Were global emissions way down and the CO2 costs way up and ocean acidification causing significant impacts, there might be reason for re-consideration, but I just don¹t understand the rationale for this idea when global emissions are headed up, overall efficiencies of energy use are so low, and CO2 permit costs are so low. What am I missing here?
Mike MacCracken On 10/20/12 3:36 PM, "Joshua Horton" <joshuahorton...@gmail.com> wrote: > According to multiple sources, the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation (HSRC) > had planned to sell carbon credits resulting from the experiment (for example, > see > CBC http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/10/19/bc-ocean-f > ertilization-haida.html). Setting aside the fact that there's no way > currently to do this, neither Russ George, John Disney (president of HSRC), > nor any other corporate or community official has disputed this assertion, not > even during the press conference they organized in Vancouver yesterday. > > As for the Assessment Framework, the point is not whether or not the > experiment was "small-scale," but whether or not it was submitted to the LC/LP > for approval under the Framework, which apparently it was not (presumably > because it wouldn't have passed scientific muster). > > Josh > > On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> Not wishing to take sides, but I don't agree with the points raised. >> >> It's not clear to me what, if any, commercial purpose there was. I don't see >> any evidence of selling credits, specifically. It's probably harder to judge >> the fisheries issue - which may have been within the definition of >> commercial. However, it may be that the intended fisheries impact was >> research, not directly commercial, on this specific occasion. >> >> Secondly, the assessment framework expressly permits small scale research. >> 100t is pretty small scale (two petrol tankers) even if the effect was >> spatially dispersed. >> >> Surely it's for objectors to prove a violation, not the converse. Innocent >> until proven guilty, and all that .... >> >> A >> >> On Oct 20, 2012 7:01 PM, "Josh Horton" <joshuahorton...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Circling back to Ken's original question, given what we know it seems pretty >>> clear that the Haida experiment did violate both the CBD and LC/LP. >>> >>> CBD Decision IX/16(C)(4) explicitly prohibits any research "used for >>> generating and selling carbon offsets or any other commercial purposes." >>> >>> Resolution LC/LP.1 (2008) explicitly prohibits any research that has not >>> "been assessed and found acceptable under the assessment framework." >>> >>> George and his company have had a week to make their case, including a press >>> conference yesterday, and have neither denied the commercial aspect of the >>> test, nor shown that approval was granted under the LC/LP Assessment >>> Framework. >>> >>> Josh Horton >>> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, October 15, 2012 12:38:16 PM UTC-4, 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 >>>> <http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved >>>> =0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.imo.org%2Fblast%2FblastData.asp%3Fdoc_id%3D >>>> 14101%26filename%3D1.doc&ei=xzV8ULXmFoKG9QSWsICYCA&usg=AFQjCNFJLn-efXeq0_tl >>>> czhFZRjjpRGFGQ&sig2=FC11W0IMKGaw0-Mc166MwQ> >>>> >>>> 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=HVCu158FqvE> >>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voXiJ5t23sY >>>> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voXiJ5t23sY> >>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5gcZ4rojsI >>>> <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 <tel:%2B1%20650%20704%207212> kcal...@carnegiescience.edu >>>> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab >>>> <http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab> @kencaldeira >>>> >>>> Our YouTube videos >>>> The Great Climate Experiment: How far can we push the planet? >>>> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce2OWROToAI> >>>> Geophysical Limits to Global Wind Power >>>> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U7PXjUG-Yk> >>>> More videos <http://www.youtube.com/user/CarnegieGlobEcology/videos> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 7:08 AM, M V Bhaskar <bhaska...@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 >>>>> <http://www.thomasjeffersoninst.org/pdf/articles/geo_and_4climatetruths.pp >>>>> t> >>>>> >>>>> 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 ³restoration². >>>>> >>>>> 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-fertilisatio >>>>>> n-geoengineering?cat=environment&type=article >>>>>> <http://m.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/15/pacific-iron-fertilisati >>>>>> on-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 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.
