The ETC paper is quite interesting - "Harvard physicist and geoengineering advocate, David Keith, describes geoengineering in the context of climate change as ‘a countervailing measure, one that uses additional technology to counteract unwanted side effects without eliminating their root cause, “a technical fix”’ (Keith, 2010a: 494)"
I disagree with Dr Keith. SRM addresses the side effects of climate change but CCS technologies do address the root cause by removing carbon. "Only the world’s richest countries can really muster the hardware and software necessary to attempt rearranging the climate and resetting the Earth’s thermostat." The recent experiment by Old Masset village of the Haida nation does disprove this. This is the first private geoengineering experiment and was initiated by one village acting alone. "What’s wrong with ocean fertilisation? Phytoplankton are the foundation of the marine food chain. Iron may well stimulate the growth of algae blooms but their potential to capture and eliminate any significant amount of carbon is unproven. The list of potential side effects is long: » Changes in marine food webs: Artificial plankton production may lead to changes in marine ecosystems at the base of the food chain, of particular concern when ocean ecosystems are already fragile and under stress. We have been regularly using a pond and lake fertilization technology for many years, with excellent results. » Reduced productivity in other areas: Iron-induced blooms may consume and deplete other vital nutrients such that areas down current from the fertilised area could suffer reduced plankton productivity and carbon fixation. The paper discusses the overall decline in phytoplankton in the oceans and Iron fertilization is intended to be used only in HNLC areas of the oceans, so only the 'excess' nutrients would be consumed. » Some scientists have raised concerns that iron fertilisation could in turn deplete oxygen levels at deeper levels of the ocean. We have been fertilizing ponds and lakes to increase dissolved oxygen level. » Artificially elevated nutrient levels could give rise to harmful algal blooms that produce toxins associated with shellfish poisoning, fatal to humans. We have been fertilizing ponds and lakes to solve the problem of harmful algal blooms. » The production of dimethyl-sulphide (DMS), methane, nitrous oxide and volatile methyl halides can alter weather patterns unpredictably, cause ozone depletion and open a Pandora’s box of impacts on atmospheric chemistry and global climate. When oxygen level is increased methane and nitrous oxide emissions decline. » Ocean acidifiation could be exacerbated. When CO2 is consumed ocean acidification can only decline not be exacerbated. » Coral reefs can be dramatically afected by tiny increases in nutrient levels, especially nitrogen, potentially provoking the growth of toxic dinoflagellates. Our fertilization solution will reduce dinoflagellates. » Devastating impacts on the livelihoods of people who depend on healthy marine systems, most notably fisher folk. Fishermen are using our fertilization solution to protect their livelyhood. regards Bhaskar On Saturday, 17 November 2012 10:05:59 UTC+5:30, Greg Rau wrote: > > A more direct link here: > > http://whatnext.org/resources/Publications/Volume-III/Single-articles/wnv3_etcgroup_144.pdf > > I thought these nuggets were especially revealing: > Why is geoengineering unacceptable? > > It can’t be tested: No experimental phase is possible – in order to have > a noticeable impact on the climate, geoengineering must be deployed on a > massive scale. ‘Experiments’ or ‘field trials’ are actually equivalent to > deployment in the real world because small- scale tests do not deliver the > data on climate effects. For people and biodiversity, impacts would likely > be massive as well as immediate and possibly irreversible. > It is unequal: OECD governments and powerful corporations (who have > denied or ignored climate change and its impact on biodiversity for decades > but are responsible, historically, for most greenhouse gas emissions) are > the ones with the budgets and the technology to execute this gamble with > Gaia.There is no reason to trust that they will have the interests of more > vulnerable states or peoples in mind. > > There are several examples provided in Geopiracy: The Case Against > Geoengineering (ETC Group, 2010: 31-32).228 Development Dialogue > September 2012 | What Next Volume III | Climate, Development and Equity > > It is unilateral: Although all geoengineering proposals run into tens of > billions of dollars, for rich nations and billionaires, they could be > considered relatively cheap (and simple) to deploy.The capacity to act will > be within the hands of those who possess the technology (individuals, > corporations, states) in the next few years. It is urgent that multilateral > measures are taken to ban any unilat- eral attempts to manipulate Earth > ecosystems. > > It is risky and unpredictable: The side effects of geoengineered > interventions are unknown. Geoengineering could easily have un- intended > consequences due to any number of factors: mechanical failure, human error, > inadequate understanding of ecosystems and biodiversity and the Earth’s > climate, unforeseen natural phenom- ena, irreversibility, or funding lapses. > > It violates treaties: Many geoengineering techniques have latent military > purposes and their deployment would violate the UN Environmental > Modification Treaty (ENMOD), which prohibits the hostile use of > environmental modification. > > It is the perfect excuse: Geoengineering offers governments an > alternative to reducing emissions and protecting biodiversity. > Geoengineering research is often seen as a way to ‘buy time’, but it also > gives governments justification to delay compensation for damage caused by > climate change and to avoid taking action on emissions reduction. > > It commodifies our climate and raises the spectre of climate profiteering: > Those > who think they have a planetary fix for the climate crisis are already > flooding patent offices with patent ap- plications. Should a ‘Plan B’ ever > be agreed upon, the prospect of it being privately controlled is > terrifying. Serious planet-altering technologies should never be undertaken > for commercial profit. If geoengineering is actually a climate emergency > back-up plan, then it should not be eligible for carbon credits under the > Clean Development Mechanism or any other offset system. > > > Unfortunately, the article fails to mention that non-geoengineering > approaches to the CO2 problem are failing miserably. To therefore > automatically vilify any untested, new technology that might have a > positive, global scale impact on this problem would seem to be a little > premature and short sighted if not extremely dangerous for the planet > considering the lack success by more "acceptable"(?) strategies. > > > -Greg > > > -- 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/-/NNt8hxT_QWcJ. 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.
