I realize that the group is generally focused on large-scale, chemical applications in both the atmosphere and oceans as primary, geoengineering solutions. These are well-known contentious issues and yet deserving of rigorous investigation and pilot testing. Concurrently, if not this group, then another should apply such rigor to investigating measures to exploit the fecundity of marine species. This biological aspect offers the universally-acceptable process to rapidly increase nutrient cycling for increasing primary productivity in all oceans and moving dissolved carbon into the marine biomass and deep ocean sequestration. Life is tenacious and robust. Implementation of strict ocean stock management policies, enforced by national navies, coast guards, and marine agencies can facilitate a rapid response from the ocean ecosystem to achieve many of the group's goals. It may offer a path of least resistance.
Many references exist on this topic that lay the framework for such a global "geoengineering" program, as indicated in this example: TEMPERATE MARINE RESERVES ENHANCE TARGETED BUT NOT UNTARGETED FISHES IN MULTIPLE NO-TAKE MPAS Irene Tetreault1 and Richard F. Ambrose Ecological Applications, 17(8), 2007, pp. 2251-2267 (c) 2007 by the Ecological Society of America Department of Environmental Health Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095-1772 USA Abstract. Although many papers report the effects of no-take marine protected areas (MPAs or reserves), scientifically rigorous empirical studies are rare, particularly for temperate reef fishes. We evaluated the responses of fish populations to protection from fishing in reserves by comparing densities and sizes inside and outside of five no-take reserves in southern California, USA. Our results are robust because we compared responses across multiple rocky-reef reserves in two different years and controlled for possible site differences by (a) ensuring that habitat characteristics were the same inside and outside reserves, and (b) sampling species that are not targeted, which would not be expected to have a direct response to fishing. We compared fish density and size and calculated biomass and egg production across all five sites. Fishes targeted by recreational and/or commercial fisheries consistently exhibited increases in mean density (150%), size (30%), biomass (440%), and egg production (730%) inside reserves. Reserve effects were greatest for legal-sized targeted fishes: significantly greater densities were found exclusively inside reserves for targeted species (580%), the largest size classes existed only inside reserves, and mean biomass was 1000% higher. These responses were unlikely to have been caused by habitat differences because there were no significant differences in habitat characteristics between reserve and control locations. Densities of non-targeted species did not differ between reserve and non-reserve locations, further supporting the conclusions that differences in targeted species between reserve and control locations were due to harvesting rather than site-specific effects. Although MPAs cannot replace traditional fisheries management, the concentration of increased biomass and egg production is a unique MPA benefit that serves both reserves and fisheries. Scientifically rigorous studies that include multiple reserves, such as this study, are needed to inform management and policy decisions. Again, I suggest to the group the concept of laying the oceans fallow at something like 5 or 10-year regular cycles with limited, regulated, intermittent harvest until the biomass has increased 5 fold (pre-1700 conditions). Of course, commercial LSM facilities would be promoted and supported by national governments regulating EEZs and the UN for international waters. Bruce From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Salter Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 4:58 AM To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [geo] Implications of Current Developments in International Liability for the Practice of Marine Geo-engineering Activities Hi All If something turned out to be a great way to extend bio-diversity, increase food supplies and save lives should we sue people for not doing it? Stephen 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 06/12/2013 02:09, Mike MacCracken wrote: Interesting how seemingly confident the author is of potentially adverse impacts of iron fertilization. How would the harm be identified and proven? There are ways to work at determining if fertilization would work, but how would the damage done be figured out in a convincing way? Lots could be asserted, but what could be proven? Sure there are differences, but does that make it harmful? Mike On 12/5/13 7:50 PM, "Andrew Lockley" <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> wrote: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid =9083401 Implications of Current Developments in International Liability for the Practice of Marine Geo-engineering Activities Jung-Eun KIM * Korea Institute of Ocean Science and Technology, Republic of Korea ocean...@kiost.ac Abstract Ocean fertilization was first introduced as a carbon dioxide mitigation technique in the 1980s. However, its effectiveness to slow down climate change is uncertain and it is expected to damage the marine environment. Consequently, international law, including the London Convention/Protocol and the Convention on Biological Diversity, limits this activity to scientific research purposes. The applicability and scope of existing treaties for regulating this activity have been reviewed within international legal systems, in particular within the London Protocol. The establishment of a liability regime with respect to these activities has also been raised during a discussion on regulation of ocean fertilization under the London Protocol. One of the key purposes of the liability regime could be to make ocean users more cautious when exploring and exploiting the oceans through charging cleaning costs or imposing compensation for damage. This paper aims to identify such a preventative effect of the international liability regime, in particular, state liability. -- 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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
