Hi Folks, The whole concept of the salmon population dramatically increasing due to a few days of extra feed is, on the face of it, simply ridiculous. Here in the Pacific Northwest there has been an ongoing multi decades effort at salmon recovery <http://www.rco.wa.gov/%5C/salmon_recovery/efforts.shtml> and the last few years we have seen the northward migration of warmer waters which has reach just offshore the Salish Sea <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salish_Sea>. This warming of the offshore waters has increased the primary production in those waters and many of the Fraser River and Skagit River <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skagit_River> (my local river) salmon mature in the offshore waters outside the Salish Sea. On the Baker River <https://pse.com/aboutpse/Environment/Pages/Fish.aspx> alone, over $150M has been spent in less than 10 years, on one salmon recovery project alone and there are multiple international projects of the same caliber. Thus, the claim that the OIF effort miraculously multiplied the salmon population in here in the PNW is not credible....by a long shot.
Best, Michael On Sunday, November 16, 2014 4:37:37 PM UTC-8, Bill Stahl wrote: > > To the extent that an increased salmon catch was due to OIF, the Haida > experiment turns the usual CDR issue on its head. Instead of a CDR idea > looking for any possible economic justification to bring it over the line > into financial feasibility, this would be a financially feasible > aquaculture technique with a potential add-on subsidy from carbon pricing. > Has anyone compared what the Haida spent vs. what the salmon industry got > out of it, to calculate a rough ROI? (Allowing for a range of estimates of > how much was due to OIF*). I can easily imagine a bunch of fishermen in a > Ketchikan bar swapping stories about what a great season they had because > of the Haida project, then talking about subsidizing this money-maker with > carbon credits. > > ‘Slippery slope’ arguments are usually used to warn against GE research > (e.g. Hamilton’s ‘No, Let’s Not “Just Do The Research”) but there is a > slippery slope in carbon pricing too. The carbon prices cited by > environmental advocates as sufficient to change the energy system quickly > would be far higher than those required to get many CDR schemes into > action, including ones like OIF that are anathema to many of the most vocal > supporters of carbon pricing. And if an OIFapproach can already make money > unsubsidized for existing, and influential, economic interests then > investment will flow to it. If you support a strong carbon price - and > that’s the organizing principle of climate change advocacy across the board > - you may already pulling an oar in this particular rowboat, even if you > hate the idea. > > Which is OK by me. But perhaps the people who so annoy Tulip say the > things they do because they figured this out too. > > Any suggestions of other fisheries that might be amenable to this > approach? Clearly most species do not gather at as convenient a > feeding-trough as a Haida Eddy, but surely there are some. > > *Of course how effective the Haida OIF was as CDR is a separate issue. > >> -- 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/d/optout.
