I agree with Bhaskar, Olaf Schuiling From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of M V Bhaskar Sent: zaterdag 19 september 2015 13:50 To: geoengineering Cc: nua...@gmail.com; Stephen Salter Subject: Re: [geo] CIGI : assessing scientific legitimacy: the case of marine geoengineering
Stephen And what about the sewage and fertilizer flowing into oceans. If the problems caused by these are to be solved, something has to be done to solve the problem. Dosing Iron is one of the solutions. What about arresting the decline in fish in Oceans and restoring them back to historical highs. If this is to be done, then fish feed has to be provided, so something has to be done to increase feed for the fish in the oceans. Again Iron is the answer, this helps grow Diatom Algae and diatoms are at the bottom of the marine food chain. Regards Bhaskar On Friday, 18 September 2015 20:26:46 UTC+5:30, Stephen Salter wrote: Hi All While they about it, what about throwing plastic bags in the sea? Stephen Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JL, Scotland s.sa...@ed.ac.uk<javascript:>, Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704, Cell 07795 203 195, WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs<http://WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs>, YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change On 18/09/2015 15:42, Ken Caldeira wrote: Why do people think that the term 'geoengineering', a term that necessitates determination of intention, is a useful term when it comes to discussing governance of the marine environment? Do the marine organisms understand our intentions? Do they care why something is being done? If the concern is scale up of physically describable activities, why not govern those physically describable activities? Or is it that people want to prevent the generation of knowledge they see as dangerous? Is the real goal the suppression of the generation of knowledge, or the protection of the marine environment? cf. Caldeira and Ricke, Nature Climate Change 2013 (attached). _______________ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegiescience.edu<javascript:> website: http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/ blog: http://kencaldeira.org<http://kencaldeira.org/> @KenCaldeira My assistant is Dawn Ross <dr...@carnegiescience.edu<javascript:>>, with access to incoming emails. Postdoc positions: https://jobs.carnegiescience.edu/jobs/postdoc-opportunity-the-global-cycle-of-atmospheric-kinetic-energy/ On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Andrew Lockley <andrew....@gmail.com<javascript:>> wrote: Attached Key Points • There have been growing concerns within the international scientific and political communities about marine geoengineering occurring at untested scales and without appropriate oversight. In 2007, several private companies planned to introduce large quantities of iron into the ocean to stimulate the growth of phytoplankton, which would pull CO2 from the atmosphere and help mitigate climate change impacts, a process known as ocean iron fertilization (OIF). • The negative publicity that OIF garnered forced the parties of the London Convention and the London Protocol (LC-LP) to rethink governance of marine geoengineering, resulting in the Assessment Framework for Scientific Research Involving Ocean Fertilization. • However, gaps in the governance still remain: the framework has not been integrated on a national level by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), there is a void of transparency mechanisms in place and there currently exist no independent assessments of the impacts of OIF. • To remedy these issues, this brief recommends that the IMO and parties to the LC-LP develop memorandums of understanding (MoUs) to delineate framework implementation plans, adopt legally binding governance transparency mechanisms to ensure linkages between national and international governance institutions, and create independent assessment panels (IAPs). -- 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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>. To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>. To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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.
