Huge Geoengineering Project Violates UN Rules 319
Baldrson writes "The Guardian reports that a massive geoengineering project has been detected off the west coast of Canada that violates UN regulations. An Amerindian tribe in the Pacific NW that depends on salmon teamed with an entrepreneur and a group of scientists to have 100 tons of iron sulphate spread across a huge area of the ocean in order to spur plankton growth. 'Satellite images appear to confirm the claim ... that the iron has spawned an artificial plankton bloom as large as 10,000 square kilometers. The intention is for the plankton to absorb carbon dioxide and then sink to the ocean bed – a geoengineering technique known as ocean fertilization that he hopes will net lucrative carbon credits.' The entrepreneur, Russ George, hopes to cash in on the carbon credits and the Amerindian tribe on an increased salmon harvest. The situation has sparked outcry from environmentalists and civil society groups. Oceanographer John Cullen said, 'It is difficult if not impossible to detect and describe important effects that we know might occur months or years later. 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.'"
Who the fuck says Amerindian? (Score:2, Insightful)
Amerindian? That's the stupidiest fucking word I've heard in years.
Environmentalists (Score:2, Insightful)
Always the buzzkills. There is no solution other than to eat tofu and walk everywhere in your hemp sandals. Any other solutions to 'climate change' are heresy.
UN, carbon credits, oh nos (Score:2, Insightful)
>> (whatever) has been detected off the west coast of Canada that violates UN regulations
Is it Canada waters? Then WTF does anyone care what the UN papershufflers think?
>> The entrepreneur, Russ George, hopes to cash in on the carbon credits
Why not? Start treating silly little "carbon credits" like valuable pieces of paper, and they will become money.
So what happens... (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems like he is swimming in a big grey sea and knows it. And is willing as an entrepreneur to take the risks associated with that swim. Makes sense to me.
Re:That panicked sound you hear from the left (Score:5, Insightful)
That's quite a leap from next to no evidence you are making.
Forgiveness comes easier than permission! (Score:5, Insightful)
Aww common! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That panicked sound you hear from the left (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So what happens... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not so much he is willing to take risks.
more like heads he wins, tails we loose.
Re:UN, carbon credits, oh nos (Score:2, Insightful)
>> (whatever) has been detected off the west coast of Canada that violates UN regulations
Is it Canada waters? Then WTF does anyone care what the UN papershufflers think?
>> The entrepreneur, Russ George, hopes to cash in on the carbon credits
Why not? Start treating silly little "carbon credits" like valuable pieces of paper, and they will become money.
Canada signed both treaties in question, which makes them part of Canadian law.
As for the "carbon credits" this guy wants, those are generally only available for people who get legal authorization to do what they want.
What this guy did is analogous to the Army announcing it wants tanks, and some guy bolts a canon to his Humvee, drops it off at the local National Guard base, and waits for the check to arrive.
Re:Environmentalists (Score:2, Insightful)
They also always want everyone else to undergo population declines but never have the guts to say who and how.
Re:So what happens... (Score:4, Insightful)
If the venture is successful it will be repeated. Just not by this guy.
As for the possible consequences of his actions, that really depends on the exact laws Canada adopted when it signed these UN Conventions. Fines are a definite possibility. Getting carbon credits is not, because you don't get carbon credits for breaking the law. Otherwise you'd be able to get money for firebombing your neighbor's SUV.
It's entirely possible this guy could go to prison for fraud, because he told the local Haida that a) this was totally legal, and b) there was no chance of environmental harm. Neither are true, and given that this guy has been banned from Peru and Spain for doing this exact thing before he can;t very well claim he didn't know.
Re:So what happens... (Score:1, Insightful)
I love these people saying there are too many unknowns to try this but at the same time claim to know exactly what impact increases in CO2 in the atmosphere will have.
Re:That panicked sound you hear from the left (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So what happens... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Soooo coool! (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's more a bit of history repeating -- Native Americans meet people who see only dollar signs...
It's terrible how those poor ignorant savages keep being taken advantage of.
there's another word for carbon trapping (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So what happens... (Score:5, Insightful)
If it works, he gets to profit from it.
If it doesn't work, he walks away with the money given to him by the locals.
If it causes issues, he can wash his hands and let the government take care of the fallout.
I'm sorry, but that's not what I call taking risks, it's exploitation. He's gambling the ecosystem for profit.
Re:So what happens... (Score:5, Insightful)
I really find something I can link to so I don't have to type this out every time...
The ice age predicted in the seventies was supposed to be as a result of sulphur in the atmosphere. It has the opposite effect of carbon in that it bounces energy back out to space. Stopping sulphur getting to the atmosphere is easy, a scrubber on your exhaust stack and most of it is eleiminated. As an added bonus you can sell the sulfuric acid it produces.
Global warming is from carbon in the atmosphere. Trying to get it out is a lot more of a hassle as you'd have to change the whole way you do things. People don't like change, which is why we're seeing so much more of a fight over global warming.
Re:Environmentalists (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you goddamn moron - the buzzkills are the people who think that engineering changes on a global scale without a fucking clue of the long-term ramifications is a huge, terrible and deadly idea. Heck, even simple projects like damming a river is creating all kinds of unforeseen problems if the damming is large enough: earthquakes, for one, weren't on the list when people drew up drawbacks for those.
Let me guess - you are the fucking idiot who thinks that applying changes directly to production is a brilliant way to speed up the roll-out of new features, don't you?
Oh, and since you're probably one of those people who think that property rights are everything, and the defense of your own way of life trumps everything: mind if I stop by and shoot you in the face because you support fucking up my life through planetary engineering? No? O course not - those solution are only valid if YOUR life is inconvenienced.
Go die in a fire.
You know, your point itself is rather sound. I completely agree that people need to try and figure out what the effects of such projects will be BEFORE they start them. But the fact that you decided to fly off the handle into a profanity-laden tirade wipes out a good chuck of whatever credibility you may have had. Initiating personal attacks on the poster because you disagree with them eliminates the rest. In so doing, you have just demonstrated why so many people are turned off by environmentalists. The subsection that thinks and acts like yourself, i.e. stomping your feet, screaming, swearing, and berating others who don't share your opinion - THAT is how most people see the "green" movement, because people like you are the ones most often heard. When you act like a child in supporting a cause, then human nature sees that the entire thing is seen as petulant, childish, and immature.
Disagree, by all means. That's your right, and I welcome you to exercise it. But in disagreeing, try to use facts, studies, and evidence to support your position instead of further cementing the other side's view of environmentalists. Otherwise, you're not doing yourself or the environment any favors. And before you say anything about the original poster's attitude, realize that an ill informed and snarky comment doesn't always warrant one in return, and certainly not escalated to the level you just reached. Two wrongs, etc. etc.
But I don't expect this to sink in. I'll probably get a profanity-filled wish for my own death before the end of the evening. I've come to expect it when arguing with your type. Want to really shut me up on that? Prove me wrong...
Re:100 tons in, 100 million tons out. (Score:4, Insightful)
no, we shouldn't care because they put in a nutrient that plankton like, on a scale that is miniscule (60x60 miles). there can be no long-term damage from an experiment on this scale. this is a viable solution to reducing carbon dioxide pollution in the atmosphere, and I'm glad someone had the balls to do it on a tiny scale so we can assess whether larger scale would in fact cause lasting harm. this was a good thing to do.
Re:Environmentalists (Score:4, Insightful)
http://www.ecofuture.org/pop/rpts/mccluney_maxpop.html [ecofuture.org]
Your apparently random guess of a maximum of 500 million only applies if we take a completely laissez-faire approach to environmental regulation. If we maintain even the fairly lax standards that we have right now in the United States the earth can sustainably support two billion people in a lifestyle similar to that of the average American. The earth can support considerably more if we're willing to put up with stronger environmental regulation and/or a less decadent lifestyle. (A whole lot more if we stop wasting so much - twenty billion people in a lifestyle similar to the average Mexican.)
Aside from the difference in numbers, I can't say that I care for your conclusion. It's taken a hundred years to go from a population of two billion to a population of seven billion, it would be pretty naive to think that we could solve the problem in less time. But given a daunting task, your solution of throwing up our hands and waiting for Technology From The Future to save us is pretty ridiculous. And ridiculing people who haven't given up like you have? That's offensive.