Massive Geo-Engineering Carbon Credit Scam

This too shall pass.
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Massive Geo-Engineering Carbon Credit Scam

Post by Enki »

http://io9.com/5952101/a-massive-and-il ... west-coast
A private company backed by a controversial U.S. businessman has unilaterally conducted the world's most significant geoengineering project to date. Russ George, in conjunction with a First Nations village on Haida Gwaii, has dumped around 100 tonnes of iron sulphate into the Pacific Ocean in a technique known as ocean fertilization. The experiment, which is in violation of two United Nations moratoria, has outraged environmental, legal, and civic groups.
The iron sulphate was dumped into the Pacific back in July, but recent satellite images are now confirming its effects — an artificial plankton bloom that's 10,000 square kilometers (6,214 square miles) in size. The intention of the project is for the plankton to absorb carbon dioxide and then sink to the bottom of the ocean. George is hoping to cash in on lucrative carbon credits.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
anderson
Posts: 195
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Massive Geo-Engineering Carbon Credit Scam

Post by anderson »

That's crazy. It's hard to predict what is going to happen when you introduce spike forcings to the system like that.
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Massive Geo-Engineering Carbon Credit Scam

Post by Enki »

anderson wrote:That's crazy. It's hard to predict what is going to happen when you introduce spike forcings to the system like that.
Yup, the worst of all possible worlds. Polluting the ocean to get tax breaks based on credits designed to disincentivize pollution.

I think this is one issue where everyone around these fora agree is universally bad.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: Massive Geo-Engineering Carbon Credit Scam

Post by Marcus »

Enki wrote:. . recent satellite images are now confirming its effects — an artificial plankton bloom that's 10,000 square kilometers (6,214 square miles) in size. The intention of the project is for the plankton to absorb carbon dioxide and then sink to the bottom of the ocean. George is hoping to cash in on lucrative carbon credits.
Why should this, a priori, be counted as negative? Isn't it tantamount to "fertilizing" the ocean? Isn't plankton the foundation of all life in the ocean?

Krill eat plancton, salmon and baleen whales eat krill. Mightn't the experiment have the potential to heighten the oceans' productivity?

What am I missing?
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27267
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Massive Geo-Engineering Carbon Credit Scam

Post by Typhoon »

Marcus wrote:
Enki wrote:. . recent satellite images are now confirming its effects — an artificial plankton bloom that's 10,000 square kilometers (6,214 square miles) in size. The intention of the project is for the plankton to absorb carbon dioxide and then sink to the bottom of the ocean. George is hoping to cash in on lucrative carbon credits.
Why should this, a priori, be counted as negative? Isn't it tantamount to "fertilizing" the ocean? Isn't plankton the foundation of all life in the ocean?

Krill eat plancton, salmon and baleen whales eat krill. Mightn't the experiment have the potential to heighten the oceans' productivity?

What am I missing?
Good point: iron sulphate ocean fertilization.

It's a scam re it's stated goal of reducing CO2 and obtaining so-called carbon credits which is unproven. A solution in search of a problem. [pdf]
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Juggernaut Nihilism
Posts: 1417
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:55 pm

Re: Massive Geo-Engineering Carbon Credit Scam

Post by Juggernaut Nihilism »

Enki wrote:I think this is one issue where everyone around these fora agree is universally bad.
Marcus wrote:Why should this, a priori, be counted as negative?
ROFL.
"The fundamental rule of political analysis from the point of psychology is, follow the sacredness, and around it is a ring of motivated ignorance."
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: Massive Geo-Engineering Carbon Credit Scam

Post by Marcus »

Thanks . . good link. But why is the experiment being labeled a "scam"? True, it hasn't yet been proven to reduce CO2, but, according to the paper, it has the potential to do so. Doesn't it"
. . As with any human manipulation of the environment, OIF carries potential risks, as well as potential benefits; . . We are currently facing decisions on climate regulations, . . and consideration of OIF by the parties to the London Convention, and we feel that ocean bio-geochemical research will help inform these important policy decisions.

—from the link
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: Massive Geo-Engineering Carbon Credit Scam

Post by Marcus »

Enki wrote:http://io9.com/5952101/a-massive-and-il ... west-coast
A private company backed by a controversial U.S. businessman has unilaterally conducted the world's most significant geoengineering project to date. Russ George, in conjunction with a First Nations village on Haida Gwaii, has dumped around 100 tonnes of iron sulphate into the Pacific Ocean in a technique known as ocean fertilization. The experiment, which is in violation of two United Nations moratoria, has outraged environmental, legal, and civic groups.
The iron sulphate was dumped into the Pacific back in July, but recent satellite images are now confirming its effects — an artificial plankton bloom that's 10,000 square kilometers (6,214 square miles) in size. The intention of the project is for the plankton to absorb carbon dioxide and then sink to the bottom of the ocean. George is hoping to cash in on lucrative carbon credits.


Also from the article linked above:
To make the project happen, George convinced the local council of an indigenous village to establish the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation. He told them that the project would restore salmon populations, leading the First Nations people to channel more than $1m of its own money into the project.
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27267
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Massive Geo-Engineering Carbon Credit Scam

Post by Typhoon »

Typhoon wrote:
Marcus wrote:
Enki wrote:. . recent satellite images are now confirming its effects — an artificial plankton bloom that's 10,000 square kilometers (6,214 square miles) in size. The intention of the project is for the plankton to absorb carbon dioxide and then sink to the bottom of the ocean. George is hoping to cash in on lucrative carbon credits.
Why should this, a priori, be counted as negative? Isn't it tantamount to "fertilizing" the ocean? Isn't plankton the foundation of all life in the ocean?

Krill eat plancton, salmon and baleen whales eat krill. Mightn't the experiment have the potential to heighten the oceans' productivity?

What am I missing?
Good point: iron sulphate ocean fertilization.

It's a scam re it's stated goal of reducing CO2 and obtaining so-called carbon credits which is unproven. A solution in search of a problem. [pdf]
1000 tonnes of iron sulphate is literally a drop in the ocean.

Surface area of the Pacific ocean: 165.25 million square kilometres

Percentage of Pacific covered by plankton bloom: ( 1 x 10 ^4 sq km / 1.7 x 10^8 sq km ) x 100 = 0.006 %
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: Massive Geo-Engineering Carbon Credit Scam

Post by Marcus »

Typhoon wrote:1000 tonnes of iron sulphate is literally a drop in the ocean.

Surface area of the Pacific ocean: 165.25 million square kilometres

Percentage of Pacific covered by plankton bloom: ( 1 x 10 ^4 sq km / 1.7 x 10^8 sq km ) x 100 = 0.006 %


"Every little bit helps," said the monkey as he peed in the ocean . . ;)
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27267
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Massive Geo-Engineering Carbon Credit Scam

Post by Typhoon »

Marcus wrote:
Thanks . . good link. But why is the experiment being labeled a "scam"? True, it hasn't yet been proven to reduce CO2, but, according to the paper, it has the potential to do so. Doesn't it"
It presumes that a problem exists: excessive levels of atmospheric CO2
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: Massive Geo-Engineering Carbon Credit Scam

Post by Marcus »

Typhoon wrote:
Marcus wrote:


Thanks . . good link. But why is the experiment being labeled a "scam"? True, it hasn't yet been proven to reduce CO2, but, according to the paper, it has the potential to do so. Doesn't it"


It presumes that a problem exists: excessive levels of atmospheric CO2


Well, yes it does presume, but if perception is reality, for some if not all, then a problem does indeed exist . . for some if not all.
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27267
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Massive Geo-Engineering Carbon Credit Scam

Post by Typhoon »

Marcus wrote:
Typhoon wrote:1000 tonnes of iron sulphate is literally a drop in the ocean.

Surface area of the Pacific ocean: 165.25 million square kilometres

Percentage of Pacific covered by plankton bloom: ( 1 x 10 ^4 sq km / 1.7 x 10^8 sq km ) x 100 = 0.006 %


"Every little bit helps," said the monkey as he peed in the ocean . . ;)
LoL
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27267
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Massive Geo-Engineering Carbon Credit Scam

Post by Typhoon »

Marcus wrote:
Typhoon wrote:
Marcus wrote:


Thanks . . good link. But why is the experiment being labeled a "scam"? True, it hasn't yet been proven to reduce CO2, but, according to the paper, it has the potential to do so. Doesn't it"


It presumes that a problem exists: excessive levels of atmospheric CO2


Well, yes it does presume, but if perception is reality, for some if not all, then a problem does indeed exist . . for some if not all.
Well, with regards to CO2, perception is not physical reality.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: Massive Geo-Engineering Carbon Credit Scam

Post by Marcus »

Typhoon wrote:Well, with regards to CO2, perception is not physical reality.
Now how the hell can you say such a thing in light of the global warming controversy. Levels of CO2 may be "physical reality," but where it goes from there is anyone's guess.

Understand, I'm not arguing for or against the experiment, but I am suggesting there isn't, at this point, adequate reason to label it a "scam."
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Massive Geo-Engineering Carbon Credit Scam

Post by Enki »

Carbon Credits are a scam. Whether or not this has additional benefits, he's taking part in the scam.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: Massive Geo-Engineering Carbon Credit Scam

Post by Marcus »

Enki wrote:Carbon Credits are a scam. Whether or not this has additional benefits, he's taking part in the scam.
C'mon, Tinker, how can you utter such opinionated foolishness with a straight face? Carbon Credits may be a scam in your opinion, but the Kyobo Protocols seem to take them seriously:
Kyoto Protocol and Carbon Trading

The Kyoto Protocol is the first serious international attempt to address climate change through the reduction of GHG emissions. Through the Protocol signatory nations have legally committed to reduce emission levels to certain levels by 2012. The Kyoto Protocol includes both developed and developing countries (referred to as Annex 1 and non-Annex 1 countries) and in addition to imposing limits or caps on GHG emissions it also allows for carbon cap trading between member nations.
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
Farcus

Re: Massive Geo-Engineering Carbon Credit Scam

Post by Farcus »

Marcus wrote:
Enki wrote:Carbon Credits are a scam. Whether or not this has additional benefits, he's taking part in the scam.
C'mon, Tinker, how can you utter such opinionated foolishness with a straight face? Carbon Credits may be a scam in your opinion, but the Kyobo Protocols seem to take them seriously:


Any economic system that hides the complete cost to sever a resource is a Ponzi scheme that puts those costs on future generations, with interest.

That being said, Carbon Credits is hard to warm up to. :lol:
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27267
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Massive Geo-Engineering Carbon Credit Scam

Post by Typhoon »

Marcus wrote:
Enki wrote:Carbon Credits are a scam. Whether or not this has additional benefits, he's taking part in the scam.
C'mon, Tinker, how can you utter such opinionated foolishness with a straight face? Carbon Credits may be a scam in your opinion, but the Kyobo Protocols seem to take them seriously:
Kyoto Protocol and Carbon Trading

The Kyoto Protocol is the first serious international attempt to address climate change through the reduction of GHG emissions. Through the Protocol signatory nations have legally committed to reduce emission levels to certain levels by 2012. The Kyoto Protocol includes both developed and developing countries (referred to as Annex 1 and non-Annex 1 countries) and in addition to imposing limits or caps on GHG emissions it also allows for carbon cap trading between member nations.
The Kyoto Protocols are a scam and have been either ignored [most of the world] or explicitly rejected [re Canada et al] by governments.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Massive Geo-Engineering Carbon Credit Scam

Post by Enki »

Overpolluting factories buying farmland and leaving it fallow in order to cash in on the credits...yeah, it's a genuflecting scam.

I hope the Salmon portion of the show works out though.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
Ammianus
Posts: 306
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:38 pm

Re: Massive Geo-Engineering Carbon Credit Scam

Post by Ammianus »

Typhoon wrote:
Typhoon wrote:
Marcus wrote:
Enki wrote:. . recent satellite images are now confirming its effects — an artificial plankton bloom that's 10,000 square kilometers (6,214 square miles) in size. The intention of the project is for the plankton to absorb carbon dioxide and then sink to the bottom of the ocean. George is hoping to cash in on lucrative carbon credits.
Why should this, a priori, be counted as negative? Isn't it tantamount to "fertilizing" the ocean? Isn't plankton the foundation of all life in the ocean?

Krill eat plancton, salmon and baleen whales eat krill. Mightn't the experiment have the potential to heighten the oceans' productivity?

What am I missing?
Good point: iron sulphate ocean fertilization.

It's a scam re it's stated goal of reducing CO2 and obtaining so-called carbon credits which is unproven. A solution in search of a problem. [pdf]
1000 tonnes of iron sulphate is literally a drop in the ocean.

Surface area of the Pacific ocean: 165.25 million square kilometres

Percentage of Pacific covered by plankton bloom: ( 1 x 10 ^4 sq km / 1.7 x 10^8 sq km ) x 100 = 0.006 %
By what you're saying, I think we all can go out this moment had create our own little fertilizer zones in our own little pockets off the coast. They'll all be drops in the ocean after all, and I think the potential advantages will outweigh any potential costs.

And besides, I'm sure what we're fertilizing will be very self contained. After all, we all know ocean currents near coastlines tend to create self enclosed conditions similar to lake. There be almost no risk of stuff floating upwind or downwind.
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27267
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Massive Geo-Engineering Carbon Credit Scam

Post by Typhoon »

Ammianus wrote:
Typhoon wrote:
Typhoon wrote:
Marcus wrote:
Enki wrote:. . recent satellite images are now confirming its effects — an artificial plankton bloom that's 10,000 square kilometers (6,214 square miles) in size. The intention of the project is for the plankton to absorb carbon dioxide and then sink to the bottom of the ocean. George is hoping to cash in on lucrative carbon credits.
Why should this, a priori, be counted as negative? Isn't it tantamount to "fertilizing" the ocean? Isn't plankton the foundation of all life in the ocean?

Krill eat plancton, salmon and baleen whales eat krill. Mightn't the experiment have the potential to heighten the oceans' productivity?

What am I missing?
Good point: iron sulphate ocean fertilization.

It's a scam re it's stated goal of reducing CO2 and obtaining so-called carbon credits which is unproven. A solution in search of a problem. [pdf]
1000 tonnes of iron sulphate is literally a drop in the ocean.

Surface area of the Pacific ocean: 165.25 million square kilometres

Percentage of Pacific covered by plankton bloom: ( 1 x 10 ^4 sq km / 1.7 x 10^8 sq km ) x 100 = 0.006 %
By what you're saying, I think we all can go out this moment had create our own little fertilizer zones in our own little pockets off the coast. They'll all be drops in the ocean after all, and I think the potential advantages will outweigh any potential costs.
No. That's what you are saying.

My point is that sensationalizing this specific incident as has been done by the innumerate media is silly.

Also it's a solution in search of a problem.

At least this fellow had the courtesy to dump the iron sulphate into the Pacific, unlike scientists, so-called,
who previously took a similar dump in the pristine and ecologically sensitive Southern Ocean by the Antarctic.
Ammianus wrote: And besides, I'm sure what we're fertilizing will be very self contained. After all, we all know ocean currents near coastlines tend to create self enclosed conditions similar to lake. There be almost no risk of stuff floating upwind or downwind.
What if it does? What if the process is not harmful, or even beneficial, then what's the problem?

Having said that, there are two speculative concerns: stimulating toxic algal blooms and depleting oxygen from the mid-level ocean.

I'm sure that there are better uses for iron sulphates.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Massive Geo-Engineering Carbon Credit Scam

Post by Doc »

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-22/s ... rt/4387488#
Science fiction gets real: a special report

Updated Thu Nov 22, 2012 11:47pm AEDT

The emergency science to ward off the worst effects of climate change, from space-based mirrors to chemicals blasted into the stratosphere.
Margot O'Neill

Source: Lateline | Duration: 7min 26sec

Topics: environment, disasters-and-accidents, weather, australia

Transcript

TONY JONES, PRESENTER: When it was recently revealed that 100 tonnes of iron dust had been deliberately poured into the Pacific Ocean off the Canadian coast, it was described as the world's first rogue geo-engineering project, an example of how the Earth's fragile systems could be tampered with.

Well some environment groups want a ban on any field research for geo-engineering, despite hopes that it might delay or mitigate some of the worst effects of climate change.

But the recent World Bank report, predicting a devastating four degree rise in global temperature by the end of century means more scientists are now willing to consider it.

In a moment we'll hear from one of the world's leading geo-engineering proponents, Harvard professor David Keith, whose research is funded partly by Bill Gates.

But first this special report from Margot O'Neill.

MARGOT O'NELL, REPORTER: That red ochre trail in the water is part of 100 tonnes of iron-rich dust poured into the ocean this year off the west coast of Canada by controversial American environmental entrepreneur Russ George.

RUSS GEORGE, ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPRENEUR: As soon as we did this, on one side of the boat you'd see this brilliant sapphire blue ocean and on the other side of the boat, the ocean had turned to a beautiful emerald green.

MARGOT O'NELL: He says it brought the ocean back to life by generating what might be the world's biggest man-made phytoplankton bloom. Such blooms can increase fish stocks and the ocean's capacity to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, a counter to climate change.

RUSS GEORGE: We had vast schools of dolphins that would swim right up to the back of the boat and it was a sight to behold.

MARGOT O'NELL: It was a sight that alarmed critics around the world who warn iron fertilisation is unproven science that can change the chemical composition of the ocean.

JASON BLACKSTOCK, OXFORD UNIVERSITY: People did not know this experiment was going to go on ahead of time and the public was in shock and the political leadership was in shock and other scientists were in shock when this suddenly came out publicly.

MARGOT O'NELL: Russ George says the experiment was done at the requested of the indigenous Haida Gwaii Islanders who were trying to revive salmon stocks.

RUSS GEORGE: The true story is, is a really wonderful story of hope that perhaps the oceans can be recovered, restored and replenished and the fish can come back.

MARGOT O'NELL: But it's also the story of a desperate science now emerging as a serious option in the battle with climate change. It's called geo-engineering.

Geo-engineering is the manipulation of Earth's natural systems to ward off the worst effects of climate change, a sort of emergency back-up if the planet faces climate catastrophe. It could work in two ways.

Firstly, by sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere, like iron fertilisation, which increases the ocean's ability to absorb carbon, or by building artificial trees to scrub out the CO2.

Secondly, by reflecting sunlight to cool the planet, such as with space-based mirrors, or by whitening clouds, or by spraying sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere to form a solar shield.

There's no doubting the scarily epic nature of such interventions.

CLIVE HAMILTON, CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY: To seize control of the climatic system of the Earth as a whole. This is a massive proposal that humanity is starting to talk about.

MARGOT O'NELL: Environmentalist and author Clive Hamilton has long been a geo-engineering sceptic. But he says it's an option governments must now consider.

CLIVE HAMILTON: When you consider the almost total failure of the global community to respond to the science of climate change with anything like the urgency that the science suggests ... I think geo-engineering is virtually inevitable.

MARGOT O'NELL: He's not the only one now contemplating the once unthinkable.

Professor Peter Wadhams is one of the world's leading sea ice experts. He believes the dramatic collapse in summer of Arctic sea ice is a dire step-change.

PETER WADHAMS, CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY: The Artic is warming about three times as fast as the rest of the world, so everything that happens in the Artic now is what's going to be happening to the rest of the world tomorrow.

I'm very reluctant to advocate geo-engineering because sharing I think everybody else's fear that since we've messed up the world with technology, if we try and fix it, we might do something worse inadvertently. But I think in this case we have to consider action.

MARGOT O'NELL: The most talked about scenario is a sulphur shield in the stratosphere. This tries to mimic volcanoes like Mount Pinatubo, which erupted in 1991 and cooled the planet by 0.6 degrees for two years.

CLIVE HAMILTON: It's technologically simple, it's relatively cheap, if you don't take account of the side effects or the unintended consequences. And it could be scaled up and done in fairly short time and it would have an instantaneous effect within a month.

MARGOT O'NELL: Computer modelling shows that it would probably change the colour of the sky, not to sulphur yellow, but to a paler blue with more vivid sunsets. The modelling also shows such a shield could produce uneven results - some places would be cooler than others and rainfall patterns could be disrupted. That raises a prospect of international conflict, because what if some countries want to deploy a shield, but others don't?

CLIVE HAMILTON: To install a solar shield around the Earth, it's been estimated would require each year about 1 million flights by jet fighter-sized aircraft. So, who has the capacity to do this? Well, I mean, there's really only one answer and that's the military.

So, whoever has their hand on the thermostat is going to have an enormous amount of power and is also going to attract an enormous amount of hostility. My best guess is that it will be China that does it. This has not been revealed yet, but within the last few weeks the Chinese Government included for the very first time geo-engineering research in its top 12 scientific research priorities.

MARGOT O'NELL: With billionaires like Bill Gates stepping in to also fund research, there's an urgent need for international protocols.

JASON BLACKSTOCK: I think the science is certainly far out ahead of the politics. Most international political figures have either not heard about geo-engineering and the political risk or have only heard about it in the last year or two.

MARGOT O'NELL: Russ George remains unapologetic about his experiment. He says there's no time to wait for an international treaty.

RUSS GEORGE: I don't see that happening before the oceans die. Right? The Royal Society of England came out a few years ago and said that by the year 2050 there'd be no harvestable fish left in the ocean. So I don't think we have time.

MARGOT O'NELL: But no-one knows what the side effects could be and whether the cure could be worse than the disease.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
Azrael
Posts: 1863
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 8:57 pm

Re: Massive Geo-Engineering Carbon Credit Scam

Post by Azrael »

Typhoon wrote:
Marcus wrote:
Enki wrote:. . recent satellite images are now confirming its effects — an artificial plankton bloom that's 10,000 square kilometers (6,214 square miles) in size. The intention of the project is for the plankton to absorb carbon dioxide and then sink to the bottom of the ocean. George is hoping to cash in on lucrative carbon credits.
Why should this, a priori, be counted as negative? Isn't it tantamount to "fertilizing" the ocean? Isn't plankton the foundation of all life in the ocean?

Krill eat plancton, salmon and baleen whales eat krill. Mightn't the experiment have the potential to heighten the oceans' productivity?

What am I missing?
Good point: iron sulphate ocean fertilization.

It's a scam re it's stated goal of reducing CO2 and obtaining so-called carbon credits which is unproven. A solution in search of a problem. [pdf]
But suppose someone varies the technique somewhat and does reduce CO2? What would it take for geo-engineering to become acceptable?
cultivate a white rose
User avatar
Azrael
Posts: 1863
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 8:57 pm

Re: Massive Geo-Engineering Carbon Credit Scam

Post by Azrael »

Typhoon wrote:
Marcus wrote:
Thanks . . good link. But why is the experiment being labeled a "scam"? True, it hasn't yet been proven to reduce CO2, but, according to the paper, it has the potential to do so. Doesn't it"
It presumes that a problem exists: excessive levels of atmospheric CO2
So does that make all the scientists who believe in Global Warming part of a scam? I can see how they might be wrong; but that wouldn't make them part of a scam.
cultivate a white rose
Post Reply