jimsnail’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  ETC news release - round one on geo- engineering

  ETC Group
  News Release
  Friday, May 30, 2008
  www.etcgroup.org

  The World Torpedoes Ocean Fertilization:
  End of Round One on Geo-Engineering
  191 countries agree to a landmark moratorium on ocean CO2 sequestration

  As the ninth meeting of the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) draws to a close in Bonn, Germany the world's governments are set to unanimously agree a wide-ranging "de-facto moratorium" on ocean fertilization activities. This first-ever global decision on a geo-engineering technology should spell the end of commercial plans to sequester carbon dioxide by dumping nutrients into the open ocean. Nonetheless, one ocean fertilization company, Climos Inc. of San Francisco, appears to be moving full steam ahead in defiance of international consensus.

  "The message from the UN Biodiversity Convention is clear. The world does not want commercial ocean fertilization and companies like Climos should be looking for another occupation," says Pat Mooney, Executive Director of ETC Group, who is in Bonn at the negotiations. "Ocean fertilization could lead to toxic tides, lifeless waters and disrupted ecosystems and livelihoods. There is unanimous agreement among the 191 countries here that it is absolutely the wrong way to tackle climate change."

  German Environment Minister and CBD president Sigmar Gabrielle announced this morning that an agreement on the "de-facto moratorium" had been reached following ministerial level discussion. He told reuters that "It's a very strange idea that technology can solve everything. It's very risky and shows what humans are ready to do. I'm glad we came to a de facto moratorium," (1) That agreement requests countries "to ensure that ocean fertilization activities do not take place until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities, including assessing associated risks." The moratorium makes a limited exception for small scale scientific research, but it warns that such studies should only be authorized "if justified by the need to gather specific scientific data, and should also be subject to a thorough prior assessment of the potential impacts of the research studies on the marine environment, and be strictly controlled, and not be used for generating and selling carbon offsets or any other commercial purposes."

  African countries, especially Ghana, led the negotiations towards the moratorium, supported strongly by European, South East Asian and some Latin American nations. One party, Ecuador, requested that an additional statement be added to the decision: "We came here to get a straightforward moratorium without exceptions, because of the great danger that this kind of experiment put on unique ecosystems such as the Galapagos Islands. We accepted this text, in the spirit of collaboration with the other parties."
   The United States, the only country left openly supporting ocean fertilization, is not a signatory to the Convention.

  "This moratorium is particularly a victory for Southern countries who have been repeatedly targeted by the ocean fertilization companies in the hope that they wouldn't understand the threats that these experiments imply," explains Silvia Ribeiro of ETC Group's Mexico Office. "Civil society, Peoples movements and fisherfolk in countries such as Ecuador and Philippines have led the global opposition to these outrageous schemes. Now their governments have stepped up to the challenge of dumping ocean fertilization - hopefully for good. The unanimous decision in Bonn explicitly confines scientific experimentation to coastal waters, meaning that national governments would have to consent to experiments literally almost within sight of land. The NIMBY principle (not in my backyard) will make such experiments very rare."

  While the moratorium should spell the end of commercial plans for ocean fertilization at least one US company, Climos Inc. of San Francisco seems to be powering full steam ahead to defy the international convention. Last week, knowing that a moratorium was under discussion, Climos CEO Dan Whaley announced that his firm was approaching investors for an injection of up to 12 million US dollars to finance a plan to fertilize 100 to 200 kilometers of the ocean.(2) Climos had at least one lobbyist in Bonn attempting to derail negotiations. ETC warns that this is not the last we have seen of the "geo-engineering" dream of a large-scale techno-fix for climate change.

  "This is just the end of round one on geo-engineering," warns Jim Thomas of ETC Group's Montreal office. "There are still plenty of crazy unregulated schemes being proposed to fix the climate - these range from polluting the upper atmosphere with nanoparticles to changing the alkalinity of the oceans. The CBD should now move swiftly to open up wider negotiations on how to govern geo-engineering in general. This moratorium on ocean fertilization is a good start."

  Notes to Editors:

  A background briefing on ocean fertilization prepared for delegates of the CBD is available from ETC Group.

   For an overview of geo-engineering schemes see ETC Group Communiqué, "Gambling with Gaia," January 2007. http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pu ...

  (1) Madeline Chambers, Reuters "U.N. talks halt plans for oceans absorb CO2" May 31st 2008

  (2) Rachel Barron, Greentech Media  "Climos Seeks $10M to $12M to Fertilize Ocean" May 21st 2008 - online at http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/climos-seeks-10m-t ...

  For more information contact:

  Pat Mooney and Silvia Ribeiro, ETC Group (in Bonn, Germany)
  etc@etcgroup.org
  Silvia@etcgroup.org
  + 49 17677064731 (mobile) or  +1 613 2610688 (mobile)

  Jim Thomas, ETC Group (in Montreal, Canada) jim@etcgroup.org
  +1 514 6674932 (office) or +1 514 516-5759 (mobile)

  The full text of the agreement at the CBD now approved  reads:

  C. Ocean Fertilization

  1.  Notes the work of the London Convention on the prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (1972) and the 1996 London Protocol, welcomes the decision of the 29th Consultative Meeting of the Contracting Parties of the London Convention and the second meeting of the contracting parties of the London Protocol, held 5 to 9 November 2007, which (i) endorsed the June 2007 "Statement of concern regarding iron fertilization of the Oceans to sequester CO2" of their Scientific Groups, (ii) urged states to use the utmost caution when considering proposals for large-scale ocean fertilization operations and (iii) took the view that, given the present state of knowledge regarding ocean fertilization, large-scale operations were currently not justified.

  (a) Requests the Executive Secretary to bring the issue of ocean fertilization to the attention of the Joint Liaison Group;

  (b) Urges parties and other governments to act in accordance with the decision of the London Convention;

  (c) Recognizes the current absence of reliable data covering all relevant aspects of ocean fertilization, without which there is an inadequate basis on which to assess their potential risks;

  (d) Bearing in mind the ongoing scientific and legal analysis occurring under the auspices of the London Convention and the London Protocol, requests Parties and urges other Governments, in accordance with the precautionary approach, to ensure that ocean fertilization activities do not take place until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities, including assessing associated risks, and a global transparent and effective control and regulatory mechanism is in place for those activities; with the exception of small scale scientific research within national jurisdiction. Such studies should only be authorized if justified by the need to gather specific scientific data, and should also be subject to a thorough prior assessment of the potential impacts of the research studies on the marine environment, and be strictly controlled, and not be used for generating and selling carbon offsets or any other commercial purposes;

   (e) Requests the Executive Secretary to disseminate the results of the ongoing scientific and legal analysis under the London Convention and the London Protocol, and any other relevant scientific and technical information, to the 14th meeting of SBSTTA.On Ocean seeding banned at U.N. biodiversity conference posted 1 year, 5 months ago 4 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  debates..

  Steve Kerry wrote:

  "In my view, the debates proposed by ETC aren't practical"

  er... with respect, the notion of an open public debate was proposed by Planktos at the end of David Kubiak's last entry... but ETC would be happy to participate.On Putting iron in the ocean posted 2 years, 6 months ago 47 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Respose to Planktos from ETC Group

  In response to Planktos:
   
  On this forum David Kubiak, Planktos Communications Director, posted a blustery (and bizarre!) attack on ETC Group's recent news release about his company's impending iron fertilization experiment in the vicinity of the Galapagos Islands. Yesterday was a busy day for ETC Group because we concluded -- and won -- a 13 year old lawsuit against Monsanto that has led to the rejection of Monsanto's species-wide soybean patent. (see www.etcblog.org where we will also post this note).  The trial hearing was in Munich and we've been busy.  Below however is our response to Planktos.
   
  Firstly, we would like to be clear to Mr Kubiak and others that  these are not "Mr Thomas's' arguments (as he characterised them). They are the position of ETC Group. There is no need to personalise this debate.
   
  Secondly, we note that Planktos's vitriolic "rebuttal" actually sidesteps most of what was in the news release - namely that UN IPCC , the most eminent body of climate scientists in the  world ,overseen by governments, have decided that geo-engineering schemes - and ocean fertilisation in particular - are unproven,  unlikely to work and raise serious risks. This is published today (Friday) but was leaked to the media some days ago.The same message came very clearly from a paper last week in Nature (Blain et al.). signed by 47 internationally-respected ocean scientists.  It says just about everything anyone needs to know about this company that Planktos did not address these two scientific reports in its rebuttal but opted, instead, to attack paper tigers and spread invective.
   
  Planktos  also invited ETC Group  to "an open public debate". Of course we agree and have specific proposals to expedite this debate (see below).
   
  Regardless, Planktos should accept the Precautionary Principle and immediately announce that it will suspend its iron fertilization trial until there is a public debate and, also, pending the results of a transparent technical evaluation of their project conducted by a panel of internationally-respected ocean scientists drawn from the IPCC and including experts from the Pacific region where the experiment is intended.  If Planktos is not prepared to do this and does not recognize the Precautionary Principle, the world community should be concerned.
   
  We propose three public debates.  The first debate should take place as quickly as possible in Ecuador (which has the sovereign responsibility for the UNESCO World Heritage Site). Dr Elizabeth Bravo of Accion Ecologia can arrange this debate and can also facilitate appropriate discussions with the Ecuadorian government at the same time.  It is not necessary for ETC Group to be involved in this debate, Ecuadorians are capable of attending to their own concerns.  We'll be happy to forward contact information to Planktos.
   
  ETC Group is quite prepared to participate in the second and third debates.  We propose a second debate during the UN Commission on Sustainable Development now taking place (until May 11) in New York City.  If we can reach quick agreement on this, it may be possible to arrange a side-event during the CSD to which governments and civil society organizations could be invited.  This would allow for a full debate.  Time is short, but we are prepared to undertake organizational work for this debate. If the time frame is too short a side-event could also be arranged at the UN in New York the following week at the Permanent Forum on Indigenous issues which commences its 6th session on 14th may 2007.  
   
  Finally, we propose a debate before the UN Convention on Biological Diversity and its SBSTTA (scientific subcommittee) when it meets in Paris July 2 - 6. at that time it will be considering teh biodiversity impact of climate mitigation schemes.  Again, we believe we can arrange for a side-event that will allow for the debate to be witnessed by governments and civil society.  

  As to the points which Planktos unhelpfully characterised as  "deceptions". Below are some replies. As we already noted - this really did not seem to address the substance of our news release.
   
  - The reference to Galapagos came repeatedly from Planktos who launched their so-called "voyage of recovery" to Galapagos back in  March linking it explicitly with Darwins Voyage. Indeed after reading Planktos communications for some time this forum is the first time we have  seen a more precise reference of where the dumping site is intended. We are not sure if we share Planktos's view that the deeper waters  of the Pacific are "anemic and lifeless".
   
  - ETC Group bears no responsibility for the Planktos website being four years out of date or using the technical word nanoparticles in a non-technical manner. It is true that Mr.Kubiak told us last week that the particles would be at around the micron scale in a telephone conversation. His comment was correctly acknowledge in our news release.  He also said the company had never used the term nanoparticle - which is not true. As the company's communications officer, he should perhaps become more familiar with his own website.  "Nanotechnology" is not a scare term.  Many companies use the term (sometimes incorrectly as here) to exaggerate the "cutting edge" nature of their technology.
   
  - Regarding Nuclear Fusion - Cold fusion is believed to be a form of Nuclear Fusion .We merely stated that Planktos has a mirror company involved in Nuclear fusion. Its hard to see how that is a "smear.". D2fusion describes their work variously as "Cold Fusion" "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions", and  "Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reactions,"..
   
  - Ulf Riebesell was not the only critic of iron fertilization quoted in Nature. The forty-seven scientists  who co-authored the paper under discussion went out of their way within the paper to say that their paper should not be used to justify iron fertilization schemes. On their own website they also said that they saw their finds as the end of the `dream' of iron fertilization. When we contacted the lead author, Stephane Blain he was particularly emphatic that they did not want geo-engineers to misleadingly use their findings to justify their case - in the way Planktos apparently have.
   
  - It is unfair to both Dr Elizabeth Bravo (of Accion Ecologica) and Dr Paul Johnston (of Greenpeace) to characterize them as `misled'. Both are highly respected and very experienced environmentalists with enviable international reputations. It is also slightly ironic since Greenpeace rather claim that Planktos misled them: - Planktos, having used a personal connection in Greenpeace's US office to borrow an inflatable boat , went on to portray Greenpeace as supportive of Planktos during a PR stunt in Washington DC Harbour recently. Greenpeace USA had to send threatening legal letters to have that misrepresentation removed from the Planktos website.
   
  - ETC are glad to see that Planktos will surrender any prize money to charity.  
  Nonetheless Planktos own communications has very much emphasised the money that Planktos hope to make - especially to investors  who have been invited to buy stock in the company. As we noted in our news release Planktos CEO Russ George has called this more of a business experiment than a scientific experiment.
   
   
   
   On Putting iron in the ocean posted 2 years, 6 months ago 47 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Plankto to pollute despite scientific consensus

  Hi folks

  There's a lot of agreement that Plankto's expedition is highly irresponsible.. the world's leading climate scientists at the UN IPCC are likely to speak out against ocean fertilisation for one.. see news release below.

  best

  Jim Thomas
  ETC Group
  www.etcgroup.org
  --------

  News Release
  ETC Group
  May 3rd, 2007
  www.etcgroup.org

  Geo-engineers to Foul Galapagos Seas  - Defying Climate Panel Warning.

  As the UN's top climate science panel, the IPCC, prepares to criticise the idea of geo-engineering, one maverick geo-engineering company, Planktos Inc, has announced it is about to dump several tonnes of tiny particles into the waters around the Galapagos Islands, covering an area larger than Puerto Rico. Doing so, they claim, will re-engineer the atmosphere, win them commercial carbon credits and perhaps a shot at the $25 million prize for greenhouse gas reduction put up by Richard Branson. Mainstream scientists are sceptical and environmental and social justice groups are crying foul.

  "In a sensible world geo-engineering fanatics like Planktos would have their license to operate taken away." says Jim Thomas of ETC Group. "Instead, they are being allowed to pollute the high seas and are even being considered for a prize! Climate change is a real threat but common sense should not be its first victim."

  On May 4th the International Panel on Climate Change, a body of the world's leading climate scientists will publish policy recommendations to governments on how to mitigate global warming. According to an article from Agence France Presse (AFP) who have seen a leaked draft of that report, the panel gives the "thumbs down" and "pours scorn" on a clutch of wacky plans to intentionally re-engineer large scale ecosystems, referred to collectively as geo-engineering: "Geo-engineering options...remain largely speculative and with the risk of unknown side-effects" claims the IPCC draft according to AFP (1). The US government has reportedly been lobbying the IPCC to more prominently support geo-engineering technofixes in order to sideline the Kyoto Protocol(2).

  However, even as the UN report becomes public this Friday in Bangkok, one commercial enterprise, California based Planktos Inc, will be sailing from Florida to carry out a large-scale geo-engineering experiment. Planktos, a self-styled `eco-restoration' firm that also doubles as a nuclear fusion company(3), intends to dump tens of tonnes of tiny iron particles over 10,000 square kilometres of ocean around the Galapagos Islands at the end of May 2007. By stimulating a massive growth of plankton, called a bloom, Planktos claims to be able to draw millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere into the deep oceans over the next year. Eleven smaller iron fertilization experiments have already taken place.

  "The Iron Hypothesis" is the theory first put forward by oceanographer John Martin in 1990. He believed you could cool the climate by growing extra plankton in the oceans, a process that also gives rise to cloud formation. Martin once famously declared: "Give me a half tanker of iron, and I will give you an ice age." From drafts of the forthcoming IPCC report seen by ETC Group the UN body is expected to highlight the potential negative impacts of such iron seeding. These include increased production of nitrous oxide and methane, unintended changes in the plankton that could result in production of toxic blooms and effects on the ocean food chain.  Local and international environmental groups are furious at this risky gamble with sensitive marine ecosystems spurred by the profit-making incentive of market-based carbon trading.

  "This is an irresponsible and unpredictable venture by purely profit-driven individuals," said Elizabeth Bravo of Ecuador-based Acción Ecológica "It threatens our climate, our marine environment and the sovereignty of our fisherfolk and it should be stopped." The Galapagos Islands are a UNESCO world heritage site under the sovereignty of Ecuador.

  "Climate change should to be tackled by reducing emissions, not by altering ocean ecosystems," said Dr Paul Johnston, Head of Greenpeace International's Science Unit, "Planktos is intending to conduct this reckless experiment in waters around the Galapagos Islands which are globally significant in biological terms and should be designated as fully protected marine reserves.'

  Last week the science journal Nature published a study on iron seeding authored by forty-seven ocean scientists.(4) They concluded that such attempts to artificially seed the ocean were unlikely to sequester much carbon dioxide. Their results, they say, "mean the end of the 'geo-engineering' utopia that consists of artificially seeding the oceans with iron."(5) As one of the scientists, Ulf Riebesell, a biological oceanographer at the Liebniz institute of Marine Sciences in Kiel Germany told Nature bluntly, "You just can't achieve nature's efficiency. That's why geo-engineering the ocean won't work."(6)  This scientific reality hasn't deterred Planktos, which hopes to convince the market that they can sell plankton-powered carbon `offsets' to consumers to salve guilty consciences. As Planktos CEO Russ George admitted in a 2003 radio interview with National Public Radio in the USA, "It's really more of a business experiment than a scientific experiment."(7)

  As worrying, Planktos boasts on their website that the iron they dump will be in nanoparticle form because nanoparticles float longer than normal particles.(8) (although Planktos have given contrary information in person). If this is true, then the Planktos experiment may be the largest intentional release of engineered nanoparticles ever undertaken. The last four years have seen a growing scientific consensus that the altered properties exhibited by nanoparticles could have negative toxicity effects on the environment and for human health. In 2004 the UK's Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering issued a recommendation that environmental applications of nanoparticles should be prohibited,(9) a call echoed by many environmental groups. Planktos claims they will be dumping their particles in international waters and so are not bound by international treaties or permit requirements.

  In a further twist of the ridiculous, Planktos has also invited airline billionaire Richard Branson, Chairman of the Virgin Group, to join them in the Galapagos(10). In March Branson announced The Virgin Earth Challenge, a US $25 million prize to whoever could commercially develop a working geo-engineering technology (See www.virginearth.org) Unfortunately, Planktos is not the only company competing to technologically alter the climate. In February ETC Group published a report, "Gambling with Gaia", describing a clutch of companies pursing geo-engineering business plans.
  For more information contact:

  Jim Thomas, ETC Group (Montreal, Canada)
  jim@etcgroup.org
  Tel: +1 514 516-5759

  Pat Mooney, ETC Group (Ottawa, Canada)
  etc@etcgroup.org
  Tel: +1 613 2412267

  Kathy Jo Wetter, ETC Group (Carrboro, NC, USA)
  kjo@etcgroup.org
  Tel: +1 919 960-5223

  Elizabeth Bravo, Acción Ecológica (Ecuador)
  ebravo@rallt.org

  Dr Paul Johnston, Greenpeace International (Exeter, UK)
  P.Johnston@exeter.ac.uk
  +44 (0)1392 413019

  ETC Group's report on geo-engineering, "Gambling with Gaia', is available online at www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/606/01/geoengineeringcomfeb0107.pdf

  -----
  [1]Richard Ingham "Oddball schemes to fix global warming get thumbs down", AFP, 29 April 2007.
  [2] David Adam, "US Government answer to global warming: Smoke and giant mirrors," The Guardian, 27 January 2007.

  [3] Planktos `mirror' company D2fusion shares same most of the same management team as Planktos - see www.d2fusion.com
  [4] Blain S et al, "Effect of natural iron fertilization on carbon sequestration in the southern ocean." Nature vol. 446. 26 April 2007. 1070-1074 (2007)
  [5] CNRS: "Fertiliser les océans : la fin d'une utopie?" - April 26, 2007, on the Internet at http://www2.cnrs.fr/presse/communique/1086.htm
  [6] Quirin Schiermeier, "Only mother nature knows how to fertilize the ocean - Natural input of nutrients works ten times better than manmade injections" published online in Nature, April 23, 2007. , on the Internet: http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070423/full/070423-8.html ...
  [7] Wendy Williams "Living on Earth; Iron fertilization", NPR, 30 May 2003, transcript at http://www.loe.org/series/iron_fertilization/
  [8]  According to Planktos, Inc. website: "...we use this material in a nano-particle form where the particles are so small that the sink rate is measured in weeks and months as opposed to minutes."  http://www.planktos.com/educational/thedebate.htm (viewed May 1, 2007).

  [9] Recommendation 5, chapter 10, Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering, "Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties" published on 29 July 2004.
  [10] Planktos News Release, "Planktos Offers Branson Chance to Help Win his own Prize, 10 February 2007. on the Internet: http://www.planktos.com/Newsroom/PlanktosOffersBransonCha ...On Putting iron in the ocean posted 2 years, 6 months ago 47 Responses