World Body Warns Over Ocean ‘Fertilization’ To Fix Climate Change
LONDON — Countries gathered under an international accord on maritime pollution have warned against offbeat experiments to tackle climate change by sowing the sea with chemicals to help soak up airborne carbon dioxide (CO2).
Parties to the London Convention and London Protocol declared that they hold authority over such experiments, and “large-scale operations” of this kind “are currently not justified,” according to a statement issued on Monday.
Several controversial experiments have been carried out or are being planned to “fertilize” areas of the sea with iron or urea to see whether this encourages the growth of plankton.
Much of the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels is dissolved by the sea from the atmosphere.
In turn, microscopic marine plants at the sea surface absorb some of the CO2 through photosynthesis. When they die, they fall to the ocean floor, thus potentially storing the carbon for millions of years.
Defenders of fertilization say that carbon pollution is so far out of control that a swift fix is needed to avert catastrophe for the climate system.
By accelerating plankton growth, carbon could be massively sucked out of Earth’s atmosphere, reducing the warming effect of this greenhouse gas, they argue.
But marine biologists and climate scientists say the experiments are hedged with environmental peril, such as the risk that runaway algal growth could starve swathes of the ocean of oxygen.
Monday’s statement said the London Convention and London Protocol parties agreed a five-point position on ocean fertilization at their 29th consultative meeting on Friday.
They endorsed a “statement of concern” by expert opinion to this panel, and said consideration of ocean fertilization fell within their purview for protecting the marine environment.
The parties urged states “to use the utmost caution when considering proposals for large-scale ocean fertilization operations,” the communique said.
“Given the present state of knowledge regarding ocean fertilization, such large-scale operations are currently not justified.”
The London Convention and Protocols come under the International Maritime Organization (IMO).
The 1972 London accord, called the “Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter 1972,” has 82 signatory states.
It was followed in 1996 by a tougher agreement, the London Protocol, under which all dumping is prohibited, except for “possibly acceptable” wastes on the so-called “reverse list”. There are are currently 31 Parties to the Protocol.
Earlier this year, the UN’s Nobel-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said that ocean fertilization and other geo-engineering schemes, such as erecting a giant parasol in orbit to cool the planet, were “largely speculative and with the risk of unknown side effects.”
In a study published on Sunday by the British journal Nature, scientists confirmed that plankton can suck up far more CO2 than previously realized, but stressed that the damage to the marine ecoystem was unknown.
German-led researchers closed off part of Raune fjord in southern Norway to see how plankton reacted to different levels of CO2, simulating emissions levels that likely to prevail over the next 150 years.
The organisms were able to gobble up to 39 percent more dissolved carbon compared with today, but did not need any additional nutrients to achieve this.
The paper, though, warned that algal blooms could inflict oxygen depletion in some parts of the ocean while rising carbon levels could cause an imbalance in primary nutrients, with implications that could ripple across the marine food web.
Environmental groups on Monday called on the Philippine government to stop an Australian company’s plan to dump hundreds of tonnes of urea fertilizer into the Sulu Sea, site of the UNESCO World Heritage Tubbataha Reef Marine Park, as an experiment.
© 2007 Agence France Presse
Here is one more example of the scientific community attempting to fix one disaster with the possibility of yet another and than another. In one hundred years we have begun the greatest catastrophe this world will see. The well intentioned, half thought ideas of the corporations and governments who think they have the right to affect the Earth’s commons goes on.
Jacque Elul’s book the “Technological Society speaks to this in spades. It’s time we get it!!! We can’t continue down this path and must use the natural world’s systems to deal with the problem. The first Idea should be to just stop!! Stop polluting and start thinking smaller not bigger because the results are becoming catastrophic with our affect on the world’s eco systems.
We create panic! We must proceed with a quick and effective conservation projects and they must be instituted quickly. The direction to non polluting vehicles and energy production way from fossil fuels is the first step. That is not to say that careful research on ways to reabsorb CO2 should not go ahead.
For better or worse technology now controls the planet and we can see what it has done.
IKE
Human arrogance at work.
You create a problem by science–why naturally, you solve it by science!
I mean, isnt it obvious that scientists are gods and know everything about everything?
Back in reality–this is why I shake my head when i see people talking about secularism vs religion debates.
Secularism IS a religious system. Secularists, like all religious people who cling to their security blanket of comfort, just dont wanna admit it.
Instead of believing in a God, they believe humans are gods and that every secret of the universe can be discovered by humanity.
This is colossal arrogance.
“Parties to the London Convention and London Protocol declared that they hold authority over such experiments”
I love it, they declared it and so it is! This is basis for a so-called civil society, great fabulous. So some want to pour massive amounts of chemicals as a quick fix to the problem that is complex and took a long while to cultivate, at least thus far they have put the kibosh on that.
But what other solutions do they offer? Do they also put the kibosh on deep sea trawling and over fishing? That might maybe also have a negative effect on plankton growth.
kelmer -
You have it directly backwards. The problem wasn’t created by science - it was created by ignorance of the effects of industrialization, and once science said there was a problem, it was continued by greed and stupidity, and in no small measure by morons believing their god would solve the problem or take them away from it and therefore there was no need to do or understand anything.
And secularism is not a religion, nor does it function as one, but that would be lost on you, I’m sure.
Finally, if we relied on religion to solve real world problems, we would still be living in the Stone Age, we would still believe the world was flat, and that the earth and humans were the center of the universe. Now there’s arrogance for you.
The following text is from a print ad, “Our First Position on Global Warming” of the Evangelical Climate Initiative released on May 15, 2007.
“PRAY WITHOUT CEASING.”— 1Thess. 5:17
“As Christians committed to protecting God’s creation, we believe that all of us need to take steps to reduce the pollution that is causing the world to overheat. We have the ingenuity and the ability as a nation—individuals, churches, communities, governments —to provide the leadership to curb CO2 emissions and to begin protecting the climate.
“The earth is God’s and we are in His hands. He is the Creator and the Sustainer of all things, and we acknowledge our finite understanding, ability, and impact. So we begin our consideration of global warming on our knees in prayer to God who created the planets and the stars, whose eye is on the sparrow, and who cares for each of us as His children.
“We begin with a prayer that God in His grace will grant us the wisdom to act with prudence and foresight, to protect the earth and His children for generations to come. And we offer to our leaders the principles and policies we believe will protect the climate, maintain economic and energy vitality, and honor the institutions and values that are important in this nation, one nation under God.”
For a copy of the Principles on Global Warming Policy, go to: www.christiansandclimate.org.
That quick fix which could put us in a bigger fix. When a natural balance is disrupted you encounter a built in inertia when trying to adjust it by artificial means. Each new thing you do changes the system even more though you are trying to return some other aspect (reducing CO2) to normal. The reverse happens and you then need to artificially fix the previous artificial fix which invariably has unexpected consequences.
This is steroids and stimulants for the oceans with no safety net.
If there is no global warming then why such a drastic means? I wonder if Fox News types will want this seeding but will still downplay global warming?
The ocean’s phytoplankton are dying off at an alarming rate. We have a choice of doing nothing, or attempting to do somethng to help.
What is the best choice? I don’t have a clue. I fear scientists playing God. I fear we will certainly have a dead planet if the phytoplankton die off another 20 to 25%. They are down 12% in the past 30 years and the percentge of die off has been going up at a much faster rate in the past five years.
Man made pollution is killing the plankton, that problem is now too far advanced to clean up the oceans in any time to slow down the dying of the microscopic plant life, which supply our atmosphere with over 60% of its oxygen. It is a very very serious subject.
Nature is trying to achieve its balance, and it’s doing so for a reason. We need to work WITH nature, not against it. But this is not the way. With every unnatural thing we do, mother nature has to reset that balance. Period.
Leave it to humans to try to mask the symptoms instead of treating the problem. So what if we sequester carbon if we don’t change the way we emit it.
Americans especially want a pill for everything. This is just another pill.
Not swallowing this one.
Any guesses on the organization that might be funding these ‘offbeat experiments’? Let’s take a stab in the dark … the U.S. military?
This is exactly what Rosalie Bertell, Ph.D., GNSH, warned us about with HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program). She said that the military (Air Force and Navy in particular) will sell their latest atmospheric experiments, in her words, “as a space shield against incoming weapons, or, for the more gullible, a devise for repairing the ozone layer.”
http://www.earthpulse.com/src/subcategory.asp?catid=1&subcatid=1
The military is doing the same kind of selling to the fearful gullible sheeple with these oceanic experiments - HURRAH! The military will save the day on climate change. Trust the military!
It smells bad - don’t buy it.
Re: “German-led research… in southern Norway… The organisms were able to gobble up to 39 percent more dissolved carbon compared with today, but did not need any additional nutrients to achieve this.” Hmmm, didn’t need additional nutrients to achieve this!
Sooo, CO2 gets out of whack and plankton tends to conpensate… As will the earth in the instance of humans as we evolve beyond our need to harm her. All other possible universes are unstable, this one’s not.
“The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them.” Albert Einstein.
Or the same state of mind. It parallels group stink, mean group think.
until we learn to respect nature, and live in harmony, we will continue to keep spinning our wheels. a full out assault on corporate offenders is needed. the rest of us have to commit to being responsible, and do our own part in anyway that we can.
ricg, what a fantastic twist you put on it.
So what enabled industrialization if not for science and technology? And when speaking of science as a domain you must surely know mainstream science is by and large funded and directed by non-scientific interests; ie, corporate and military objectives.
Yes, a few on the fringe warned us of environmental issues, but just whom was it that espoused the belief that, who you say, would come along to fix it? Some believed that the Earth’s system was to indomitable for mere humans to ill-effect, and that nature would heal itself. And others claimed that before the problem became insufferable, well, why it would be science and technological innovation that would fix the problems! The ego-centric idealism of secularists believing that humans can adapt and overcome all things. And who knows, maybe we will. But in my long life I have known very few that believed God would come by with his millennial miracle to restore the Earth and all the natural resources. What religion has espoused that?
And as a theoretical system of beliefs and practices just how is secularism different from religion? And aren’t we in Iraq precisely because Bush relied on God telling him to do so?
kelmer says science did it. Wow. All those scientists driving all those cars, burning all that coal, etc. Maybe they should clean up after themselves, like W and Iraq or something. And while we’re at it, let’s outlaw medicine.
Sorry kelmer and cosmobilly, ricg is correct. Don’t blame the scientists please - they work in good faith, driven by curiosity, but it is industrialists, politicians and warriors that apply the fruits of their labors. Scientists are middle-class working joes. When it comes to global-busting ideas, nowhere are scientists wealthy enough to apply ideas, or entrusted with being near the “red button”. Hollywood fantasies of the “mad scientist” are just that - fantasies.
Having said that, I’m terrified of half-baked ideas being rushed to solve problems. I’m thinking of the invasive species imported into countries that end up being a much larger problem (e.g., the cane toad in Australia).
You just know that one day, they are going to try to steer an asteroid away form earth and instead, they are going to steer it right into earth. lol
whether we like it or not, solutions to our lives and humanity’s problems are almost never clear cut. “muddling through” has been the default decision making method when there is a lack of consensus, within or without. i would not get on a high horse against technological solutions; they will probably play a part too. this does not diminish our and governments’ responsibilities to curb emmisions and keep the earth clean, though!
Science stumbles on! Is there anything these power-freaks AREN’T willing to fuck up before they have any idea of what they’re doing?
I fully support these experiments as long as they’re done far offshore (at least 1000 miles) in the marine “deserts”. We have forced the Earth to a tipping point where millions of species will become extinct within a generation or two if we do nothing to reduce the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Taking your chances with the status quo is insane if you’ve been paying attention to the accelerated melt rates in Greenland, Antarctica and the Arctic Ocean.
Everything we can do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will not be enough. Period. Yes, we should stop burning fossil fuels immediately, but guess what? That’s not going to happen. The best we can do is a rapid phase out with very strong government incentives to fuel the transition to renewable energy.
Arguing against these necessary experiments is a refusal to take responsibility for a problem we’ve created and a refusal to even attempt to set things right.
Yes, we should anticipate and mitigate side-effects. But, unless someone else has a better idea about how to avert global catastrophe, then we’d better go with this one with all due speed on the research end– because when we reach the tipping point and we haven’t completed these experiments– we may be forced to go ahead with full scale operations of this kind without the hindsight benefits of good basic research in this field.
You are all fools to think we’ll be better off not doing these marine experiments.
I had a farm in Antarctica…
jack 37….we’re all under the ‘dominator’ value system–it is pervasive world wide and has led to an economic system that enables us to blindly create eco-side while we’re busy making money. We won’t solve any of these issues until we shift our value system—
Dr. Riane Eisler talks about this in her book, Real Wealth of Nations…creating a caring economics. www.rianeeisler.com www.realwealtheconomy.com
They is we….we’re all driving cars, buying too much stuff, flying around the world, thinking about how to make more money for more stuff. WE all have to change….
All indications are that the potential adverse consequences of such schemes have been ignored. Even elementary science reveals that increased CO2 content of the oceans would raise acidity by lowering the pH. Even a small change would be devastating to coral and shelled animals, which would certainly upset the entire ecosystem–this would be only one of many adverse consequences to increased CO2 in the oceans.
The only feasible approach to mitigating carbon pollution is reduction CO2 generation as well as other greenhouse gasses such as methane. The ground work for this has been laid out and the requirement are clear. Until Americans ( the greatest contributors to this problem) reject the dangerous manipulation of essential scientific data used by this administration to conceal and derail corrective measures for this threat and other vital environmental reforms–and move decisively on this matter– the dire consequences predicted by the international scientific community are inevitable.
For those who believe mankind cannot destroy ALL life on this little world, save perhaps some microbes, and Mother Nature can cure anything we humans may do,___ think again.
For starters, if the atmosphere loses another 30% of it’s oxygen, most life on Earth will die off, including humanity. The tiny pytoplankton produce most of our oxygen. They are dying off at an ‘alarming’ rate, the exact cause is not known, man made pollutants are highly suspect, such as burning coal, DU, atomic waste, chemical and oil spills, garbage om tj epceams and plastics.
Since the mid 1960s the phytoplankton have decreased by approx 12%. that’s a lot, most of that 12% has occurred since the mid 90s. Those are not figures I dreamed up, they come from scientists who have spent their entire adult lives studying those tiny plants. When the atmosphere loses near 50% of its oxygen, and at the same time the perma frost which is melting at (again the word) an ALARMING rate, the released methane gas which has been locked up in the Arctic perma frost for over 50 billion years will get into th eatmosphere and when the correct ratio is achieved it could ignite. KA-BOOM!!!
After that, the remaining atmosphere will be such, that the sun’s ray s will heat this once blue and white water planet until it burns to a crisp. The result? ___ Another Mars. ___ Think not? Well, think again, because that scenerio is quite possible.
the Oceans ALREADY ARE being fertilised, by fertilizer runoff, erosion, lobster bait, chum etc.
and now in the Northeast we have RED TIDE (plankton) outbreaks all Spring, Summer, Fall long as compared to a week or two decades ago.
How bout we drasticlly slow the output of CO2?
Who do you think would supply said fertilizer?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Plankton are microscopic animal life, Phytoplankton are the microscopic plants which bloom in the cooler Anarctic waters and supply us with the air we need to live on. They are dying off, not reproducing as they should.
And how many ships busted open in the past week?
4 in the black sea?and 1 in San Francico.
We must stop shipping shit all over the planet for the soul purpose of making wealthy men wealthier.
People need to garden ,buylocal goods, ( preferably bartered)conserve waterand, simply stop funding the destruction of the biospere.
Hey Savior man .This might be a good time for a miricle.
This is the typical approach of treating the symptom without curing the cause. You don’t need to eat less, and exercise, to lose weight. No, just take this pill and continue your pigish behavior.
Ton’s of other examples of this flawed thinking can be seen during, and in between, your nightly news.
The cause of global warming is over consumption of earths resources,the destruction of our oxygen producing forests, and especially green house gas producing burning of carbon into the atmosphere.
The solution therefore, is the reduction of our consumption (conservation), and replacing carbon with non-carbon production of energy.
You don’t need to be a scientist to figure this one out. And the beautiful thing is that the solution begins with you.
Ramsay
It doesn’t seem that we have much choice. Maybe a little at a time and see what happens. But I’m confused about the phrase “algal blooms could inflict oxygen depletion in some parts of the ocean.” Anyone know how? Algae are plants and they use photosynthesis to make oxygen out of the CO2 they take in. That’s the whole point of this project. Seems like a good thing, but slowly, slowly. Could be wrong.
cosmobilly - I question why you bring this up in this context, but since you do, the difference between a secularist and a religious person is that the secularist doesn’t believe without evidence. That doesn’t mean that a secularist will never believe in anything until it’s “proven” - nothing is proven forever, there is always something new being discovered. That’s science for you -every answer leads to another question and sooner or later, a whole new concept of the universe or parts thereof. Maybe science will eventually discover a benevolent bearded guy in a long white robe with slave angels flitting about who’s in charge of everything. But so far that hasn’t happened so the secularists still and stubbornly insist on evidence before they’ll believe anything, if only temporarily. (I count myself among them.)
As I unerstand it GRANDMA, too much alge creates loss of oxygen to fish life in lakes and rivers. Too much phytoplankton in the oceans is not very likely.
Capitalists prefer solutions that call for huge volumes of commodities that require lots of capital, labor and energy to produce, and lots of taxes to fund. The production and consumption of these commodities damage the environment. Capitalists view the damage they create as opportunities to create more damage. It’s clear that they have only wealth and power in mind. Citizens are responsible for learning why the capitalists’ ideas are so destructive, and blocking them. When the capitalist burns 1.25 gal. of gasoline to make another gallon, when the equivalent in biodiesel is produced with 18% of that energy, and ZERO CARBON, and the capitalist resisted biodiesel for 100 years we have to question every move the capitalist makes.
This is not some sort of altruistic science experiment. At least one company that is doing the experiments with fertilizing the oceans is a for profit company that plans on selling carbon credits to polluters.
Lobo Gris
What is all this nonsense about, “Nature will sort things out.” Nature doesn’t give a rat’s ass about any particular species including our own. Nature is just as satisfied with no life at all i.e. Mars or with organisms camping out on a planet’s surface i.e. Earth. Anyone who thinks nature is working in our favor is an imbecile.
I am the same to all beings and my love is ever the same,
But those who worship me with devotion, they are in me and I am in them.
————–Bhagavad Gita
GRANDMA,
We have a region in the Gulf of Mexico that is about the size of Texas. This region is where the Mississippi River dumps into the gulf. In this region, there isn’t a thing living–from the surface of the ocean all the way down to the ocean floor. This is technically and accurately called a Dead Zone. The reason why everything there is dead is because all the excess fertilizers were washed off farmland and into the river and into the gulf. There, these fertilizers (especially the nitrogen in the fertilizers) stimulated an algal bloom. The growth of these algae was was not limited by nutrients (i.e. nitrogen), but ultimately by oxygen. When all the oxygen was used up, the algae died and so did everything else.
Before we launch large scale algal bloom experiments, someone should talk to the residents of Sanibel Island about their continuing experience with that phenomenon and its impact on tourism and real estate values.
“Nestling in the icy waters of the sub-Antarctic is the World Heritage-listed Macquarie Island, home to more than a dozen species of threatened marine mammals and seabirds - and 100,000 rabbits.
The rabbits munching their way through Macquarie’s vegetation are not native to the windswept Australian island in the Southern Ocean, nor are the rats that steal rare seabird chicks from their nests. They were introduced by whalers and sealers in the 19th century, along with the feral cats that proved the worst menace to the local wildlife.
A programme to eradicate the cats, funded by the Australian government, was heralded a great success. The last feline was humanely destroyed on the island - situated about 900 miles south- east of Tasmania - in mid 2000. In 2004 endangered grey petrels bred there for the first time in a century and there were hopes that the critically endangered blue petrel might return.
But attempts to restore the fragile ecological balance, upset by the influx of exotic predators, have had an unexpected effect. With the cats removed, the rabbit population on the 60 sq m island has exploded, increasing tenfold from 10,000 in the mid-1980s. The number of rats and mice has also soared.
Now, environmentalists are demanding urgent action to exterminate the rats and rabbits. A plan costing A$16.5m ([pound]6.7m) has been formulated but has yet to be implemented because federal and state governments are arguing about who should pay.
While Macquarie, uninhabited by humans apart from visiting scientists, is part of the island state of Tasmania, the federal government has responsibility for it as a World Heritage site. As they wrangle about funding, the condition of the island has been condemned as an international embarrassment.”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20070220/ai_n18622662/pg_1
Maybe we should consider the potential consequences before we do something that we think is a solution.
Macquarie Island is not part of the human food chain - the oceans are.
As a scientist it’s very frustrating to read people making absolutely false claims while trying to argue for or against this “global experiment.” Read, learn, and understand before making comments.
1) To blame this on scientists is just ridiculous. How can we know the absolute effects of something new? You can’t. While we can do laboratory experiments and computer models there is no way of recreating what will absolutely happen to a body the size of the Earth. We can’t recreate that until we do it. Did we develop the technology to cause these problems? Technically, yes. However, scientists (the majority at least) create to BETTER life and to help fix problems. There is always the possibility that there will be a negative side effect or that someone will take our ideas and use them in a way not intended. How can we possibly stop that?
2) ALGAE ARE NOT PLANTS. Just because they use photosynthesis does not make them plants. They are Protists. Algal blooms are often caused by increase in nitrogen and phosphate run-off (though not always). Algae (and cyanobacteria) grow in response to these nutrients. Organic matter is produced as they die off (naturally). Some bacteria consume the organic matter along with oxygen to fuel their metabolic reactions. This decreases the overall oxygen level in the waters and can eventually lead to dead zones at least temporarily.
3) The oceans, no matter how unstable they may appear to us, have a very stable chemical balance. It makes me very nervous to think about dumping in more of one element or compound which may very well throw off the entire system. Look at a chemical formula some time. See how if you change one item, the entire system changes to compensate. I had this “fertilization as a cure for too much CO2″ question on my doctoral exams and the chemistry involved behind it made my head spin. I was asked if it was a good idea or not and I couldn’t come up with an answer. It’s positive on some aspects, negative on others.
4) The majority of scientists do not just slap a band-aid on the problem and want to instead work to reduce CO2 emissions. The problem isn’t with the scientists, it’s with corporations and the governments worldwide. We can talk about needing to decrease CO2, but are any of them will to do what is necessary to make it happen? No. Therefore, as scientists we need to find a meeting ground. This is the closest we’ve come to a compromise. I, of course, wish nothing more than for the world to wake up and stop doing what they have been doing to destroy this planet. I’m realizing more and more that is just isn’t going to happen. People are too selfish and they want what they want when they want it. And I’ll be honest, I still drive my car. I’m willing to bet that most of us do. I’m not driving a Hummer and my car gets over 30mpg but I’m still part of the problem. Can anyone here honestly say they are not part of the problem? Do you live your life with a zero carbon footprint?
There is no answer to this issue at this point. Therefore, people, including scientists, are grasping at straws trying to make the best decisions we can to see what we can potentially do to help fix what we have done. If anyone has a better (and realistic) solution there are a lot of people who would love to hear it.
Stop using fossil fuels? Ok what else do we use? Ethanol? Do you have any idea what is required to produce the corn? How do we get around the world when some places can’t grow corn? How do we keep corn prices down so that half of Latin America doesn’t starve? Electricity? How do we produce it? Do we attach windmills to our cars to make them run? Solar panels? Is enough power produced from solar/wind to power our TVs, games, computers, etc.? And be realistic. We aren’t going to stop using these items.
I don’t know the answer, I’d love to know if someone thinks they do.
The problem with this approach is that it’s a one-trial experiment. I mean, we don’t have hundreds of Earths to infer any cause-and-effect relationship from the data we obtain.
Of course, large-scale combustion by human agents for hundreds of years is also a one-trial experiment we’ve unwittingly conducted. We can’t prove that humans have caused global warming from one trial, a fact that the defenders of status quo industrialization exploit in their arguments. But we can’t afford to experiment with the fate of our home for the sake of consummate science. It’s foolish and hubristic to gamble the physiology of the planet. By way of an analogy, who among us would agree to treat an ill loved one with an untested protocol when a simple reversal of the patients diet and exercise habits would likely restore his/her health?
WTF, if you are going to assume some superiority of knowledge than please get your premises correct. I did not blame scientists, and indeed never even used the word “scientist”. I have worked on the technological side of scientific research, and I know first hand how the vast majority of science follows the funding stream. Both the engineering and scientific domains are generally driven by the golden rule – he who has the gold makes the rules- and that largely explains the competing interests and priorities that have always affected the integrity of both the science and engineering fields. It has absolutely nothing to do with Hollywood.
Second, in your presumptuous defense of ricq, you have made the same type of mistake made by ricq, which is repeated over and over in this forum. You don’t put the pieces together to make sure that your opinion actually jives logically and appropriately with the whole picture. You get hopped up over some trite point or another and then make spurious emotional assertions that really have nothing to do with the actual topic, and from which no positive constructive dialogue can take place. But then you think what, that you have conveyed some profundity beyond hearing yourself talk?
By and large I post minimally on CD, and when I do it is to prompt for better consideration of the overall picture. Affixing blame to one or another group is never the solution. And as long as you and I keep driving cars, heating our homes, buying commercially produced food stuffs, and consuming chemically-ridden mass produced products, we are as much to blame as anyone.
JohnR, succinctly put. I would just add to the following,
“But we can’t afford to experiment with the fate of our home for the sake of consummate science…”
or unchecked capital interests.
“3) The oceans, no matter how unstable they may appear to us, have a very stable chemical balance. It makes me very nervous to think about dumping in more of one element or compound which may very well throw off the entire system.”
Agreed.
“4) The majority of scientists do not just slap a band-aid on the problem and want to instead work to reduce CO2 emissions. The problem isn’t with the scientists, it’s with corporations and the governments worldwide.”
Agreed.
“Can anyone here honestly say they are not part of the problem? Do you live your life with a zero carbon footprint?”
No. Anyone who was born is part of the problem.
We must each do what we can do, where we are. Waiting for others to come up with answers is like waiting for Godot.
KristenM, I applaud you for your honesty and for your work. I think we all must have a voice in this, scientists or not. Some of us have read, but we haven’t read many scientific journals. There are other teachings with other histories and approaches. Sometimes, it takes those who are not in the forest to see things that those within miss. It will take all of us together to start to figure out a better way to live.
cosmobilly, other than ad hominem attacks against those with views that differ, your point is??
Re: KristenM November 14th, 2007 10:42 am
KRISTEN, thank you for taking the time to post this morning. Thank you for being so honest.
I wish more scientists would come forward and speak out freely as you have here today.
I can assure you that a great many people would be very appreciative if this could happen more often.
Thank you so much.
I just love the whole science vs religion topic.
Origins of Man
Bible - man was created from the dust of the earth
Science - man evolved over time from a single celled organism
Creation of World
Bible - God spoke
Science - Big Bang
I don’t see much of a difference in these two areas, however, regardless of your beliefs, we need to scientifically come up with solutions. Does anyone remember the stages of Science? If you go through the steps, you are not rushing to judgment.
If Nature has taught us anything, it is that life will expand to the limit of available resources subject to competing requirements for the life itself. What is the limiting resource for plankton to grow?
LaoTzu #5
Nature, immune as to a sacrifice of straw dogs,
Faces the decay of its fruits.
A sound man, immune as to a sacrifice of straw dogs,
Faces the passing of human generations.
The universe, like a bellows,
Is always emptying, always full:
The more it yields, the more it holds.
Men come to their wit’s end arguing about it
And had better meet it at the morrow.
So…hold the straw dogs—maybe use them for insulation…
cheers, snydly.
KEM - Thanks for your explanation. I know that algae blooms cut off the oxygen, but I’m still trying to find out why. After all, they ‘produce’ oxygen, not destroy it.
In the article above I read “German-led researchers closed off part of Raune fjord in southern Norway to see how plankton reacted to different levels of CO2, simulating emissions levels that likely to prevail over the next 150 years.
“The organisms were able to gobble up to 39 percent more dissolved carbon compared with today, but did not need any additional nutrients to achieve this.”
Now here might be a cautious approach to the problem. If we must experiment, do it in some contained way and in a small sector. A fjord is perfect, but the poor Scandanavian countries might have an objection or two!
I agree that we should change our lifestyles, but humans move too slowly and the climate is changing too fast for us to affect the sea very much that way.
KRISTINM, thanks for your sensible and informed approach to all this. And for joining this zany dialogue.
There is no harm in experiments to try and increase plankton, especially in the northern oceans. It has been declining, and no one knows why. Warming water temps, less than normal trace iron, and pollution are suspects. “Global Dimming”? Factory fishing removing normally recycled nutrients? Replacing/enhancing the iron content might also help restore depleted fisheries that depend on plankton as the foundation of the food web.
We are already in the midst of a great global engineering experiment - the pumping of unprecedented amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere and oceans. A little plankton fertilizing in the right places would be relatively benign. We already do a lot of that in the wrong places.
Don’t blame the scientists and engineers. They have helped us all lead longer healthier lives, and have helped hold off Mr. Malthus’ predictions for 200 years. The problem is overpopulation and the exploitation of fossil fuels.
KristenM is right. We are all part of the problem, and no one wants to give up this wonderful lifestyle provided by fossil fuels. Add to that public policy shaped more by belief in unlimited growth and exploitation than sustainability and stewardship.
Chemicals, chemicals and more chemicals. Who is behind this idea? Chemical companies, no doubt. And shareholders already licking their chops. Haven’t we already messed up enough because of endless use of chemicals???
Here’s another inconvenient truth:
Meat Eating and Global Warming
www.ivu.org/members/globalwarming.html