
World's biggest geoengineering experiment 'violates' UN rules - wglb
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/15/pacific-iron-fertilisation-geoengineering
======
nostromo
I'm a bit surprised at the negative tone of the articles.

Yes, it's unproven that this will work as a fix for global warming. But what
better way to find out than by running a large experiment? (This isn't just
some crackpot theory, real scientists have looked into it:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_fertilization>)

I've noticed two divergent environmental movements lately. The "do nothing"
crowd that doesn't like wind energy because of birds and rejects nuclear
because of fallout risks. And the more (in my view) pragmatic crowd that is
open to trying new things to solve environmental problems.

~~~
cryptoz
What if it doesn't work? What if it kills all the salmon and worsens global
warming? The reason there's so much negative press is that this was done
pretty much unilaterally and it was done to make quick cash. This type of
large-scale geoengineering project is almost certainly what will get us out of
the current global warming mess, in my opinion, but it _must be approached
carefully and scientifically_.

What science do we get out of this project? Virtually none. It doesn't appear
there were any controls, or careful measurements, or whatever. Just a cash
grab.

~~~
nostromo
What if it does work?

I do agree with you and I'm not trying to defend the way this guy has gone
about this.

However, the path we're on now is basically, "we know we're fucked, but let's
do nothing."

The UN is not going to be able to agree on anything more active than Kyoto. In
the US, Romney is using Obama's previous comments on climate change as a laugh
line. The EU has plenty of luddites themselves; they would never agree to
fertilizing parts of the ocean for fear of negative side effects. For the
scientific community to come to a consensus would take decades.

So I agree that we need to be cautious. But right now it seems we're just
rearranging the deckchairs on the titanic.

~~~
freehunter
I have a theory that shooting holes in clouds makes the rain pour out. I can't
get the UN to agree on it, but I do have a lot of bullets and a rifle.

"It takes too long" isn't a good excuse for acting in an unsafe or illegal
manner. If it does work, good. But the guy should still be punished for acting
in an unsafe and illegal manner. If he damages the environment, he should be
punished for breaking the law and for the damage done. If he succeeds, he
should be celebrated for his solution, but still punished for breaking the
law.

Driving at a steady speed between freeway and city driving and blowing through
stoplights will save on greenhouse gas emissions from accelerating a car, but
it's still dangerous and illegal.

------
ceejayoz
Already well discussed at <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4659053>

------
benologist
Gawker are ridiculous. They've written a few paragraphs rewording the original
article and then quoted 1/2 the article to wrap it up:

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/15/pacific-
ir...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/15/pacific-iron-
fertilisation-geoengineering)

Edit: Yay someone fixed it.

------
001sky
Actual Headline > _World's biggest geoengineering experiment 'violates' UN
rules_

The word _illegal_ in the HN headline is a bit of extra editorial, and should
be removed. The inverted commas in this case are not trivial, as not all UN
rules are Law, either per-se or in the (even then endlessly debated) eyes of
'International Law.'

~~~
ceejayoz
In this case, Canada and the US are both signatories to the violated UN rules.
According to Wikipedia, US law incorporates the Convention, and I'd imagine
Canada does the same.

~~~
001sky
This is a good comment, I have no issues with having such a discussion in the
comments. Its just bad form to <conclude> the outcome a legal proceeding in a
headline, generally. If someone with additional information wants to jump in
and clarify, for example, the role of international waters the competing
issues of soveriegnty, and distinction between the actors of states and
individuals, etc. would be very informative.[1]

______________

[1] A bit of additional color:

 _International law differs from national legal systems in that it primarily
concerns nations rather than private citizens._ [Continuing...] _National law
may become international law when treaties delegate national jurisdiction to
supranational tribunals such as the European Court of Human Rights or the
International Criminal Court. Treaties such as the Geneva Conventions may
require national law to conform. ...[A] state member of the international
community is not obliged to abide by international law unless it has expressly
consented to a particular course of conduct.[3] This is an issue of state
sovereignty._

etc. Not my area of expertise, but this is very much an area where such
expertise would be quite useful. Not just international law in general, but
also (presumably) the UN doctrines Law of the sea, ect. (covers private
parties). <http://www.un.org/Depts/los/index.htm>

------
hn_is_vile
The problem with this particular experiment is the speed and scale of it. Both
iron sulphate and iron oxide are being 'dumped' in the ocean all the time, by
the world's rivers. The difference being the level of dilution.

Algal blooms != algal growth. Algal growth is healthy for the ocean, marine
life and the oxygen breathing carbon based life forms inhabiting the land
masses of the planet.

Algal blooms on the other hand, have none of those characteristics, can lead
to anoxia in the area of the bloom, which kills marine life and results in the
algae decomposing back into CO2.

------
d2vid
"History is full of examples of ecological manipulations that backfired."

You mean like extracting billions of barrels of oil a day and burning them?
We're already manipulating the environment.

This is what I wish we were discussing in the global warming debate in the
U.S. - not whether global warming was happening, but conservation versus
mitigation/adaptation.

~~~
wcoenen
_> You mean like extracting billions of barrels of oil a day and burning
them?_

The actual figure is about 85 million barrels per day [1].

[1] <http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx>

------
chipsy
This is, in the end, a reflection of the incentives governments have crafted
in recent environmental policy. Now that there's an opening for profit, the
market has rushed in to provide "solutions" of varying quality and ethics.

------
mdonahoe
I had vagely heard of this before, but I didn't realize that tr goal is to
have the carbon sink to the bottom of the ocean. I assumed that it would just
introduce more active marine life.

Not sure how this guy is going to get paid for his co2 credits.

------
xbryanx
We made a simple little ethics game about this very possibility for an exhibit
on anthropogenic change: <http://sciencebuzz.org/earth/scenario>

~~~
Gravityloss
It didn't save my comments? At least I couldn't see them...

