World's biggest geoengineering experiment 'violates' UN rules | Hacker News Reader

World's biggest geoengineering experiment 'violates' UN rules

guardian.co.uk

93 pointswglb24 comments

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.

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.

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.

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.

The reason people are up in arms is because there's significant concern in the scientific community that what he's done can be actively harmful. You simply don't dump 100 tons of crap in the ocean without having an idea of how it will react with the ecosystem.

I'm all for geoengineering experiments, but only if they're based on solid science and not a hunch.

Yes. The "do nothing" crowd IMHO makes things worse

"Nuclear is bad", "Wind will kill the birds", "Hydro is evil", etc, etc, guess what, countries will use coal then.

There's also the "not economically viable" crowd, that rejects anything if it "costs" more than oil (usually under fallacious arguments and/or ignoring some oil costs and/or inflating alternative energy costs.

Every activity causes an impact. Deal with it. The objective should be to minimize that impact.

I was with you until the "cost more than oil" line. My reasoning on that is the third world is going to need large amounts of energy to boost themselves to everyone else's standard of living. Like India and China, they are going to use the same, proven sources we did unless the alternatives are cheaper to implement and just as reliable. It isn't a do nothing attitude, its a realistic assessment based on human behavior. That's why alternatives really need to have an advantage over oil.

Three Gorges dam?

Your reasoning is right, I don't think alternatives will pick up in developing countries first (unless it's something really groundbreaking that's being overlooked, or something specific)

The problem I see with some opinions is the attitude of "oil is best" without considering specifics. For example, wind power may be more expensive, but there may be a case that for powering something in the middle of China it may be cheaper, since oil has to be transported there.

Also, electric cars, "oh they are useless since our power plants are coal/gas based". Yes, but tomorrow they may be powered by something else.

"Three Gorges dam" = "China's Hoover Dam"

Their might be local bests for non-oil, just like there are in the US, but overall oil gives a well-understood, cheap playbook.

Electric cars are more problematic because they are more costly than gas vehicles (I still don't get this, but lookup new car prices). Limited range and utility are other problems.

I am very hopeful. It looks like railroads in the US are going to move to natural gas (I submitted the article a couple of days ago) which will cut down the emissions. I would imagine when the quickly rechargeable battery shows up , its all going to change.

It is a lie that any serious environmentalist is against wind energy because of bird mortality.

It is not a lie that many people who are against wind energy claim to be environmentalists afraid of bird mortality.

It doesn't take much looking to prove that they aren't in fact that. But few people look, and so it's a great cover for both NIMBYs and entrenched interests.

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

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...

Edit: Yay someone fixed it.

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.'

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.

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

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.

"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.

> 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

"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 so Ironic. The manipulation here is the Carbond credit system. That is why this guy is pouring crap in the Ocean. He is trying to score points on it. The carbon credit system is (therefore) the root cause/problem. So, I don't think you're argument is going per-se where you want it to go.

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.

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.

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

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com