World's biggest geoengineering experiment 'violates' UN rules
1–10 of 27 posts
Re: World's biggest geoengineering experiment 'violates' UN rules
#2Already well discussed at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4659053
Re: World's biggest geoengineering experiment 'violates' UN rules
#3I'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.
Re: World's biggest geoengineering experiment 'violates' UN rules
#4I'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…
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.
Re: World's biggest geoengineering experiment 'violates' UN rules
#5I 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.
Re: World's biggest geoengineering experiment 'violates' UN rules
#6I'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…
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.
Re: World's biggest geoengineering experiment 'violates' UN rules
#7Gawker 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.
Re: World's biggest geoengineering experiment 'violates' UN rules
#8I'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…
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.
Re: World's biggest geoengineering experiment 'violates' UN rules
#9Actual 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.'
Re: World's biggest geoengineering experiment 'violates' UN rules
#10I'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…
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…
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.