Here is an article by Naomi Klein about some experimenting that is already going on in our oceans. She urges caution, but doesn't offer alternatives. I have included the comments, because they are all over the place. Why don't people need permits to experiment on a planetary level? What if it all goes horribley wrong and the scale is too large to escape? What happens if we don't experiment and global warming continues apace? What's the answer?
Find it here: http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/271-38/14225-geoengineers-testing-the-waters
--Kim

Author and activist Naomi Klein. (photo: CharlieRose.com)

Geoengineers: Testing the Waters

By Naomi Klein, The New York Times

28 October 12

or almost 20 years, I've been spending time on a craggy stretch of British Columbia's shoreline called the Sunshine Coast. This summer, I had an experience that reminded me why I love this place, and why I chose to have a child in this sparsely populated part of the world.

It was 5 a.m. and my husband and I were up with our 3-week-old son. Looking out at the ocean, we spotted two towering, black dorsal fins: orcas, or killer whales. Then two more. We had never seen an orca on the coast, and never heard of their coming so close to shore. In our sleep-deprived state, it felt like a miracle, as if the baby had wakened us to make sure we didn't miss this rare visit.

The possibility that the sighting may have resulted from something less serendipitous did not occur to me until two weeks ago, when I read reports of a bizarre ocean experiment off the islands of Haida Gwaii, several hundred miles from where we spotted the orcas swimming.

There, an American entrepreneur named Russ George dumped 120 tons of iron dust off the hull of a rented fishing boat; the plan was to create an algae bloom that would sequester carbon and thereby combat climate change.

Mr. George is one of a growing number of would-be geoengineers who advocate high-risk, large-scale technical interventions that would fundamentally change the oceans and skies in order to reduce the effects of global warming. In addition to Mr. George's scheme to fertilize the ocean with iron, other geoengineering strategies under consideration include pumping sulfate aerosols into the upper atmosphere to imitate the cooling effects of a major volcanic eruption and "brightening" clouds so they reflect more of the sun's rays back to space.

The risks are huge. Ocean fertilization could trigger dead zones and toxic tides. And multiple simulations have predicted that mimicking the effects of a volcano would interfere with monsoons in Asia and Africa, potentially threatening water and food security for billions of people.

So far, these proposals have mostly served as fodder for computer models and scientific papers. But with Mr. George's ocean adventure, geoengineering has decisively escaped the laboratory. If Mr. George's account of the mission is to be believed, his actions created an algae bloom in an area half of the size of Massachusetts that attracted a huge array of aquatic life, including whales that could be "counted by the score."

When I read about the whales, I began to wonder: could it be that the orcas I saw were on their way to the all-you-can-eat seafood buffet that had descended on Mr. George's bloom? The possibility, unlikely though it is, provides a glimpse into one of the disturbing repercussions of geoengineering: once we start deliberately interfering with the earth's climate systems - whether by dimming the sun or fertilizing the seas - all natural events can begin to take on an unnatural tinge. An absence that might have seemed a cyclical change in migration patterns or a presence that felt like a miraculous gift suddenly feels sinister, as if all of nature were being manipulated behind the scenes.

Most news reports characterize Mr. George as a "rogue" geoengineer. But what concerns me, after researching the subject for two years for a forthcoming book on climate change, is that far more serious scientists, backed by far deeper pockets, appear poised to actively tamper with the complex and unpredictable natural systems that sustain life on earth - with huge potential for unintended consequences.

In 2010, the chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology recommended more research into geoengineering; the British government has begun to spend public money in the field.

Bill Gates has funneled millions of dollars into geoengineering research. And he has invested in a company, Intellectual Ventures, that is developing at least two geoengineering tools: the "StratoShield," a 19-mile-long hose suspended by helium balloons that would spew sun-blocking sulfur dioxide particles into the sky and a tool that can supposedly blunt the force of hurricanes.

The appeal is easy to understand. Geoengineering offers the tantalizing promise of a climate change fix that would allow us to continue our resource-exhausting way of life, indefinitely. And then there is the fear. Every week seems to bring more terrifying climate news, from reports of ice sheets melting ahead of schedule to oceans acidifying far faster than expected. At the same time, climate change has fallen so far off the political agenda that it wasn't mentioned once during any of the three debates between the presidential candidates. Is it any wonder that many are pinning their hopes on a break-the-glass-in-case-of-emergency option that scientists have been cooking up in their labs?

But with rogue geoengineers on the loose, it is a good time to pause and ask, collectively, whether we want to go down the geoengineering road. Because the truth is that geoengineering is itself a rogue proposition. By definition, technologies that tamper with ocean and atmospheric chemistry affect everyone. Yet it is impossible to get anything like unanimous consent for these interventions. Nor could any such consent possibly be informed since we don't - and can't - know the full risks involved until these planet-altering technologies are actually deployed.

While the United Nations' climate negotiations proceed from the premise that countries must agree to a joint response to an inherently communal problem, geoengineering raises a very different prospect. For well under a billion dollars, a "coalition of the willing," a single country or even a wealthy individual could decide to take the climate into its own hands. Jim Thomas of the ETC Group, an environmental watchdog group, puts the problem like this: "Geoengineering says, 'we'll just do it, and you'll live with the effects.' "

The scariest thing about this proposition is that models suggest that many of the people who could well be most harmed by these technologies are already disproportionately vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Imagine this: North America decides to send sulfur into the stratosphere to reduce the intensity of the sun, in the hopes of saving its corn crops - despite the real possibility of triggering droughts in Asia and Africa. In short, geoengineering would give us (or some of us) the power to exile huge swaths of humanity to sacrifice zones with a virtual flip of the switch.

The geopolitical ramifications are chilling. Climate change is already making it hard to know whether events previously understood as "acts of God" (a freak heat wave in March or a Frankenstorm on Halloween) still belong in that category. But if we start tinkering with the earth's thermostat - deliberately turning our oceans murky green to soak up carbon and bleaching the skies hazy white to deflect the sun - we take our influence to a new level. A drought in India will come to be seen - accurately or not - as a result of a conscious decision by engineers on the other side of the planet. What was once bad luck could come to be seen as a malevolent plot or an imperialist attack.

There will be other visceral, life-changing consequences. A study published this spring in Geophysical Research Letters found that if we inject sulfur aerosols into the stratosphere in order to dial down the sun, the sky would not only become whiter and significantly brighter, but we would also be treated to more intense, "volcanic" sunsets. But what kind of relationships can we expect to have with those hyper-real skies? Would they fill us with awe - or with vague unease? Would we feel the same when beautiful wild creatures cross our paths unexpectedly, as happened to my family this summer? In a popular book on climate change, Bill McKibben warned that we face "The End of Nature." In the age of geoengineering, we might find ourselves confronting the end of miracles, too.

Mr. George and his ocean-altering experiment provides an opportunity for public debate about an issue essentially absent during the election cycle: What are the real solutions to climate change? Wouldn't it be better to change our behavior - to reduce our use of fossil fuels - before we begin fiddling with the planet's basic life-support systems?

Unless we change course, we can expect to hear many more reports about sun-shielders and ocean fiddlers like Mr. George, whose iron dumping exploit did more than test a thesis about ocean fertilization: it also tested the waters for future geoengineering experiments. And judging by the muted response so far, the results of Mr. George's test are clear: geoengineers proceed, caution be damned.

Comments

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

+24 # fredboy 2012-10-28 07:18
I am a resident of Southwest Florida. Here massive harmful algal blooms sparked by fertilizer runoff from golf courses and neighborhoods threaten our bio health: humans and every species that contacts our waters. To artificially and intentionally create such a nightmare is off-the-scales tragic.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote

+9 # MainStreetMentor 2012-10-28 07:35
... wait a while. BP will come back and kill off all that algae ... and the shrimp ... and the water foul ... and many species of fish ... oh, and a few humans, too, as well as destroying the entire fisihing industry of the entire region.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote

0 # brianf 2012-10-28 12:15
Fertilizer runoff is completely different from the iron fertilization the article is talking about.

If the effect of iron fertilization was to create dead zones, you wouldn't have Orcas and other life rushing to the area. An increase in iron stimulates the growth of phytoplankton, which is at the base of the ocean food chain, and they remove CO2 from the atmosphere too. The phytoplankton population has decreased about 40% since 1950, so stimulating it could help the entire ocean ecosystem and remove huge amounts of CO2.

The ocean is naturally fertilized with iron by dust storms, so it might be a relatively safe way to remove some of the excess CO2 from the atmosphere. But too much iron fertilization might lead to a dead zone or other bad side effects, so we have to be careful.

I'm totally against private companies doing things like this. But I'm for scientists doing experiments to determine how safe it is and what the side effects are. If they determine it is safe enough, we could do carefully controlled larger scale tests, always carefully monitoring the effects. We may or may not discover that it is safe enough to deploy longer term, but we will never know if we don't do the right tests.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote

+15 # carp 2012-10-28 07:34
Fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides run off the corn for fuel fields in the Midwest into the Mississippi which dumps into the Gulf of Mexico where a growing algae field has killed the shrimp. Utah seeded the clouds for over 10 years during their quest to sponsor the Olympics in order to claim the greatest snow on earth ensuring drought and deep fog over the valley I live in east of the cloud seeding. And that is just in the old days, imagine what they will do in the future and the motive is profit and gain.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote

+22 # WestWinds 2012-10-28 07:36
Between this rust dump and the sonic weapons experiments being performed underwater at sea by the US Navy which implodes the internal organs of all sea life and anything else within its range, all I can say is, "We are in the hands of madmen but, for some inexplicable reason, we are addicted to them and their toxic mentalities."
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote

+1 # robmxa 2012-10-28 08:14
Unfortunately we are already in a grand experiment that is changing all aspects of our ecosystem. We have been at it for thousands of years. We have injected all kinds of things willy nilly into that system. Now is the time to start doing something about it. Other than have the human race stop breathing and eating or commit suicide some other way we will have to get involved with countering our bad affects in an intelligent way. After all eight billion people and growing just breathing is having an affect.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote

-1 # brianf 2012-10-28 11:54
Exactly right. We have been conducting massive geoengineering operations for many decades. We now know that some of them are incredibly harmful, yet we continue to expand them.

By far the worst are the operations that release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. They have grown to the point that we will probably need to begin new geoengineering operations to counter them. Yes, this is insanity. But don't be in denial. This is our reality.

Don't be against potentially good geoengineering on principle. Yes, there are risks. So let's do experiments to reduce the risks as much as we can.

Continuing the bad geoengineering operations is way worse than risky. It is guaranteed destruction. If we can't manage to stop them (our current reality), then let's be realistic about our options.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote

+7 # Interested Observer 2012-10-28 08:34
Don't worry. The Free Market will correct it.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote

+5 # JH Gordon 2012-10-28 09:59
But of course... And the only people who benefit from these experiments are the current owners of the current energy systems like fossil fuels. So now we can dump oxidizing cars into the ocean and call it an environmental boon. The world upside down. But hey, if the geo-clowns get it wrong, it won't matter. There are so many ways to skin the energy cat, these guys should be tied to those sacks of rust and follow them down.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote

+12 # MainStreetMentor 2012-10-28 09:03
Man continues to saw off the tree limb on which he stands.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote

+5 # stonecutter 2012-10-28 09:20
Geo-engineering will happen, just as bio-engineering, genetic engineering and all other kinds of human engineering have already happened, with both intended and unintended consequences, despite the high-minded concerns of certain scientists, journalists and other self-appointed guardians of the so-called natural world. We can't even remotely agree on the relatively mundane issues of social justice, reproductive rights, medicare, social security or "defense" policy; we're still a nation riddled with racism, pernicious xenophobia, withering inequality, rising anti-scientific stupidity and political idiocy; so reaching some optimal "consensus" on the matter of global geo-engineering seems as far-fetched as reversing climate change itself,notwiths tanding some global catastrophe that literally forces the human race to change course. Even Fukishima remains an exercise in denial and blatant rationalization on a global scale, as if the problem has already been resolved and we're about to see a barrage of slick commercials inviting the world to visit the delightful Fukishima region on summer vacation (much the same as we see BP in a small blizzard of brazen TV ads trying to brainwash the public about the "safety" of the gulf coast).

We're drowning in a daily torrent of optically engineered public relations bullshit, offered up as reasonable fact, complete with background guitar music, that not even Naomi Klein can put a dent in, although I wish her luck.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote

+2 # Eliza D 2012-10-28 09:36
Yes, Ms. Klein, it would be better to change our behavior than to tinker with Mother Nature. There are so many things we could do, such as funding solar innovation, instead of giving tax breaks to oil companies and gas companies. We could institute polices that compel people to buy food locally, rather than fly and truck food across the country and the globe. Maybe we could learn to grow varieties of warm weather fruit in colder climes. In fact, there are varieties of lemons and avocados that are able to produce in more northern climes. But I have a more radical solution which could impact our planet positively for the foreseeable future. That is to institute government rules to mandate that government agencies and companies hire people who live within, say a two to ten mile radius of their employer. Imagine ending the nightmare of commuting on America's highways, which I do everyday-45 minutes or more each way- and dramatically reducing car emissions. In the profession I am in, employers spend weeks interviewing candidates, who, truth be told, are extremely similar in qualifications. Once hired, we get the message we are expendable drones anyway. The higher our pay, the more intimidation there is. If a person really wants a certain job, he or she must move to within the required radius. Yes, it sounds like a nanny state, and we are under the illusion that choices are our own. But much of what we do is already orchestrated by the ruling class.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote

+1 # brux 2012-10-28 09:38
Let's see, which is more intelligent ... chimpanzees, gorillas, baboons or human beings?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote

+6 # reiverpacific 2012-10-28 10:00
So presumably "Mr George" did not seek, nor need a permit to do his thing?
Hope that all you Libertarians and "who needs regulations" types are watching.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote

+4 # sameasiteverwas 2012-10-28 10:38
Credited to the Great Law of the Iroquois:
"In every deliberation, we must consider the impact of the seventh generation...even if it requires having skin as thick as the bark of a pine."

And then we showed up. In our seven generations in North America we have decimated human and animal populations, poisoned the water, contaminated the land and air, and now fight over everything that is left. Our skin is as thin as the layer of breathable air on this one fragile planet which is all we have. We point at other governments that rape their own lands as if that justifies our carelessness with our own. A leader like Jimmy Carter who encourages conservation and common sense is reviled.

We're a short-term race, we humans. Greedy for short-term profits and immediate gratification, short-sighted in our goals. Greed and hubris our defining characteristics . Sorry, my lovely granddaughter...we're screwed.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote

+3 # Joanedra 2012-10-28 11:14
Do three things, then decide...

At first glance I wanted to shout "Hallelujah", someone in mainstream news has FINALLY addressed geoengineering! Then (did you hear me?) I screamed " 'TESTING THE WATERS', MY ASS! GEOENGINEERING HAS BEEN GOING ON WORLD WIDE FOR AT LEAST TWO DECADES!"

Where is Ms. Klein's head? Maybe it is in some dark place where she cannot see the planes spraying, hear their engines, or breathe their aerosols of nanoparticles of aluminum, barium, strontium, self-replicating biological elements and other unknown substances. Maybe Ms. Klein should have her blood tested, as I and others have done, revealing extremely high levels of heavy metals like the ones, you know, THEY ARE SPRAYING ON US!

Listen to Rosalind Peterson, a former certified U.S.D.A. Farm Service Agency crop-loss-adjustor who tells how our crops and plant life are being devastated by geoengineering.

Educate yourself with the film "What In The World Are They Spraying" with G. Edward Griffin.

Learn of the in-depth and comprehensive research of Cliff Carnicom at the Carnicom Institute by clicking on "Geo-Engineering - Aerosol Research".

Do those three things, then revisit Ms. Klein's article. Do I hear "gatekeeper"?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote

+2 # brianf 2012-10-28 11:36
I've been reading the latest reports and papers about all aspects of global warming and climate change for years, and when I put them all together, they indicate there is a very high chance that things are much worse than most people realize (or at least are willing to say), and that includes Bill McKibben and Naomi Klein.

Of course I am against private companies doing large scale geoengineering experiments. But it's past time for scientists to do carefully controlled and monitored small scale geoengineering experiments. We need to know what the effects and side effects actually ARE as opposed to what people think they might be.

I'm pretty sure we have delayed too long for prevention alone, or prevention plus adaptation, to be enough, and that is even IF we make serious changes to our energy system soon. If we add mitigation (geoengineering ), a 3-prong approach might still save us, and save the world from a mass extinction. If we don't do the tests now, we won't know which techniques are safest if and when we need to deploy them.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote

0 # TomThumb 2012-10-28 11:43
Oh, great! When I went into the chemical engineering field in the early '70's, the big thing was units to remove sulfur from oil. This was to prevent the release of SO2 into the atmosphere to prevent acid rain, a problem you don't hear of much anymore. This resulted in the manufacture of huge blocks of pure sulfur that nobody knew what to do with. Now, we want to release that sulfur back into the atmosphere to prevent global warming.
The Saudi Oil Minister, no less, made the remark that the Stone Age did not end because the world ran out of stones. He was referring to the peak oil concept. However, the stone industry, in that era, was not backed by huge legally santcioned formations of capital, with rights that actually far exceed those of any citizen, like Exxon and Chevron.
The way to combat global warming is to stop putting the gases into the atmosphere that cause global warming, even if that is harmful to the business model of these formations of capital.
Tommy Rimes
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote

+1 # pdjmoo 2012-10-28 11:54
Thank you Naomi for entering into this Geoengineering debate which could have an irreverible impacts on all of our planet.
For the edification of your readers, I offer the following which is a history and timeline of another geoengineering experiment that has been going on for years, quietly and in secret: Weather Modification --
"Raining Chemicals From the Skies – Unregulated Climate Geoengineering" http://ow.ly/ePx80
At some point, we humans must come to realize that, in truth, science knows so little about how the greater biosphere of our planet works and the trillions and trillions of symbiotic relationships that sustain it. To think we can continue to plunder Mother Earth and band aid our isolated destruction of Her without suffering horrendous consequences is risking an environmental collapse. Without Nature We Do Not Exist. Healthy ecosystems, means healthy humans. In the final analysis we cannot drink oil or eat money. Planet, People, Profits
Again, thank you Naomi for your concern and for bringing this to light.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote

+1 # cordleycoit 2012-10-28 11:55
See what happens when you give every thin to the rich they get to screw the planet with their harebrained ideas. One fool after another is trying to "save" us from us.
See what happens when you put megalomaniacs in charge.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote

0 # skywatcher 2012-10-28 12:12
Joanedra is absolutely right!

Geoengineering has already been deployed for at least 16 years, and we are being bombarded with aluminum, barium, strontium, and other chemicals on an almost daily basis. Look up, everyone--and wake up!

This is the biggest threat facing us all that we can actually DO something about. It's right in front of us, and the evidence is powerful and overwhelming, everyday--even on days when we are Not sprayed, because that proves that regular 'contrails' must not exist every day either...

Only thing to update from Joanedra's post is that a new, better documentary just came out 2 months ago: "Why in the World Are They Spraying?" -- an in-depth follow-up to "What...?" -- and it's available in full at youtube. Do yourself and your loved ones a favor and watch this Now--and then spread the word about it.

"Why" indeed. How's your weather been lately, especially the last year or so? Ours is unheard of.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote

Refresh comments list
RSS feed for comments to this post.
Subscribe