Perspective: Russ George's geoengineering project. Plankton Bloom. UN Violation.

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Interesting story from the Guardian, about a supposed "geoengineering experiment" carried out off the coast of Canada.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/15/pacific-iron-fertilisation-geoengineering


Yellow and brown colours show relatively high concentrations of chlorophyll in August 2012, after iron sulphate was dumped into the Pacific Ocean as part of a controversial geoengineering scheme. Photograph: Giovanni/Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information Services Center/NASA

A controversial American businessman dumped around 100 tonnes of iron sulphate into the Pacific Ocean as part of a geoengineering scheme off the west coast of Canada in July, a Guardian investigation can reveal.
Lawyers, environmentalists and civil society groups are calling it a "blatant violation" of two international moratoria and the news is likely to spark outrage at a United Nations environmental summit taking place in India this week.
Satellite images appear to confirm the claim by Californian Russ George that the iron has spawned an artificial plankton bloom as large as 10,000 square kilometres. The intention is for the plankton to absorb carbon dioxide and then sink to the ocean bed – a geoengineering technique known as ocean fertilisation that he hopes will net lucrative carbon credits.

Content from External Source
And a follow-up here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/17/canada-geoengineering-pacific?newsfeed=true
The chief executive of the company responsible for spawning the artificial 10,000 square kilometre plankton bloom in the Pacific Ocean has implicated several Canadian departments, but government officials are remaining silent about the nature of their involvement.

In an interview with Canadian radio, John Disney said: "I've been in touch with many departments within the federal ministry. All I'm saying is that everyone from the Canadian Revenue Agency down to the National Research Council and Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Environment Canada – these people, they've all known about this."
Content from External Source
First of all, let's have a look at that diagram showing the bloom. You can get them from here:
http://gdata1.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/daac-bin/G3/gui.cgi?instance_id=WaterQuality
It looks quite impressive with orange and red all along the coast.



Oh, wait a second. THAT'S FROM 2010. Yes, two years earlier, in the same month, the coastline looked pretty much the same.

Here's six years of Augusts.


The bloom is the orange blob in the middle of the 2012 image. All the other orange seems to be just normal variations. Here's the bloom in global context:



So what's going on? The Guardian seems to be speculating that Russ George is a con-artist, and that he's just doing this to rip off the Haida People, and their bank:

The Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation was established by Old Masset village after they borrowed $2.5m dollars from a Canadian credit union, which provided the loan despite flagging numerous concerns about George's credibility and his plans to try to win carbon credits for the project.
University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver told media that there are "profound implications" to dumping iron, and no guarantee that the ocean can be used as a carbon sink.
"They are not going to get a penny in carbon credits, because there's no evidence the carbon is going to stay where it is," he said.
Content from External Source


(The link went to a pdf file that has since been taken down, I've attached a copy here. )
View attachment OMVC_HP_application-ocr.pdf
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
View attachment OMVC_HP_application-ocr.pdf

Here's the letter from the Credit Union, advising them of the problems while at the same time approving their loan.

February 28, 2011Old Masset Village Council
Box 189
Masset, BC
V0T 1M0
Attn; Mr John T Jones, Chief Councillor
Dear Mr Jones,
Re: Application for Commercial Loan
We are pleased to advise that Northern Savings Credit Union (the
"Credit Union") has approved your commercial loan application
upon the following terms and conditions:
1. Borrower:
2. Lender:
3. Credit Facility:
4. Purpose:
Old Masset Village Council (OMVC)
Northern Savings Credit Union - Masset Branch
Commercial Term Loan for: $2,500,000

To assist in the start up of a sustainable
ocean restoration company

As part of our ongoing discussion with respect to this loan approval,
our Board of Directors requested that we forward you the findings
of our due diligence in the hopes that if we have uncovered
something that you were not aware of, it would provide you an
opportunity to further expand your own due diligence of the project
Based on the discussions to date with Mr. Disney as well as
specific websites which we have been directed to as background
information we had the impression that Planktos Science was a
recognized world authority and that informed scientists generally
favoured the proposed process. Also the market was apparently
proven, since we were led to believe that "retail outlets and banks
in Germany are begging for the product".

On further investigation from our own external resources, we fully
expected the web sites identified by Mr. Disney to specifically
address this type of proposal and be clearly supportive. We were;
therefore, surprised to find the following:

1. Alfred Wegener Institute: The first page clearly states that
AWI "opposes large scale iron fertilization." It does not
temper this statement to say if it would support any kind of
iron fertilization.
2. The Australian: notes the Royal Society report which raises
concerns about [possible side effects and concludes that
more research is needed).
3. Energy Collective; says that "dumping iron is probably not a
cool idea".
4. Open Ocean questions whether the practice would be
considered fertilizing or polluting under international law.

They also question whether the process would sequester as
much as claimed and refers to possible side effects.

Lest you conclude that we have merely picked out the negative
biases from otherwise favourable reviews we invite you to visit
the sites. It is also instructive to use those same sites to search
for references to Planktos Science. Certainly we could find no
reference to proprietary technology or recognition of Planktos
Science as a "world leader" in this area.

Other key factors are the character and capacity of the
proponent Planktos Science and the market for the carbon
offsets. Again, we were unable to satisfy ourselves from the
information we were able to find.

Planktos Science's principal, Russ George has clearly been
active in promoting this process for several years but there is
conflicting information about his results. White it is not unusual
for a pioneering entrepreneur to have ups and downs gathering
some detractors along the way, we did not find and independent
confirmation that Planktos Science is a high level science based
organization "recognized as a world leader1' or that it has
"proprietary technology." Schoppman.org is identified as the
link to the buyers for carbon offsets but again their website gave
no specifics about their expertise or capacity to perform this
role.

If you have not already done so we would suggest the following
questions ought to be asked and acceptable, authoritative and
credible answers ought to be expected prior to proceeding with
this project:

1) Who might you contact at the Alfred Wegener Institute who
could give a clear opinion (or at least some independent
informed comments) regarding the proposed fertilization
process? Are they aware of Planktos Science and do they
have concerns about side effects?
2) Mr. Disney states that he has "run this by same of the top
people in the world." it would be beneficial if the business
case could have names attached to this
comment...and,..those names verified as to their expertise
in the field.
3) Who exactly carries out the certification process and is the
"Certificate of Authenticity" a generally accepted standard
acceptable to any potential purchaser?
4) Is any licensing required to dump/fertilize in the open ocean?
5) Can Schoppman provide its credentials in this specific area
and some evidence of interest in principal from potential
purchasers? Have they approved the certification process?
If Schoppman doesn't perform, how would the market be
accessed?
6) Will Planktos Science provide a list of its scientific staff
members and confirmation of its financial soundness? What
has been the local experience with the existing salmon
restoration activities?

The above by no means represents an exhaustive research
in terms of due diligence on our part. It does however point
out further due diligence that ought to be conducted prior to
engaging is such a venture.


Clearly, this credit as structured really represents a loan
being made on a fully secured basis wiith Term Deposits as
collateral and as such one might argue that you are clearly
borrowing your own money. Whilst this does certainly gives
considerable comfort to your banking partner, there is from
our perspective a requirement to provide you with our candid
opinion of the risks associated with this project. In this way
we can clearly say we have assisted our member to the best
of our ability in having them recognize the risks associated
should they choose to proceed. As your trusted banker and
advisor we would recommend you give serious consideration
to the above and satisfy yourselves with appropriate
responses that would allow you to proceed.
Content from External Source
 

MikeC

Closed Account
The NOAA/NASA links may also be through the Haida Salmon Restoration Project.

Eg they have a partnership with NOAA that seems to provide ocean monitoring equipment:

By June we were equipping our research ship which departed in July and remained on station well into September. It carried our team of ocean scientists representing many disciplines. The ship deployed and recovered the Slocum gliders at sea and in partnership with the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration also deployed 20 instrumented Argos Drifters which will remain at sea for more than a year reporting hourly via satellite on their position and instrument observations. Instruments aboard the ship have been used to collect tens of thousands of instrument data sets of both air and water, water samples from surface to great depth, and biological samples. Specific to our ocean pastures phytoplankton we’ve employed an array of bio-optical instruments from orbital, ship board, glider, and deep submersible platforms including multi-spectral fluorometers and FIRe systems.
Content from External Source
Also see their Press Release on the bouys

I don't se any specific mention of NASA on the Salmon restoration site, but NASSA do have a couple of baseline databases of marine plant and invertibrate life at Haida on their website here - but that isn't exactly "equipment"
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
That HSRC site is interesting, making no mention of geoengineering, just improving conditions for salmon.

I guess I'll wait and see on this one. The story will come out.
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
Whoa ... you say "The bloom is the orange blob in the middle of the 2012 image" ... who drew the box around that in the Guardian's Mr. Disney i would guess. The lat/long would place this way too far offshore for the mileage that Mr. Disney reported.

I think it far more likely that he just, like you, downloaded the free chlorphyll a chart from nasa, drew a box around a bloom he liked and emailed it to the Guardian.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Whoa ... you say "The bloom is the orange blob in the middle of the 2012 image" ... who drew the box around that in the Guardian's Mr. Disney i would guess. The lat/long would place this way too far offshore for the mileage that Mr. Disney reported.

I think it far more likely that he just, like you, downloaded the free chlorphyll a chart from nasa, drew a box around a bloom he liked and emailed it to the Guardian.

The Guardian story says "200 nautical miles west of Haida Gwaii", which is about right for the location of the supposed bloom. Maybe The Guardian got that from the image itself though, Was there some difference claims of mileage from Disney?
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
"Well, Iron Sulfate isn't iron dust. It is in fact, fertilizer. And based on the NASA photos, the fertilizer apparently worked. And since fish eat plankton, then it was, in fact, a fish restoration project. You might actually want to deal in facts here."

Not a bad comment immediately visible....

Farmers do it. Do you object? In some circumstances you should.
 
J

Joe

Guest
Excellent article . . . !!
this is from Ken Caldiera ( I dont think he likes the article ?)
Of course, this statement of Naomi Klein's is false (unless you are willing to stretch the meaning of the word 'could' to encompass everything that is not a logical impossibility):


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.
Content from External Source


Surely, models suggest the contrary, that solar goengineering may allow those who are disproportionately vulnerable to the impacts of climate change to avoid some of the harm.


A robust result of solar geoengineering simulations is that these methods, at least in the models, reduce the amount of climate change for most people in most places most of the time. Although there is always a chance that someplace might be negatively impacted, the robust results are that solar geoengineering tends to increase food production by diminishing heat stress (see attachment).

By working to remove an option that vulnerable communities might use to reduce harm caused primarily by CO2 emissions from developed countries, Naomi Klein, ETC, etc are increasing the potential for damage to "the disproportionately vulnerable". In their effort to be politically correct, they are exposing to increased risk the very communities they paternally (maternally?) claim to be protecting.


Content from External Source
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Is it now?

There are many reasons for animal behavior other than what was offered.

It's particularly uninformed opinion.
Just because specific details of any opinion piece can be challenged doesn't mean the entire primse of the ideas presented are bogus . . . I feel the concern voiced regarding rogue actions by the eccentric elite was spot on . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Just because specific details of any opinion piece can be challenged doesn't mean the entire primse of the ideas presented are bogus . . . I feel the concern voiced regarding rogue actions by the eccentric elite was spot on . . .

I think David Lewis addresses some problems in Klein's argument quite well here:

https://groups.google.com/d/topic/geoengineering/jiq3ADNfibA/discussion
Naomi has invented her own distorted version of an idea Bill McKibben first advanced in the late 1980s in his book "The End of Nature". McKibben wrote at that time that he felt differently about being in what he formerly regarded as the pristine wilderness now that he realized that human activity had changed the composition of the atmosphere which had changed global climate which must have changed every ecosystem on the planet.


Naomi's use of this McKibben idea requires her to define everything as fine until she heard all the fuss about a geoengineering experiment out in the Pacific.


Now she can't look at an orca swimming in the Gulf of Georgia in front of her home without worrying that it wouldn't be swimming there unless that 120 tonnes of fertilizer had been dumped in the Pacific hundreds of miles away. She feels strange. She writes: "once we start deliberately interfering with earth's climate systems - whether by dimming the sun or fertilizing the seas - all natural events can begin to take on a sinister tinge. ....as if all of nature were being manipulated behind the scenes".



1,000,000 tonnes per hour of the CO2 that is emitted into the atmosphere by civilization is absorbed by the ocean every hour, but a one time application of 120 tonnes of fertilizer, because it is "deliberate" in a way that the CO2 Naomi emits while flying around the world on her speaking tours isn't, bothers her.
Content from External Source
Or in other words, there's a disproportionate amount of outrage over this one experiment in ocean fertilization compared to the amount of actual pollution (not just CO2) in the world.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I think David Lewis addresses some problems in Klein's argument quite well here:

https://groups.google.com/d/topic/geoengineering/jiq3ADNfibA/discussion
Naomi has invented her own distorted version of an idea Bill McKibben first advanced in the late 1980s in his book "The End of Nature". McKibben wrote at that time that he felt differently about being in what he formerly regarded as the pristine wilderness now that he realized that human activity had changed the composition of the atmosphere which had changed global climate which must have changed every ecosystem on the planet.


Naomi's use of this McKibben idea requires her to define everything as fine until she heard all the fuss about a geoengineering experiment out in the Pacific.


Now she can't look at an orca swimming in the Gulf of Georgia in front of her home without worrying that it wouldn't be swimming there unless that 120 tonnes of fertilizer had been dumped in the Pacific hundreds of miles away. She feels strange. She writes: "once we start deliberately interfering with earth's climate systems - whether by dimming the sun or fertilizing the seas - all natural events can begin to take on a sinister tinge. ....as if all of nature were being manipulated behind the scenes".



1,000,000 tonnes per hour of the CO2 that is emitted into the atmosphere by civilization is absorbed by the ocean every hour, but a one time application of 120 tonnes of fertilizer, because it is "deliberate" in a way that the CO2 Naomi emits while flying around the world on her speaking tours isn't, bothers her.
Content from External Source
Or in other words, there's a disproportionate amount of outrage over this one experiment in ocean fertilization compared to the amount of actual pollution (not just CO2) in the world.

Doesn't a major experiment by a private entity concern you?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Doesn't a major experiment by a private entity concern you?

As a one-off, no. It has zero effect on the climate, and likely less-than-noise effect on the local ecosystem. It seems like it was essentially a salmon fertilization project, and the only "geoengineering" aspect was that he said they might be able to sell carbon offsets.
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
Russ George speaks out in a recent Scientific American interview.

We are trying to replenish and restore the pasture and we are portrayed as villains.
Content from External Source
I get the impression he's found a way to investigate his primary interest of carbon sequestering under the guise of helping a struggling indian tribe. When attacked, he argues that his motives are altruistic. The fact he has a history of advocating geoengineering via ocean fertilization and has engaged in several entrepreneurial schemes of selling carbon credits makes me doubt his motive was only to help a indian tribe with 70% unemployment.

He claims to have done his due diligence and his actions are covered by Canadian law. He also claims to have gathered a huge amount of data that he is in the process of analyzing. I'm not sure if I'd trust his methodology or conclusions, but maybe the scientific community at large could use his data.

Whatever the case, there is not any evidence of conspiracy or the involvement of wealthy global elites.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The Earthquake connection has been made :)

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread894473/pg1

The 7.7 Earthquake which hit the coast of British Columbia on Saturday night occurred in the same region where the worlds largest Geoengineering experiment took place a few months ago.

In July 2012 a private businessman named Russ George, or as the Vancouver Sun has dubbed him the “rogue climate hacker” dumped over 100 tonnes of iron into the pacific ocean, just off the coast of British Columbia (Haida Gwaii) in the largest ever geoengineering experiment.

Could this be simply be a coincidence? Well as many in the alternative media have realized. Coincidences in situations like this are very, very rare...
Content from External Source
 
Top