Planktos president responds to environmentalist critics

In an op-ed, Russ George claims his company has been unfairly maligned

Posted by David Roberts at 10:45 AM on 28 Jun 2007

Read more about: business | climate | climate change mitigation | geoengineering

A company called Planktos has taken some lumps on our site, so when their president, Russ George, sent this response along, I agreed to run it. (It ran originally in the Ottawa Citizen.) Your responses are welcome, but please, keep them civil.

-----

As someone who has committed most of my waking life to caring for the planet, recent misleading reports on the foundations and future of my current company's work have led me to reflect on some large and important questions.

Let me start with a bit of personal history to provide some context. My career on behalf of the planet began with my education as a biologist and in post-university life with the tree-planting company I founded (Coast Range) in British Columbia in 1972. Along with planting and caring for scores of millions of trees in Canada, I also helped in many volunteer roles on behalf of the environment, including standing night watch at sea on the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior. I worked for government and industry as an environmental manager, crafting and enforcing environmental regulations and prescribing remedies to mitigate harm being done to the environment. I was also a writer, producer and director in the late '80s of the award-winning documentary films The Wild Pacific Salmon and The New Environmentalists.

In more recent years, since 1997, my work has focused substantially on developing and delivering programs to accomplish ecorestoration of the trees and seas as a means to help cure some of the damage done by the ravages of fossil fuel carbon dioxide and to curtail further damage. In this latter work I've been developing Canada's first major eco-restoration climate forest company, HaidaClimate, in partnership with the native peoples of the Queen Charlotte Islands (Haida Gwaii). In partnership with the government of Hungary through our Planktos subsidiary company KlimaFa, we are now beginning to grow vast new forests within the national park system of Europe. I have also been an adviser to governments in Central America and Asia on eco-restoration strategies in the world of the Kyoto Protocol and climate change.

Planktos's boat the Weatherbird II sets sail on its mission to dump iron dust into the Pacific. Combining all of this has resulted in the creation of the public company called Planktos, which was founded with multiple purposes, two of which are to address the most critical problems of our small blue planet: global warming and the ecological collapse it is forcing upon ocean and terrestrial plant life.

And yes, we do this for profit and expect to earn good returns for those who invest in our public company stock.

After all of this work, I was shocked when Planktos came under attack from fringe environmentalists, who were later joined by a few other organizations and scientists with unfounded reservations about Planktos' methods.

Since the attacks refer to our ocean work, it's important to describe that work. Following 20 years and $100 million worth of international spending on pure academic science studies of the ocean crisis and possible solution(s), it is clear the single most critical ocean issue is the decline of available iron, which comes primarily from dust in the wind. In our work we will mimic natural processes and use natural iron ore, red hematite, to replenish missing iron and "fertilize" modest, forest-sized patches of ocean, restoring plankton growth (and aquatic life) and effectively sequestering fossil carbon for millennia.

This is a way to safely store the excess carbon each of us adds to our atmosphere every day. In fact, it may be the most efficient route we have. It is likely the most useful means to help the planet, as the healthy green plants that grow in plankton blooms are the most critical part of the planetary ecology that is impacted most when we produce excess CO2 in the atmosphere. Excess CO2 leads to global warming, ocean acidification, and loss of ocean plant life.

My expectation has been that many groups would call for increased research, which, as a scientist, I have demonstrably committed my life to doing. Others would call for caps and regulations on when and if the method comes into the carbon markets fully fledged, which I am also fully aligned with. But to come under such an extreme attack, in a way that misrepresents both our intent and our actions, skews our research, and impugns our motives in quite dramatic ways is another story.

Why, in a time when our beloved planet is in dire straits, would environmentalists turn on their own? Why is the suspicion and cynicism so deep that it would lead to falsified and emotionally charged mudslinging in press releases and letters to the editor? Why the refusal by some to discuss our approach in more accurate detail and to report on those accurate details? And why the refusal by media and others to consider the possibility that their opening volley was misaligned?

Perhaps it is a kind of fundamentalism that drives this, where all for-profit companies are intrinsically evil, all interventions -- even restorative ones -- a form of desecration. Perhaps they fear that if the patient, in this case Mother Earth, is somehow brought back from the edge of death, their raison d'etre will disappear. I have a hard time understanding what their motives might be.

It seems all is fair game once the enemy is identified. But what if the company or person in the sights is not actually an enemy? What if that company and its people are deeply aligned with the same principles, and our snap judgments have led us to see them with dark red glasses?

In a time of dire straits, we really need all hands on deck, working together to find solutions. We are not yet sure of exactly how effective iron fertilization is as a method to restore oceans and alleviate global warming. Our best estimates are that one-half of global carbon excess could be turned into a revived plankton forest, and in the bargain restore ocean fisheries if we just restore the ocean plants to the state of health they had in 1970. That's why we need good science, creativity, and collaboration: to find out exactly what role iron replenishment can play in the solution to this catastrophic manmade problem.

Verbal mudslinging serves only to degrade our collective green cause and postpone possible solutions. Instead of leading us to come together and collaborate far more extensively than ever before, it leads to factionalism, suspicion, and infighting. It obscures the noble quest for truth. That's why it is so damaging and unfortunate.

What I most dearly hope is that we can all move beyond infighting and into solidarity in finding, researching, and providing true solutions to the perils ahead.

Russ George is founder, president and CEO of Planktos, KlimaFa and HaidaClimate.

For story: Planktos president responds to environmentalist critics
29 Comments | Post a Comment

I'm with him...

Many environmentalists are fundamentalist in their nature. Also, despite the need to conserve and reduce use, etc., etc., this will not get us out of CO2-enriched world. It is here to stay, and the positive feedback cycles will continue, even if we continue to decrease our emissions to pre-industrial levels.

So...

Sequestration is our only hope/goal to correct this. Planktos is working in the right direction. Their methods may need to be scrutinized a little bit more, but it seems like there's a good chance of it working.

by atreyger at 11:16 AM on 28 Jun 2007

On deck

I have read about carbon mitigation that would reduce plankton growth, something I hope Planktos would vigorously resist. That alternate scheme would dump SO2 into the upper atmosphere to block sunlight. The tree people thought for decades that they had carbon sequestration in the bag, until proven wrong. If Planktos is also wrong it would be no fault of their hearts and imagination, and not likely to cause the damage of corn ethanol runoff creating dead zones in the oceans. (I do worry about hypoxia from excessive concentration of iron.) The nuclear people feel particularly persecuted by environmentalists, and they love their children too. I have also felt the heat of environmentalists for proposing solar concentrators in the desert.

People fear deception during crisis. Yet, mistakes are mostly just a waste of time and money, and not the common problem we face. Bottom line is there won't be anybody around to point fingers if we collectively fail to to stop carbon emissions.

I wish I knew more about the potential of iron, plankton, and whether and how much captured plankton carbon is actually permanently sequestered.

by sunflower at 11:32 AM on 28 Jun 2007

Decreasing iron?

I don't know if Mr. George is going to read or respond to these comments, but if so I would like to know what evidence he has that the supply of iron to the ocean in the form of dust is declining. Certainly iron fertilization only works in high nutrient regions of the ocean where plankton activity is limited by an iron deficit. However, I have never heard anyone argue that the iron deficit in those regions is anything new or represents any kind of declining trend. Even if this were true, would it really represent "the single most critical ocean issue"? I've heard lots of ocean advocates talk about the devastating effects of over fishing, or the rise of toxic flora in response to declining large fauna, coral bleaching from rising temperatures, and ocean acidification. These are truly critical ocean issues. This is the first I've heard of the tragic decline in dissolved iron.

cloudy

by cloudy at 12:54 PM on 28 Jun 2007

What is the argument?

What are the arguments of the critics and what are the responses?

Russ George has told us his personal history and called his critics "extemists", "mud-slingers", and "fundamentalists". These statements are all extraneous to the issues, as is the call for unity and "all hands on deck."

I don't know - I'm not familiar with the case and Mr. George may be right. But this post has little information content, which makes me suspicious.

I looked at the criticisms that David Roberts mentioned. In contrast to this post by Mr. George, they seem to focused on the facts of the case. And Gar Lipow is no extremist, mud-slinger or fundamentalist.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

by Bart Anderson at 1:04 PM on 28 Jun 2007

plankton

It's the cartoons I tell you! They've made Plankton a greedy, profit-driven, bad guy.

Seriously, good answer Mr. George.

I think while I haven't taken a strong position on iron schemes, I've been mistrustful. There are many ways it could be done greedily, sloppily, and for profit. If Planktos stands up to criticism, and is able document safety and effectiveness, we'll have a win-win. I'm sure, after all, that Mr. George wouldn't want it to go too far the other way ... whit "bad players" driving such mitigation experiments.

by odograph at 1:17 PM on 28 Jun 2007

Please don't cry foul

if you aren't able to be specific, Mr. George.

Calling your critics, which include the leading scientists in the field and environmental groups including Friends of the Earth, the ETC Group, the International Center for Technology Assessment and Greenpeace, "mudslingers" who are "misleading" is not warranted unless you actually say how we are misleading people or what mud we are slinging. Without such specifics, you are merely making ad hominem attacks that damage your own credibility.

The fact is, top oceanographers say large-scale iron fertilization of the oceans (a) endangers ocean ecosystms and (b) is unlikely to work as an offset, as much carbon will eventually return to the atmosphere once plankton die.

When the EPA asked Planktos to clarify what it's up to (such as whether other chemicals are being dumped in addition to iron, or whether Planktos is taking steps to determine whether ocean ecosystems are adversely affected), Planktos claimed to be "unable" to answer the EPA's questions. This does not inspire confidence.

You have a nice personal story Mr. George, and some nice rhetoric, but these are not enough to merit your manipulating the ocean as you see fit, without regulation and without oversight -- especially when leading scientists express such concern.

Nick Berning
Friends of the Earth
www.foe.org

by berning at 2:07 PM on 28 Jun 2007
[ Parent ]

Scientific basis for iron seeding

Here is a link to a review from the journal Science regarding iron-deficiency in the ocean:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/315/5812/6 ...

The abstract states:

Since the mid-1980s, our understanding of nutrient limitation of oceanic primary production has radically changed. Mesoscale iron addition experiments (FeAXs) have unequivocally shown that iron supply limits production in one-third of the world ocean, where surface macronutrient concentrations are perennially high. The findings of these 12 FeAXs also reveal that iron supply exerts controls on the dynamics of plankton blooms, which in turn affect the biogeochemical cycles of carbon, nitrogen, silicon, and sulfur and ultimately influence the Earth climate system. However, extrapolation of the key results of FeAXs to regional and seasonal scales in some cases is limited because of differing modes of iron supply in FeAXs and in the modern and paleo-oceans. New research directions include quantification of the coupling of oceanic iron and carbon biogeochemistry.

While I am leary of geo-engineering schemes, I wouldn't claim this is junk science. Table 1 in the article shows chlorophyll concentrations going from 0.2 to 0.6 mg/m^3 for one seeded bloom, 0.5 to 2.8 for another, etc. The data seem to suggest that seeding in the summertime is the most efficient way to promote plankton growth.

Supplementary tables available here:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/315/5812/612/D ...

-- entropyproduction.blogspot.com

by rmcleod at 2:23 PM on 28 Jun 2007

Well it could work

Well it could work, or it could not go badly.

It's much like playing Russian Roulette with the earth's largest carbon sink.

Catch being, we don't know how many bullets are in the gun.
http://greyfalcon.net/ccs

by GreyFlcn at 2:43 PM on 28 Jun 2007
[ Parent ]

One more time

^^ bleh

Well it could work, or it could go badly.
It's much like playing Russian Roulette with the earth's largest carbon sink.
Catch being, we don't know how many bullets are in the gun.

You have to ask yourself. Do you feel lucky?
Lucky enough to gamble the fate of the world?

by GreyFlcn at 2:50 PM on 28 Jun 2007
[ Parent ]

Micro-Layer Collapse

>> Far from harming marine life, George says, the plans of iron enrichment will actually revitalize phytoplankton, whose numbers have been steadily dropping over the last couple decades, as was reported in a Dec. 7 paper in the journal Nature.

"The plant life in the ocean is collapsing at a rate of 1 percent per year," the same amount of decline as is seen in terrestrial rainforests, George said.

But the total amount of decline in phytoplankton biomass is equivalent to the disappearance of all the rainforests on Earth, George said, and which he describes as "an absolute cataclysmic state of collapse." >>

Ever wonder why the CO2 levels are rising ?

Wonder why the marine micro-layer biosphere has collapsed ?

by JohnCaley at 3:06 AM on 29 Jun 2007

Another Critique from a Critic

Hey, all:

These are some very persuasive comments from Russ George. "Slick" is the word that comes to mind, but despite that there is some substance here as well. It does need careful examination, though, and there are some glaring weaknesses and missteps.

First, you better step away from calling people "fringe environmentalists". This will get you shot down faster than just about anything. This attempt is pejorative, prejudiced, a little desperate, and seriously mars your position.

Second, as already referred to, the term "mudslinging" also has no place here. If you learned all you should from the experience you catalog, and based on the initial suggested quality of your comments, you would not resort to such foolish immature attempts to characterize the genuine, informed, earnest observations, research, and conclusions of others, whether in the scientific or the environmental community.

Flowery speech substituting for substance is a trick employed by politicians and marketing types, designed to flatter, threaten, and persuade. There is a difference, however, when sincerely presented and backed with substance. It remains to be seen which is the case here.

As examples of the apparent weaknesses here, I had a great deal of difficulty finding out anything about the HaidaClimate project, beyond the PR hype. It was difficult, for example, just to find out what the Hell, and where the Hell this is. On a basic level, it would be very easy to offer an easily accessible online citation that would provide some technical and scientific background for the project, absent the PR crap. We all can tell the difference between thorough planning in documentation for real habitat restoration projects and projects intended to establish mono-sylviculture stands. Give us some citations. Refer us to some photos to show evidence of progress or succession. This is a widely used tool to document change in habitats over time. Just as a simple example of the level of effort that should be expected, I live on 32 acres of brush, and have cataloged 315 species present thus far. I have done it, and continue to do so, as part of my own work in prescribed burning, habitat management and restoration, and it preserves and maintains my property tax status. I would expect a much more thorough comprehensive effort for such an extensive and intensive project as yours. Give us some documentation.

Regarding the proposal to seed the ocean with iron to promote algal growth and carbon sequestration, we should expect some similarly high-quality, substantive supporting results available in documentation. One thing that seems completely out of place and therefore questionable is the assertion that "it is clear the single most critical ocean issue is the decline of available iron..." Greater than overfishing? Greater than habitat loss? Greater than pollution? Greater than filling of estuarine habitats? Greater than the loss of freshwater inflows? Greater than any of the externalized impacts of industry and urbanization and agriculture and war? And how have humans so seriously curtailed the creation and deposition of dust in the environment that it threatens the marine environment? Provide some accessible proof.

As presented, this all sounds like using yet more untenable technology devised to chase destructive technologically-caused mistakes. So, in fact, it is not a bunch of "fringe environmentalists" as you so glibly characterize us, as it is real substantive problems with the proposal and the use of questionable, troubling technology.

Cut the rhetoric and provide the proof. "...and effectively sequestering fossil carbon for millennia." How long have you been collecting data?

I would reiterate and second the comments that Nick Berning and Bart Anderson offered.

Carbon sequestration without first cutting off the source of the Carbon is like trying to apply the brakes on a runaway train while we still deliberately have the throttle wide open--sheer ignorance resulting in displaced wasteful focus.

David
Sustainability For Life

Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!

by SustainableGreen at 8:00 AM on 29 Jun 2007

Fringe environmentalists

I thought he was just referring to those environmentalists who travel in surreys.

Save your community: Cut greenhouse gas emissions 5% per year.

by JMG at 9:16 AM on 29 Jun 2007

Iron fertilization

Well, in the middle to end-game of industrial environmental destruction, (almost) anything goes. So, maybe dumping tonnes of dust in the seas will help save our souls. But, you know, I suspect not. First of all, if the other 11 smaller experiments didn't yield clear results, why exactly should this bigger one do better? That has not been clearly explained, so far as I can tell.

Secondly, life is seldom so simple (but,I admit that truth is stranger than fiction). I suspect we will have to work harder and do better than this...

Thirdly, there is the name calling thing... Please stop it Mr President; it only harms your company's image further. Amongst the de rigeur nutters, there are many intelligent people also questioning this scheme. Hey you may prove them wrong, but in the meantime you won't win their hearts calling them names.

PS: your credentials clearly show you are an interesting entrepreneur. Don't blow it... (Listen)

Big Red (on a bigger blue planet)

by Big Red at 9:24 AM on 29 Jun 2007
[ Parent ]

Good critique

David,
I have to give it up to you, you presented one of the most questioning critiques on this thread so far. I don't want to speak for Planktos, and will try to avoid doing it as much, but I would like to bring up several points in regard to your post.
One, I do not know the full history behind the pro and con arguments for Planktos proposal; although ocean iron fertilization as a means of carbon sequestration has been around for at least six or seven years and probably longer than that. It seems like a contrived way to sequester carbon, but in my opinion, since the increased CO2 is already having an impact on greenhouse gas cycles and will increase the effect of positive feedback cycles, we cannot focus on decreasing CO2 emissions alone. Mind you, I say ALONE. We need to find a way to get CO2 out of the atmosphere, because otherwise it's here to stay.
Planktos project appears like it might work, so I say that the proposed trial should be a good way to determine that.

Two, and this is maybe where I am putting words into people's mouths that do not belong there, I think that "it is clear the single most critical ocean issue is the decline of available iron..." maybe should have stated "it is clear the single most critical ocean issue [with regard to carbon sequestration?] is the decline of available iron...". As far as the actual "single most critical ocean issue", it likely varies from the field of the researcher, the location of the scientist, and the granting agency's preference for funding.

Three, the Haida project's mission seems to be well spelled out on their web site. I would also like to add that many locations up north (and this does not apply to this particular project) are candidates for monocultural plantation type plantings, because of the original nature of the taiga ecosystems.

That's all I have to say,
Artem

by atreyger at 9:28 AM on 29 Jun 2007

Mud slinging in glass houses

You lost me at "fringe environmentalist." You're going to do have to do a hell of a lot better than name calling and self-administered back pats if you want the support of this "fringe environmentalist" for your arrogant geoengineering experiment.

by Coyote369 at 11:58 AM on 29 Jun 2007

caution: ecosystem at work

We are not yet sure of exactly how effective iron fertilization is as a method to restore oceans and alleviate global warming.

This much is clear. From the concerns expressed by your peers (i.e., the fringe element), it is also clear that you are not yet sure of exactly how destructive your experiment might be to the complex relationships that balance the ocean ecosystem. I'm still waiting to hear one example of a geo-engineering experiment which has produced unquestionably favorable results over the long term (planting trees where trees used to be is not geo-engineering). To proceed with this experiment without the general approval and oversight of the scientific community is arrogant and reckless, regardless of the purity of your motives.

a liberal in redsville

by birdboy at 12:07 PM on 29 Jun 2007

I know How it Feels George

>> Amongst the de rigeur nutters, there are many intelligent people also questioning this scheme >>

People who just open their mouths, will prevent remediation.... forever.

This world does not have any choices.

One does get very tired of mindless and destructive criticism. Hey, it is so easy to be a doubter, or a groupie. It is so much harder (almost impossible in this age) to stand upon your own two feet and actually understand and add to a discussion.

Once more around the merry-go-round of mindless rubbish, meanwhile our world drifts aimlessly towards death.

by JohnCaley at 4:26 PM on 30 Jun 2007

Cockamanie schemes

JohnCaley: One does get very tired of mindless and destructive criticism. Hey, it is so easy to be a doubter, or a groupie.

John, can't we get to the substance of the proposals? I have been waiting to see some content, but I'm not seeing any.

There are no end of cockamanie schemes being proposed for energy and climate change. Some are merely wasteful, others are destructive. Others may have merit.

If you wish to convince us, please provide good arguments.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

by Bart Anderson at 5:08 PM on 30 Jun 2007

Good Arguments ?

I have a site full of good arguments for ... yes, not what you want to hear !!!

I suggest you digest my site's data or you read my book "The Death of Clouds".

Unfortunately reading omegafour.com may not leave you convinced; Why? because it contains a compilation of relevant scientific data/articles, some I have appended comments.

BUT all the entries are written in scientific language, so the impressions you may gain on reading may not be accurate, so there is a real danger in reading the data without an interpretor.

(compare to reading a legal document, and then telling a lawyer what you THINK it all means...
! what it does mean and what you think can be fatally different)

My book lays it out within hard science fiction storyline, a novel even children can understand ..

It explores the reasons, both for human inertia and the naturally unfolding sequence of consequence, the inertia of the climatic system, the data, the prognosis, the future scenario, the solution and the most probable future outcome.

The Gristmil blog is entirely unsuitable to reproduce data, and even to deeply discuss a scientific issue. This is a "now" forum, topics rush through with no respect for importance of length of discussion.

You do realise I can not reproduce here the library of scientific thought that underpins the whole surface logic.

All I can do is alert y'all, give you access to reputable scientific data, and access to a layman friendly compilation of the science and implications. And I am here to answer questions and be interrogated. That is all I can do via the Internet.

Of course I am not interested in the carbon dioxide overpressure.... My interest is in the oil slick on the sea. However Planktos' activities will somewhat help both, CO2 and the oil slick thickness.

Unfortunately the problem is far greater than I have implied, and in truth there may be no way out of this climate change problem. Extinction is almost certain.

There certainly is no way out via people running in circles and dumping their misconceived criticisms.

Keep that up if you don't want to know, but shoot me first, go right ahead. ... but don't you ever think of the children. Its called the future!!

The fatal climatic changes WILL occur in YOUR lifetime. No one seems to realise how little time there is left, that is if there is any time left.

This is my opinion as a scientist. The evidence is there, the science is there, the logic is there , all we need now is people power to affect change. We must all stand and shout!

Join S O S.... and throw your weight around. There are many who do not want the future to be squandered and some of us actually like the biosphere we live in.

by JohnCaley at 8:48 PM on 30 Jun 2007

Communicating and mis-communicating

John, I'm not clear -- are you associated with Planktos, or do you have a separate set of proposals?

In any case, some suggestions for Planktos and you. I work with technical information too and I agree with what David said upthread:

it would be very easy to offer an easily accessible online citation that would provide some technical and scientific background for the project

Also, I'd suggest formulating FAQs, with your answers to common objections. This would be a good source document when you come to a forum like this.

Perhaps one of the most useful aspects of Gristmill is the thought given to formulating arguments about complex scientific and social issues so that they are persuasive.

Gristmill also allows you to practice your argumentation in a knowledgeable and relatively friendly atmosphere. Hint: it helps if you don't start off with a chip on your shoulder.

From what I've been able to glean, people are agreed that:

That global warming is a big problem.
That it is possible that remediation could help.
On the general principles.
On the large degree of uncertainty.

The disagreement is on the particulars of the projects. Gar and others have expressed reservations.

A helpful next step would be to deal with specific objections, pointing out what you consider to be misunderstandings or errors. This is standard intellectual discourse.

It is no good to say, "Go to my website where all is explained." If you are not able to explain the basic ideas here, and to make a plausible case, well..., this does not engender confidence that it will be explained better elsewhere. And I'm very turned off by the name-calling and the suggestion that we do not understand the urgency of global warming. Nor am I convinced that the science is too complicated for lay people. Twenty years of experience on technical subjects leads me to believe otherwise.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

by Bart Anderson at 11:29 PM on 30 Jun 2007

Points Well Put and Taken

Ok, all suggestions taken on board.

I have been following a spiral education course on Gristmill, where concepts are introduced at a low level and slowly made more concrete as time goes on.

Unfortunately this mode of education presupposes that all the posts I make are read by all people.
It also presupposes that readers are familiar with the articles posted at my website. Sadly I have a life, so I can not play carer.

As you have correctly observed, "a chip in the eye" is not a good look, but if you had followed the progression I have been following, I was greeted with disdain, disbelief, even hostile ad hominen attacks and the "of course" we here know the lot, its all over the web so who are you, attitude was blatant.

A hard line to breakthrough. This is not an isolated Gristmill problem, I encounter unbelievable resistance all over the net. There are very powerful forces that do not want Big Oil made liable.

I have nothing to do with Planktos, and IMO Planktos is doing the right thing, but it really does not know why. The CO2 motivation is a dead end, but the seeding of the marine micro-layer may just be a solution to the oil slick problem. It is the solution I proposed in my novel.

I intend (if possible) to communicate with Planktos and add some suggestions.

Unfortunately the petroleum oil slick forcing climate change may well be intractable, especially now that synthetic oils are produced. These are designed to strongly resist oxidation and microbial attack.

Unless the whole world comes on board, the game is lost.

I think to discuss oil slicks post-by-post with a group that have no access to oil slick data is more than difficult. This is made even more difficult because the slick is under 1mu in thickness so it is basically invisible... maybe a slight silver sheen is seen on the ocean surface. However the presence of the oil slick is well documented in peer reviewed publications. It is common knowledge amongst marine micro-layer biologists, and I expect oil companies, and of course NASA has studied these slicks..... as well as the coast guard and so on .....

As for FAQs, I do think if people do not read the articles I have compiled, then FAQ responses will also not be read. Maybe I may still be writing individual responses right up until the last day.

I do intend on my site to highlight an explanatory line of posts in a thread that would appeal to the general public. But really I think it is all self-explanatory, otherwise I would not have included the articles in the compilation.

The compilation at present unfolds in time (over many years), so as you suggested there is a need to tidy it up to make a case.

Just let it be said, that the ultimate outcome of the ubiquitous marine micro-layer oil slick will be
first, world drought, with all the trimmings
then an Ice Age like none before it. Very rapid changes.

So people who think they can profit by hiding facts will also be frozen solid.

I can not stress that action needs to be taken NOW, and Planktos seems to be the only one stepping up to the plate to have a go.

They may just be a solution even if for the wrong reasons.

by JohnCaley at 3:34 AM on 01 Jul 2007

Algae collection

There ismore than enough fertilizer going into the oceans, no need to add more.

Better to capture the algae growth increase from fertilizer run off and turn it into clean energy. That can reduce GHG.

Increasing the growth rate of phytoplankton in the open ocean will result in more temporary sequestration of carbon, that is tryue, but it will be released again as methane as decomposition occurs.

The way to ultimately reduce GHG is not to dump more fertilizer in the water, but to reduce it by going to organic farming and processing manure, sewage, and farm waste with biodigestion. Restoring soil with the biomass and organic fertilizer left over after using the renewable energy as biogas in fuel cells.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 6:42 AM on 01 Jul 2007

Zarkov

Beware, Zarkov's mind boggling nonsense is at the end of the link trail provided by JohnCaley.

Micro oil slick killing the planet? And how would dumping iron get rid of that again? You say it won't, and we are doomed anyway?

Read Zarkov's comments (if you can stand it). To get to the bottom of the micro oil slick.

you say you wrote a book? Is it as much fun to read as your posts here?

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 6:46 AM on 01 Jul 2007

Bart

JohnCaley is apparently Zarkov. Let's give Plaktos the benefit of the doubt, and assume that they are not directly associated with a known troll/nut.

Incidentally, Zarkov is apparently a pain in the butt in other forums too. Sigh...

On a more serious note, a comment to the moderators: This thread is a really good example of where trolls can damage an otherwise good discussion. Most of the last bunch of posts have been focused on JohnCaley/Zarkov's persistent public mental masturbation, to the detriment of what would have otherwise been a very interesting subject to discuss.

by GreenEngineer at 4:47 PM on 02 Jul 2007

Free for all in the open seas?

No one seems overly concerned about the underlying assumption that anyone can do anything in the open seas. We already have the world's fishing fleets depleting fish stocks in international waters due to non-existent, or poor regulation. Are we now going to have to suffer the consequences of fly-by-night venture capital supported fringe experiments on our global atmospheric make-up???

Articles in Nature (or Science) do state that iron results in plankton blooms and a take up of C02 - but also state that the long term effects are unknown (e.g. will this result is a CO2 "belch" elsewhere, as ocean currents do their thing?) We just don't know.

So, what if I can convince a bunch of eager venture capitalists of my next bright idea (ever search for the link between Russ George and his Cold Fusion company? Do you see a pattern here? E.g. jumping on hype bandwagons with an eye focused more on stock growth from over eager investors as opposed to substance behind the hype).

Beware.

MPatry

by MPatry at 9:50 PM on 10 Jul 2007

Thanks, MPatry, you have done us a service

MPatry, thanks for the clue --- Russ George appears to be only a half step up from the folks at "Blacklight Power" and other wild and woolly types whose specialty is the psuedo-scientific grift.

Always, always, always these people appear, promising breakthrough possibilities in JUST the area of greatest concern to humanity at that moment -- remarkable, eh?

Sorry if that's not civil enough, DR --- I personally have no time to be civil to palm readers, astrologers, flat earthers, creationists, or cold fusionists. I will be happy to eat my words about the latter when a team from the Am. Physical Society verifies any of the positive "results" of the cold fusionists.

Save your community: Cut greenhouse gas emissions 5% per year.

by JMG at 10:59 PM on 10 Jul 2007

reply to JMG

Hi JMG,

Please see my post about George in this thread
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/7/19/224446/827/#3

I'm completely with you on the skepticism.

After you read that, you might want to look at my report on the "cold fusion" research presented at the American Physical Society in Denver this year.
http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET21.htm#apsreport

You may also wish to ask Bob Park, former spokesperson for the APS, if he told a 100-member audience at a DTRA meeting on Dec. 12, 2006 that he thought there was "real physics" in LENR. So far, Park has failed to confirm or deny such to me.

Best regards,

Steve Krivit
Editor, New Energy Times

by skrivit at 6:10 PM on 20 Jul 2007
[ Parent ]

A few questions

I really don't know anything much about plankton, so bear with me:

How long do plankton live, before they start giving back what they've been taking in? (I notice that their decomposition seems to be a concern in this thread.)

What exactly do plankton live on, then? What dangers does this have for ecosystem balances in the oceans?

And, on a subject slightly nearer home: what Central American governments has George worked with (I noticed the reference was very casual)? I've never heard of him in this neck of the woods.

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

by tico89 at 9:50 PM on 20 Jul 2007

Planktos Corp. is the news again!

Seriously, I almost fell off my seat when I received the mail today, and in it...Planktos Corp. (PLKT) advising the common American how to invest their hard earned money! <<shaking head>> I was not only distraught over their tactics, but disgusted they would target a population of hard-working people who haven't a clue as to what their pamphlets and letters say. It's just a "great investment!"

Enough already...I am not up on my chemistry or geology of the ocean floor, but every one knows how we've totally screwed up the Earth. Now they're going after the ocean floor?!

by LaurasiaGondwana at 1:00 AM on 12 Aug 2007

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.