October 17, 2008
鼓勵此網誌：0
關於iron bound的問題我也想過，所以看到這篇眼睛就亮起來了，先簡下來，晚點再來點簡單的討論。
＝＝＝這是新聞的分格線＝＝＝＝
From: BBC news - Wild life conservaton, world congress diary
[BBC news - Richard's diary 9/10/08- on iron bound]
Could "polluting" the marine environment restrain rising temperatures and rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere?
According to Margaret Leinen, chief scientist of the company Climos, it could; and the magic pollutant is iron filings.
Placed in the oceans, the theory goes that they will stimulate the growth of phytoplankton, tiny marine plants, which will then photosynthesise more CO2 out of the atmosphere and down into the water column.
The idea has been around for a long time and studies date back at least a decade, without having given us a definitive answer to whether it will work.
At a seminar here on ocean geoengineering, as the approach is known, Ms Leinen told us of her company's plans to seed trial sites of ocean hundreds of kilometres across, and - under the auspices of independent scientists - conduct studies that would satisfy academics, regulators and investors.
Scientifically, the issue is not whether the mechanism works - it does - but what else happens afterwards.
How deep will the carbon be carried, through physical or biological paths? How long will it stay stored? Will the plants' decay produce methane or nitrous oxide, more potent greenhouse gases than CO2?
Investors will want to know simply whether it can turn a profit - which hangs on whether it is shown to work, and so whether it qualifies for carbon credits.
Hold back the geo-engineering tide
Greenpeace scientist David Santillo expressed the concerns of many.
When money is involved, how can we guarantee independent science? Won't this be a distraction for investors who might otherwise fund renewable energy projects? Will there be any negative impacts on ocean life?
These are important concerns. But the reality is that we are already producing huge changes in the oceans.
We are warming them, diminishing the water's natural alkalinity, fishing huge swathes of biological life out of them, creating lifeless zones with agricultural runoff, changing the dynamics of ice cover and freshwater input.
Frankly, I would like to know whether iron seeding works, and I would like to know quite soon, please.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) last year suggested carbon emissions ought to be constrained within a decade and a half, and there is little sign in the real world that it is happening.
If Ms Leiden and other entrepreneurs can get hold of investors' money, if the science is rigorous and the regulators satisfied, then I would vote for finding out whether it works once and for all.
Forward motions
There is a distinct change of pace now at the congress as we move from what's known as the forum into the council sessions.
The forum has been about ideas and networking and discussions and projects. But many delegates are complaining it's been too intense, with so many events held that even four days of frantically rushing from seminar to roundtable to reception have not been enough to catch a fraction of the action.
The focus now switches to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) itself; what it should do for the four years until the next congress, what it thinks is good and bad in the world, how it should work.
This year sees 125 motions under debate. Most are uncontroversial, such as asking IUCN to make young people aware of environmental issues or to write to member governments urging greater action on climate change.
But there are several juicier morsels to savour. Should there be a global moratorium on biofuel development and on financial incentives to develop them? Is there any science behind the argument that culling whales could rebuild fish stocks? Is the organisation compromising its integrity through a close relationship with the Shell oil company?
These motions are not binding on anyone but IUCN itself, so in that sense they are toothless. But that does not mean they are without influence.
Much of the world's now intricate web of environmental regulations began life within IUCN.
As a global organisation which numbers most governments as members, its resolutions indicate to the watching world, including UN institutions, the balance of thought across the breadth of the environmental community, from governments to campaign groups to scientific researchers to business groups.
So a call for a biofuels moratorium, for example, would be widely cited as proof that the business is running too far too fast for the world's ecological health.
Not surprisingly, governments and interest groups liable to receive an IUCN slap in the face are lobbying hard to water down the wording.
We shall see by next Tuesday who emerges with a red weal, and who with a sunshine smile.
＝＝＝這是新聞的分格線＝＝＝＝
From: BBC news - Wild life conservaton, world congress diary
[BBC news - Richard's diary 9/10/08- on iron bound]
Could "polluting" the marine environment restrain rising temperatures and rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere?
According to Margaret Leinen, chief scientist of the company Climos, it could; and the magic pollutant is iron filings.
Placed in the oceans, the theory goes that they will stimulate the growth of phytoplankton, tiny marine plants, which will then photosynthesise more CO2 out of the atmosphere and down into the water column.
The idea has been around for a long time and studies date back at least a decade, without having given us a definitive answer to whether it will work.
At a seminar here on ocean geoengineering, as the approach is known, Ms Leinen told us of her company's plans to seed trial sites of ocean hundreds of kilometres across, and - under the auspices of independent scientists - conduct studies that would satisfy academics, regulators and investors.
Scientifically, the issue is not whether the mechanism works - it does - but what else happens afterwards.
How deep will the carbon be carried, through physical or biological paths? How long will it stay stored? Will the plants' decay produce methane or nitrous oxide, more potent greenhouse gases than CO2?
Investors will want to know simply whether it can turn a profit - which hangs on whether it is shown to work, and so whether it qualifies for carbon credits.
Hold back the geo-engineering tide
Greenpeace scientist David Santillo expressed the concerns of many.
When money is involved, how can we guarantee independent science? Won't this be a distraction for investors who might otherwise fund renewable energy projects? Will there be any negative impacts on ocean life?
These are important concerns. But the reality is that we are already producing huge changes in the oceans.
We are warming them, diminishing the water's natural alkalinity, fishing huge swathes of biological life out of them, creating lifeless zones with agricultural runoff, changing the dynamics of ice cover and freshwater input.
Frankly, I would like to know whether iron seeding works, and I would like to know quite soon, please.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) last year suggested carbon emissions ought to be constrained within a decade and a half, and there is little sign in the real world that it is happening.
If Ms Leiden and other entrepreneurs can get hold of investors' money, if the science is rigorous and the regulators satisfied, then I would vote for finding out whether it works once and for all.
Forward motions
There is a distinct change of pace now at the congress as we move from what's known as the forum into the council sessions.
The forum has been about ideas and networking and discussions and projects. But many delegates are complaining it's been too intense, with so many events held that even four days of frantically rushing from seminar to roundtable to reception have not been enough to catch a fraction of the action.
The focus now switches to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) itself; what it should do for the four years until the next congress, what it thinks is good and bad in the world, how it should work.
This year sees 125 motions under debate. Most are uncontroversial, such as asking IUCN to make young people aware of environmental issues or to write to member governments urging greater action on climate change.
But there are several juicier morsels to savour. Should there be a global moratorium on biofuel development and on financial incentives to develop them? Is there any science behind the argument that culling whales could rebuild fish stocks? Is the organisation compromising its integrity through a close relationship with the Shell oil company?
These motions are not binding on anyone but IUCN itself, so in that sense they are toothless. But that does not mean they are without influence.
Much of the world's now intricate web of environmental regulations began life within IUCN.
As a global organisation which numbers most governments as members, its resolutions indicate to the watching world, including UN institutions, the balance of thought across the breadth of the environmental community, from governments to campaign groups to scientific researchers to business groups.
So a call for a biofuels moratorium, for example, would be widely cited as proof that the business is running too far too fast for the world's ecological health.
Not surprisingly, governments and interest groups liable to receive an IUCN slap in the face are lobbying hard to water down the wording.
We shall see by next Tuesday who emerges with a red weal, and who with a sunshine smile.
