Vice-Regent

Concerns about Iron Fertilization Biological concerns Chemical concerns Ocean circulation Climate “Natural” fertilization Ethical Issues Because so few experiments on iron fertilization have been conducted, there are still many uncertainties associated with the long-term effects. While the short term effects on phytoplankton growth and carbon sequestration seem positive, little is known about how the entire ecosystem would be affected by iron fertilization. Many hypotheses seem to overlook the true complexity of the ecosystem. Before large-scale iron fertilization projects can be pursued, many questions about the long term chemical and biological impacts must be answered and details of the actual cost effectiveness should be investigated. Biological concerns Effects of increased iron concentrations (and the associated decrease in pH) on other organisms We cannot say with any certainty what the effects of increased iron concentrations (and the associated decrease in pH) would have on other organisms. Some organisms are highly intolerant of such changes in their environment and therefore would not be able to survive. This would also effect the overall biodiversity and continuity of the food chain. Decreased productivity of deeper algal growth Increased phytoplankton mass in the surface waters would decrease the depth to which light penetrates, upsetting deeper algal growth and productivity. Inhibition of zooplankton productivity During Iron Ex II it was observed that zooplankton feeding was inhibited because iron fertilization caused larger species of phytoplankton to become dominant. This effect would therefore alter the food chain by promoting the growth of larger phytoplankton and inhibiting zooplankton production. Decreased overall biodiversity It has been observed in the past that there is a correlation between algal blooms and decreased biodiversity, and it has been hypothesized that prolonged increased phytoplankton growth may have the same effects. Many of the above factors could contribute to decreased biodiversity by selecting for the stronger species. Impact on the food web Any changes to biodiversity or species abundance will have tremendous effects on the food web. Iron fertilization will most likely cause changes in phytoplankton species composition. By decreasing the availability of some organisms, other organisms that use them as a food resource will also suffer. Chemical concerns Depletion of other nutrients Increased phytoplankton productivity may deplete other essential nutrients and cause them to become limiting to phytoplankton growth. This in turn would cause a decline in the rate of Carbon Dioxide sequestration Changes in elemental cycling As more nutrients are consumed, large quantities of them will enter into circulation, possibly overwhelming other aspects of the cycle. For example, there might be an increased cycling of nitrogen and evolution of N2O (a byproduct of denitrification) because of increased microbial activity in the deep ocean. Anoxic deep ocean/Methane production There are concerns about the added biomass in the deep ocean consuming all available oxygen and creating anoxic conditions in the deep ocean. This would also stimulate the production of methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas. Dimethyl Sulfide Another concern is increased atmospheric concentrations of dimethyl sulfide, which is released from phytoplankton growth. In the atmosphere, dimethyl sulfide oxidizes to form sulfate aerosols, which after the greenhouse gases, exert the next largest influence on climate. The sulfate aerosols can cause an increase in cloud cover when present in significant quantities in the atmosphere. This in turn affects the amount of radiation absorbed by the atmosphere and can cause a cooling in the earth’s mean temperature. Ocean Circulation Carbon possibly only temporarily sequestered It is possible that the observed sequestration during the Iron Ex. experiments was only temporary, because long-term observations were not made. The carbon may not have been effectively removed, but only absorbed temporarily and the re-released later. Therefore, as dissolved carbon levels increased in the ocean mixed layer, the carbon would largely be returned to the atmosphere. Upwelling of stored carbon Carbon stored in the deep ocean will eventually re-circulate and, through upwelling to the surface, be released to the atmosphere. Upwelling/Downwelling of patch Ocean circulation patterns may affect the size and integrity of the fertilized patch, as up-and down-welling cause mixing and sinking. Climate Change in planetary albedo An increase in phytoplankton biomass could affect the planetary albedo, because phytoplankton have a different reflectivity than water. This could cause additional effects on climate by causing more or less reflection the sun’s rays. Change in mean oceanic temperatures Changes in mean oceanic temperature could also affect the effectiveness of fertilization. The ocean-atmosphere interface is highly temperature dependent for absorbing Co2. A rise in mean ocean temperature might offset the effectiveness of fertilization because it would decrease the amount of CO2 that could be dissolved. Changes in net flux of greenhouse gases Because iron fertilization would only be effective in certain regions, other parts of the ocean may experience different changes in the flux of greenhouse gases. Possibly, this could also lead to anoxia in some regions. “Natural” fertilization Deep Sea Volcanic activity There are also potential natural sources of iron fertilization. One of these is undersea volcanic activity. Deep ocean hydrothermal vents pump large quantities of iron rich water into the ocean. If shifts in hydrothermal activity deep within the ocean occur, this iron may be introduced into the portions of the ocean that are iron deficient and a natural bloom may take place. Changes to desert area If significant changes occur to the area of earth’s deserts they could contribute a higher concentration of iron dust to the atmosphere, which would similarly act to naturally fertilize the ocean. Deep ocean iron beds There is also concern about the natural feedback mechanisms by which the effects of iron fertilization may be amplified. Altering phytoplankton growth might also alter algae growth, which might in turn affect deep ocean iron beds, causing an increase in concentrations of iron and further amplifying phytoplankton growth. Such a unstable scenario could possibly send us back to an ice age. Ethical Issues Finally there are also ethical issues surrounding the topic of iron fertilization. Much of the damage that has been done to our environment is a result of numerous technological advances and industrial expansion in the last century. It was inevitable that at some point man would try and counteract some of the damage we have inflicted on our environment via more technology. Whether or not iron fertilization is ethically correct is an important question for scientists and policymakers alike to consider. Hopefully the answer will become clearer as the true risks of this technology are revealed. Policy Issues Need for Policy Experiment Evaluation Current Policy Policy Evaluation Criteria The rate of technological advances in iron fertilization exceeds the rate of policy development. Because of this, it is necessary for the current issues and uncertainties to be evaluated so that regulations on iron fertilization practices can be put into effect. Without some kind of regulations from government, independent research and experimentation has free reign over the oceans, which are a common resource for all. Need for Policy Iron fertilization is a proposal with very high economic risks. If the long-term effects of iron fertilization were bad, it could have a horrible impact on the global economy. Many concerns have been raised about: Intergenerational rights and stakeholder equity with respect to common marine resources. Who is legally liable? Because the oceans are a common resource (outside of each country’s exclusive economic zone), who (individual, country, etc.) is legally responsible for protecting the oceans or for prosecuting those who abuse it? Potential costs and benefits are possibly not accurately represented in proposals, because of insufficient data to make such estimates. Media represents the prospect as overly optimistic and selectively reports peer-reviewed facts, contributing to premature legitimization of iron fertilization Governments of poorer countries are unaware or willfully ignorant of the potential negative impacts. Experiment evaluation There is also a need to develop evaluation criteria for proposed iron fertilization experiments in order to determine if such experiments are appropriate and necessary. This would avoid further experimentation that could adversely alter the ecosystem. Among the questions to be considered are: Is the experiment designed with full and appropriate consideration of existing scientific knowledge? Is the scale, both in regards to area and duration, appropriate for the experiment? Does the experiment lend itself to “life cycle” accounting of all the components involved in the fertilization? What should be measured and how well? Current Policy There is currently very little policy that can be applied to iron fertilization. At the international level, the United Nations “Law of the Sea” and the London Dumping Convention both do not pose serious regulations on iron fertilization. “Dumping” is defined as: “Any deliberate disposal of wastes or other material matter from vessels, aircraft, platforms, or other man-made structures at sea,” unless “the placement of the matter (is) for a purpose other than the disposal thereof.” Under this definition, Iron fertilization would not be classified as waste. However, it is unclear if the facilitation of the transfer of “waste” CO2 could be classified as dumping. In the future, it is possible that International governments will establish a system of Carbon taxes and credits in order to regulate worldwide CO2 emissions. Therefore, the question arises of whether or not sequestration could count against a country’s used credits. The Lazio Bill, under legislative review in the U.S., could set a precedent for such domestic carbon management guidelines and standards. This bill supports actions that lead to “actual reductions in greenhouse gas emissions or actual increase in net carbon sequestration.” This bill would also grant a reduction in the amount of carbon credits claimed equal to the amount of CO2 sequestered. However, in order to qualify for such reductions, adequate scientific monitoring must be completed to prove the amount of carbon sequestered. Much more scientific research on the effectiveness of iron fertilization would be needed in order to meet these criteria.

By the time populations stabilize the damage will already be inflicted and there will be a mass die-off. That would be a failure to transition. Dangerous mentality. Climate change will save us from capitalism. it's the consumption per person that is killing us right now. I only want to reduce it so we can keep our current standard of living without adverse effects. It's not enough to stabilize where we are and we are far from that holding steady on population. The population will infact never stabilize. It will rapidly collapse. It will look like a bell-curve on population charts. So i'm not sure if it matters at this point what we do in first-world nations.

The scale of the problem is completely different. You are talking about phasing out a few industries which utilized CFCs and now we are talking about phasing out civilization as we know it. The moral of the story is if the problem can be solved it will be solved within reason. Climate change is a predicament with no solutions. Civilization is fundamentally incompatible with the biosphere. The science of steady-state civilizations is rather interesting but it is my belief that as long as capitalism is our model they will all fail in the end. Ultimately we may need to go to war with capitalism particularly because it's consuming resources better utilized for steady-state civilizations and the urgency of climate change and the global biosphere. Large areas of agricultural and urban lands must return to nature as we attempt to re-stabilize the carbon cycle. People don't want steady-state because it places restrictions on the individual's freedom but you can counter this by limiting the population to the planet's natural carrying capacity of 1 billion humans or 250 million humans with a 1950s per capita usage of resources. Think about the beauty of a stable world. One or two children for each applicable couple. There's nothing wrong with limiting population especially as infant mortality has markedly decreased. Maybe with the passing of the generations we can move into a better future. I am not sold on the idea of the species being fundamentally untenable. The challenge of our time is collapse and how to manage collapse in the least damaging manner. The secondary challenge is ending all emissions before 2035 by all means necessary including up to accelerationism (the process of accelerating economic collapse) and warfare on a global scale. I sincerely doubt we can continue emitting GHGs beyond 2050. It's simply not possible (because civilization will be destroyed by climate destabilization) but the additional 15 years of silenced emissions would help us recover faster in the future.

Cross-posted from my reddit account...

Include your's truly in the list of the condemned. Is all of this really worth losing these beautiful places forever? (for all intents and purposes) This is why I compare capitalism to a modern form of slavery. If people had freewill they would have already walked away. It's that simple. Stop debating and go to war with these assclowns. We needed a sense of cohesion for 50+ years now. There is absolutely zero cohesion in society and we have this ridiculous form of identity politics. Shall I continue to explain why we are so ****ed? I think not. Everyone knows that they are willing participants in this system but remember when it finally stops working for you that nobody will be there to bail you out. You will be alone in this hell that you created for yourself.

Not even. Just as much can be accomplished by removing the platform from which bad genes sustain and profligate. This is where I differ from my early 20th century brethren. Believe me we have been doing that for a long time. It just didn't arrive into most people's awareness.

I am willing to genetically manipulate the species to make us compatible with a commune-like existence. Most people are unwilling to explore outside of a certain boundary and the disasters of the World Wars were sure to lock in a profligate and greed-based society and prior to that the rampant colonialism throughout the world and profligate exploitation. The lack of trust among people and in institutions is astounding to the point of psychotic breaks from reality. The trauma flowing like blood from the soul of humanity and into the machine. Fueling it's short-term ephemeral existence and destroying an incalculable number of species in the process. Including our own. What you are implying here is that humans have no chance of ever being a viable species (due to the tool manipulator factor and Jevons Paradox) but I am not sure that you understand the outcome of your own thoughts. The perils of exceptionally high levels of IQ and greatly diminished or equal EQ (Emotional Intelligence). Remember the psychopath has the highest survival to death ratio in civilization. Civilization is an invention of psychopathic humans. There are a plethora of additional traits that come to the fore such as lethargy and depression which are considered as natural adaptations to civilization. This is a perfect combination for exploitation of the many by the few. Most species are not self-terminating. They simply succumb to scarcity limits and die out and they fail to adapt fast enough to changing conditions. Humans are very unique in this regard and to just give up when alternatives exist is very unacceptable. I am familiar with your kind - fatalistically hopeless. "The world's in a bad way, my man, And bound to be worse before it mends; Better lie up in the mountain here Four or five centuries, While the stars go over the lonely ocean, Said the old father of wild pigs, Plowing the fallow on Mal Paso Mountain." "Keep clear of the dupes that talk democracy And the dogs that talk revolution, Drunk with talk, liars and believers. I believe in my tusks. Long live freedom and damn the ideologies, Said the gamey black-maned boar Tusking the turf on Mal Paso Mountain"

As far as I am concerned PVs and renewables allow additional and faster exploitation of the environment and thus I am opposed to anything but the complete replacement of global industrial civilization with locally based sustenance communities. Ecologists have known about the problems associated with renewables for some time. The Jevons Paradox cannot be discounted on this matter as is commonly cited by pro-renewable proponents. We will be reaching peak oil shortly (circa 2035) and thus you will come to understand why governments push and subsidize renewables. Same game different circumstances. The land use of solar PV will occupy regions better utilized for farming and forestry. (Most installations will not be rooftop solar) This is how they operate by driving up the cost of living for everyone else they intend to depopulate the world while the rich reap all the rewards on a dieing planet. Plunder the world until there is nothing left

Slip sliding' away... as usual. There is no moral high ground only cause and effect which happens to follow the laws of universal karma. In other news the Pope has outlawed environmental exploitation. Religion comes to the fore at the final hour but it's too late now. The enemy is us Not to be deluded by dreams. To know that great civilizations have broken down into violence, and their tyrants come, many times before. When open violence appears, to avoid it with honor or choose the least ugly faction; these evils are essential. By dreams of universal justice or happiness. These dreams will not be fulfilled. Robinson Jeffers 1936 Oh cracked and twilight mirrors ever to catch One color, one glinting flash, of the splendor of things. I think, here is your emblem To hang in the future sky...

Gaia will self-regulate the excess heat by destroying your house and flooding global civilization. Are you still enthusiastic about your prospects?

The sadness of the shore has become the sadness of everyone. This is justice.

This. We need a convincing argument and escape hatch for the Peak Oil problem which will hit us around 2040 on the BAU path. As it stands now ... there are are 2 possible explanations for the existence and vastness of the universe. (and it's emptiness) 1.) All other planets, galaxies, and suns are byproducts of an environment designed to create us and only us, i.e. the sheer impossibility of our existence has been overcome by infinite possibility. 2.) The universe is of unintelligent design and our existence is largely a mistake. As some have subscribed to it as a cancer or metastasis arising out of the wider universe. Thus we are heading to the dustbin in short order. The true purpose of the universe remains illusive and it is assumed to be the base reality of existence (this is not the case in outcome #1). Option #1 makes our fate far more insidious. It implies that we have squandered the opportunity of a lifetime for short-term hubris and greed. The ultimate hell analogy comes to breakfast. We may be the last generation of humans to exist. It's sort of a classical argument between emotion and science (good vs.evil or Kairos vs. Chronos). Not to say emotion is unintelligent rather it is more capable of detecting evidence beyond the realm of empirical reasoning. Kairos (Ancient Greek: καιρός) is an Ancient Greek word meaning the right, critical, or opportune moment.[1] The ancient Greeks had two words for time: chronos (χρόνος) and kairos. The former refers to chronological or sequential time, while the latter signifies a proper or opportune time for action. While chronos is quantitative, kairos has a qualitative, permanent nature.[2] Kairos also means weather in Modern Greek. The plural, καιροί (kairoi (Ancient and Modern Greek)) means the times. Kairos is a term, idea, and practice that has been applied in several fields including classical rhetoric, modern rhetoric, digital media, Christian theology, and science.

Everything needs to go right (100 percent of the time) for Type 0 civilizations to function correctly for a long period of time (1-2 millennium). Keep in mind the fossil-fuel era has only existed for about 250 years and we are already at the end of the road (apparently). Subtle things matter like how you educate the population, your cultural values (religion versus secular), the uniformity of your education, childhood nutrition, eugenics (keeping the IQ above a certain level). It's much easier to walk away from civilization than struggle and adapt civilization to human needs. There's a reason why we still haven't been able to debunk the Fermi paradox. People have collectively chosen to walk away from the long-term reality of our situation and we are looking to pay the ultimate price for our indifference. When you take a step back and abandon your hubris it's easy to see how the wealth inequality and general unfairness of our world is tied into our unsustainable future. We are not giving people a fair run at life and we are exposing young people to unnecessary risks for no clear reason.

Add some mythology to the story you want to tell yourself. I find hell to be an appropriate analogy for where we are going and this is something we have collectively set out to become.

Such a philosophy is at odds with Capitalism. I know I will keep hammering this idea until we see the changes required to avert this catastrophe. The only problem I am beginning to encounter is the fact that anthropogenic global warming may be unavoidable (regardless of the economic system in place) but the extinction event is not a certainty. Important distinction

What matters is context. You need to be willing to kill people indiscriminately in order to sustain capitalism in the 21st century and civilization for that matter. Capitalism is incompatible with environmental reform. There is no rising tide floats all boats. Richard Lindzen is provoking a false dichotomy. Either we shut off the electricity or AGW and peak oil will do it for us. I don't understand trolls like Lindzen and they need to go crawl back under the rock they came out of. The solar argument is still a thing in 2019? How is that possible. Ad-infinitum until it's your family that is thrown under the proverbial bus for the greater good of capitalism. All of this wall to wall chaos in the modern world need not happen or perhaps I am falling victim to wishful thinking. Perhaps this was our destiny. I would like to find out but we may never know.

Sorry to go OT but Trump's family is the most profound Nazi cohort ever conceived in America. People like JB and his conservative leanings don't even understand who they voted for. That about sums up democracy in 2019. An absolute crap-shoot founded on ignorance and lobbyists (money incentives). I may not be a leftist but at least I understand why the far-right has never gained any traction for a sustained amount of time. Nobody likes bigots and nobody likes self-righteous nationalists who don't serve the interests of the common and peaceful folk. Most people who seek positions of authority and power are psychopathic. JB is completely out of control. I tried to talk some sense into him via his Youtube page. I wonder if he is being payed to spout this horseshit. He's putting his reputation and life into the shredder. There must be a reason. People keep dieing and suffering on behalf of these war criminals. They never self-correct or bite the hand that feeds them poison. Look at how many people died for Hitler, Stalin, and FDR combined. Trump is just the latest installment of these stains on our beautiful humanity.

Think of it like paying up for past debts. This is ironic because our economy and capitalism are entirely based on debt borrowing and credit in modern times. I believe the national debt is now 2.5 times larger than the annual gross domestic product. Starting somewhere on the path to changing mindsets and worldviews will help us prepare the world for the few of us that survive the collapse of civilization. (and it stands to reason the most worthy of us - i.e. the least offenders of the crime) In our case we have borrowed too much debt from the Earth's ecosystem and now we must pay the price. Capitalism is the enemy of our children. The enemy is us. (Anyone older than 35 years)

As if that was the only dichotomy available? This is doing a unfortunate disservice to our prospects. People always become defensive when capitalism is at stake. It doesn't matter what you want or what I want. Capitalism will be removed voluntarily or involuntarily. A planned transition is always easier than an unplanned transition. As well nuclear power has real potential to turn the tables in favor of human civilization.

Contrarily you could take the Bill Gates route which is focus on rapid Carbon Sequestration and Nuclear Power. The budget for these sectors should be at minimum around 2 trillion each year (500 billion for R&D and 1.5 trillion for infrastructure development). What I don't understand is the reluctance to throw all of your chips onto the table in a dire situation. In a system like Capitalism this will never happen due to the inherent risk in the for-profit financial model. We should be scaling down our overhead across the board. Our housing should be efficient and affordable. We should be reducing transportation, grounding all non-essential aviation, etc. The enemy is the for-profit model, i.e. capitalism. Something like the above could be accomplished in a technocratic civilization. (by necessity demanding the cessation of democracy)

Exactly and aging liberal boomers like Obama (who are too old to be inundated). He is divested from the future with good reason.

All of the above should of been in place during the Carter administration and subsequently. We are too late for semantical efforts.

It's not. Nobody has ever told me why. It's more of a novelty.