Open reply to Planktos
As well as dealing with Monsanto in Munich this week, ETC Group has also been raising the alarm about a massive geo-engineering experiment scheduled for this month around Galapagos by Planktos Inc.
The New York Times carried a very uncritical piece about Planktos earlier in the week, which was also picked up by The Times in London and The Independent also in the UK. ETC then put out a news release pointing out that the scientists of the IPCC (UN climate science body) were about to be very critical of geo-engineering in their report and that 47 scientists writing in the journal Nature had been critical of it last week! You can read more about that here. One of the places this opened up a debate was on environmental blog Gristmill. And what a debate! Planktos Comunications director David Kubiak posted a bizarre and vitriolic attack on ETC’s news release and then went on to challenge us to an open debate.
We like the idea of an open debate. We also think Plantos should respect the precautionary principle and if they want such a debate in good faith would hold off their planned trial. Below is the response to Planktos that we have just posted to Gristmill
In response to Planktos:
On this forum David Kubiak, Planktos Communications Director, posted a blustery (and bizarre!) attack on ETC Group’s recent news release about his company’s impending iron fertilization experiment in the vicinity of the Galapagos Islands. Yesterday was a busy day for ETC Group because we concluded — and won — a 13 year old lawsuit against Monsanto that has led to the rejection of Monsanto’s species-wide soybean patent. (see www.etcblog.org where we will also post this note). The trial hearing was in Munich and we’ve been busy. Below however is our response to Planktos.
Firstly, we would like to be clear to Mr Kubiak and others that these are not “Mr Thomas’s’ arguments (as he characterised them). They are the position of ETC Group. There is no need to personalise this debate.
Secondly, we note that Planktos’s vitriolic “rebuttal” actually sidesteps most of what was in the news release – namely that UN IPCC , the most eminent body of climate scientists in the world ,overseen by governments, have decided that geo-engineering schemes - and ocean fertilisation in particular - are unproven, unlikely to work and raise serious risks. This is published today (Friday) but was leaked to the media some days ago.The same message came very clearly from a paper last week in Nature (Blain et al.). signed by 47 internationally-respected ocean scientists. It says just about everything anyone needs to know about this company that Planktos did not address these two scientific reports in its rebuttal but opted, instead, to attack paper tigers and spread invective.
Planktos also invited ETC Group to “an open public debate”. Of course we agree and have specific proposals to expedite this debate (see below).
Regardless, Planktos should accept the Precautionary Principle and immediately announce that it will suspend its iron fertilization trial until there is a public debate and, also, pending the results of a transparent technical evaluation of their project conducted by a panel of internationally-respected ocean scientists drawn from the IPCC and including experts from the Pacific region where the experiment is intended. If Planktos is not prepared to do this and does not recognize the Precautionary Principle, the world community should be concerned.
We propose three public debates. The first debate should take place as quickly as possible in Ecuador (which has the sovereign responsibility for the UNESCO World Heritage Site). Dr Elizabeth Bravo of Accion Ecologia can arrange this debate and can also facilitate appropriate discussions with the Ecuadorian government at the same time. It is not necessary for ETC Group to be involved in this debate, Ecuadorians are capable of attending to their own concerns. We’ll be happy to forward contact information to Planktos.
ETC Group is quite prepared to participate in the second and third debates. We propose a second debate during the UN Commission on Sustainable Development now taking place (until May 11) in New York City. If we can reach quick agreement on this, it may be possible to arrange a side-event during the CSD to which governments and civil society organizations could be invited. This would allow for a full debate. Time is short, but we are prepared to undertake organizational work for this debate. If the time frame is too short a side-event could also be arranged at the UN in New York the following week at the Permanent Forum on Indigenous issues which commences its 6th session on 14th may 2007.
Finally, we propose a debate before the UN Convention on Biological Diversity and its SBSTTA (scientific subcommittee) when it meets in Paris July 2 - 6. at that time it will be considering teh biodiversity impact of climate mitigation schemes. Again, we believe we can arrange for a side-event that will allow for the debate to be witnessed by governments and civil society.
As to the points which Planktos unhelpfully characterised as “deceptions”. Below are some replies. As we already noted – this really did not seem to address the substance of our news release.
- The reference to Galapagos came repeatedly from Planktos who launched their so-called “voyage of recovery” to Galapagos back in March linking it explicitly with Darwins Voyage. Indeed after reading Planktos communications for some time this forum is the first time we have seen a more precise reference of where the dumping site is intended. We are not sure if we share Planktos’s view that the deeper waters of the Pacific are “anemic and lifeless”.
- ETC Group bears no responsibility for the Planktos website being four years out of date or using the technical word nanoparticles in a non-technical manner. It is true that Mr.Kubiak told us last week that the particles would be at around the micron scale in a telephone conversation. His comment was correctly acknowledge in our news release. He also said the company had never used the term nanoparticle – which is not true. As the company’s communications officer, he should perhaps become more familiar with his own website. “Nanotechnology” is not a scare term. Many companies use the term (sometimes incorrectly as here) to exaggerate the “cutting edge” nature of their technology.
- Regarding Nuclear Fusion – Cold fusion is believed to be a form of Nuclear Fusion .We merely stated that Planktos has a mirror company involved in Nuclear fusion. Its hard to see how that is a “smear.”. D2fusion describes their work variously as “Cold Fusion” ”Low Energy Nuclear Reactions”, and “Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reactions,”..
- Ulf Riebesell was not the only critic of iron fertilization quoted in Nature. The forty-seven scientists who co-authored the paper under discussion went out of their way within the paper to say that their paper should not be used to justify iron fertilization schemes. On their own website they also said that they saw their finds as the end of the ‘dream’ of iron fertilization. When we contacted the lead author, Stephane Blain he was particularly emphatic that they did not want geo-engineers to misleadingly use their findings to justify their case - in the way Planktos apparently have.
- It is unfair to both Dr Elizabeth Bravo (of Accion Ecologica) and Dr Paul Johnston (of Greenpeace) to characterize them as ‘misled’. Both are highly respected and very experienced environmentalists with enviable international reputations. It is also slightly ironic since Greenpeace rather claim that Planktos misled them: – Planktos, having used a personal connection in Greenpeace’s US office to borrow an inflatable boat , went on to portray Greenpeace as supportive of Planktos during a PR stunt in Washington DC Harbour recently. Greenpeace USA had to send threatening legal letters to have that misrepresentation removed from the Planktos website.
- ETC are glad to see that Planktos will surrender any prize money to charity.
Nonetheless Planktos own communications has very much emphasised the money that Planktos hope to make - especially to investors who have been invited to buy stock in the company. As we noted in our news release Planktos CEO Russ George has called this more of a business experiment than a scientific experiment.
comment left by: John Caley
May 5th, 2007 at 3:00 am
Hi Guys
Good to see you are keeping an eye out for the world.
I must tell you, and I have no affiliations except to LIFE, that your reluctance to accept seeding the micro layer of the oceans is somewhat misguided.
Why, well you should read my website at omegafour.com
where I have been creating a compilation of data/articles on global climate change.
I am a scientist and IMO from a scientific standpoint, the seeding of the ocean is the only way to prevent this planet from going into full Global Drought.
The situation is far more serious than you or most people in the world realise. Sorry, but the cause of the world’s woes are really two fold.
(a) The atmosphere has an overpressure of carbon dioxide that is increasing the heat capacity of the atmosphere, but we also have a loss of cloud cover and a reduction in rainfall.
All in all this leads to an apparent but false atmospheric temperature warming. Nothing of real importance here, except the prospect of a Global Drought
(b) There is also a layer of petroleum oil in the micro-layer covering the oceans. This is the culprit that needed addressing decades ago. Sadly this oil pollution has been entirely overlooked by all scientific bodies including the IPCC. NASA knows, and the marine micro-layer biologists know, and the oil companies know
BUT not one of them has come out and alerted the world.
In fact Big Oil has deliberately muddied the waters of truth.
The project to seed the micro-layer is misguided… this is true … but only because the focus is on carbon dioxide.
However fortunately seeding the microlayer will also encourage the metabolism of this petroleum oil layer. So, it really is a godsend that something can be done NOW.
I urge you to encourage this project, and in fact I urge you to alert all governments to follow suit.
Removing the oil layer will take years, maybe decades… there really is no time to lose.
But, even so it still may not work. Oils ain’t oil nowadays, synthetic oils could well be impossible to remove.
I can assure you that if we can not re-mediate the ocean’s micro-layer, Global Drought will precipitate WW111 and then all bets are off.
Please read the data on my website that I have collected over many years of study.
I have written a hard science fiction novel detailing the scientific logic, problems and solution.
Title: “The Death of Clouds”
If we can not clear the oceans of oil in the immediate future I really fear for all LIFE on Earth.
Extinction is the most probable outcome, the situation is really that serious.
Good luck with your efforts.
comment left by: Amana
June 24th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Recently there was a documentary that said seeding the top layer of the oceans would indeed capture atmospheric carbon. BUT it will not work holistically.
Apparently what happens as the captured carbon starts to sink into the depths (as plankton die), it changes the ecology and very little reaches the bottom. On it’s way down it disturbs the non-surface ecology and ends up producing more greenhouse problems as that disruption rises to the surface or directly heats the oceans.
The narrow minded approach of looking at what happens only at the surface is akin to polishing the outer surface of a delicious looking fruit and then biting into it to only find out that below the surface was a poisonous worm.
One could believe that companies such as this one are close relatives of the snake oil salesmen that roamed through the late 1800s and early 1900s America. That is selling poison (Laudanum, Cocaine, etc.). Those early people created huge wealth for them selves by destroying innumerable lives.
A closer possible analogy would be the rampant sale of stocks in worthless or companies in 1920s USA. Unfortunately, a monetary collapse/depression will pass, we cannot be so sure about an atmospheric collapse. Recovery will happen but that is unlikely to happen before our species is gone.
One way to short circuit this process is to simply make all “carbon offset” trades only permissible when conducted by people/groups licensed the UN or other treaty organization.
Of course with so much money at stake, one would have to watch the politicians to ensure that the licenses were granted with concern for the planet and not careers.