World’s biggest geoengineering experiment ‘violates’ UN rules | Environment | The Guardian

Controversial US businessman’s iron fertilisation off west coast of Canada contravenes two UN conventions

Source: World’s biggest geoengineering experiment ‘violates’ UN rules | Environment | The Guardian

 

From comments:

the big question now is “Did it work?” or “Is it working?”

— anonymous

 

To the best of my current understanding, I’m sure that you can make blooms occur with this or something very similar, depending on location. The issue is what the side-effects and unintended consequences are. This is almost certainly a *terrible* idea anywhere you want to keep sea life alive. Even *if* humanity decided that this were an affordable geoengineering amelioration/sink for CO2, you’d want to use the Black Sea to do it so that the naturally anoxic waters can keep the dead critter corpses longer and so that the sea die-off can be more reliably contained. And we’re not going to see serious side effects for years, potentially (see – the food web bit).

It appears to have produced the immediate intended result (plankton bloom), the success of the intended-intended result (remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere for a meaningful amount of time — decades or longer) won’t be known for a long time, and unanticipated side effects might not be visible for a long time or only at larger scales depending on how strongly the local water column is affected by the dump.

The myth of renewable energy | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

“Clean” and “green” are wide open to interpretation and misappropriation; that’s why they’re so often mentioned in quotation marks.

Not so for renewable energy, however. Somehow, people across the entire enviro-political spectrum seem to have reached a tacit, near-unanimous agreement about what renewable means: It’s an energy category that includes solar, wind, water, biomass, and geothermal power.

Renewable energy sounds so much more natural and believable than a perpetual-motion machine, but there’s one big problem: Unless you’re planning to live without electricity and motorized transportation, you need more than just wind, water, sunlight, and plants for energy. You need raw materials, real estate, and other things that will run out one day. You need stuff that has to be mined, drilled, transported, and bulldozed — not simply harvested or farmed. You need non-renewable resources

None of our current energy technologies are truly renewable, at least not in the way they are currently being deployed. We haven’t discovered any form of energy that is completely clean and recyclable, and the notion that such an energy source can ever be found is a mirage.

Source: The myth of renewable energy | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

100% Renewable Energy in 40 Years Not Limited to Our Wildest Dreams: Study | Fast Company | Business + Innovation

we’ve done similar things, as Jaconson notes—it’s an effort “comparable to the Apollo moon project or constructing the interstate highway system,” just compressed into a short timescale and requiring action from a majority of nations.

Source: 100% Renewable Energy in 40 Years Not Limited to Our Wildest Dreams: Study | Fast Company | Business + Innovation