|
Some french students sent an inquiry about OIF... here are my responses:
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 3:13 AM, Justine KLINGELSCHMIDT <justine.klingelschmidt@XXXX.org> wrote: Thanks
a lot for your answer, Mr Whaley. We are conscious that you are a key
actor on this issue and we really appreciate to have your point of
view . I send you the list of question.
1) First of all,
could you tell us more about your professional background?
about your
research concerning the oceans?
I have a
degree in English. My background is in high-tech. However, my
mother--Margaret Leinen--was an oceanographer. I grew up around
oceanography, worked on two JGOFS transects taking core samples of the
oceans, I first learned how to program developing software for a
cryogenic magnetometer, etc.
I would say I have a grounding in
the fundamentals. However, i am NOT a scientist.
2) Given the results
of all the scientific experiments (LOHAFEX,...), are you
still
considering ocean fertilization as an effective way to fight global
warming?
I think that LOHAFEX showed us that diatoms
need silicon to grow. Our analysis is attached. Also, on our home
page, you can download the "Why OIF" document. This provides a good
grounding in why I think it makes sense to pursue further research into
OIF. 3) The
LOHAFEX expperiment has been charged by some environmental groups with
being
a "dangerous geo-engineering project that violated the UN
restrictions".
Why do you think this experiment raised such a
controversy?
The LOHAFEX project did not violate the UN restrictions. The ETC Group
made statements to this effect in an effort to shut the project down.
These groups simply do not like the thought of this research taking
place. From what I have seen these are more emotional arguments rather
than logical ones. Many of the statements they have made in their press
releases are factually incorrect, and quite misleading. I don't think
ETC has a lot of credibility with the major players. Greenpeace has
acknowledged the legitimate reasons for the research to take place, and
suggested much of the language that is currently in the LC resolution.
4) What
about the institutional framework (UN Conventions: London Convention,
Convention
on Biological Diversity...)? Is it clear enough or should it be
precised?
We are extremely happy with the London Convention's work in this area.
They are nearly finished with a rigorous Risk Management Framework for
OIF project. This will provide the structure needed by the larger
research projects that move forward. The CBD is not a regulatory body.
My feeling is that their role here is largely symbolic. They have
acknowledged the work that the LC is doing, and seem to be subordinate
to that. Remember, they are both UN bodies.
5) Is
it difficult for the States to come to an agreement about ocean
fertilization?
By the States, do you mean the United States? I think the regulatory
authority to develop a framework lies with the LC. The US is a
signatory to the convention.
6) Since you know well CLIMOS, one question about it: some say
that
geo-ingineering companies like CLIMOS are violating the
precautionary
principle, and do not pay enough attention to the
potential side-effects on long term. What can you argue against that?
Climos is a research services company at present. Our goal is to help
provide the support for these larger more complex research efforts to
take place. Ultimately, we think there are important questions that
need to be answered about this technique--including, what the potential
impacts might be. How can this be a violation of the precautionary
principle?
|
