Problems!

Promote the Climate Savers Computing Initiative

Above Logo

Website

MSNBC

Boston Globe

How stupid and careless are we humans going to be?

The results were true for both men and women.

"The research clearly shows that exposure to virtual violence increases the risk that both children and adults will behave aggressively," said Huesmann, adding it could have a particularly detrimental effect on the well-being of youngsters.

And who gives hoot nanny!

Islands, coastlines, species imperiled
According to the U.N. panel of scientists, whose latest report is a synthesis of three previous ones, enough carbon dioxide already has built up that it imperils islands, coastlines and a fifth to two-thirds of the world’s species.

As early as 2020, 75 million to 250 million people in Africa will suffer water shortages, residents of Asia’s large cities will be at great risk of river and coastal flooding, according to the report.

U.N. issues landmark report on global warming

Panel offers dire warnings, establishes scientific baseline for political talks

DAVID GUARINO

spokesman for House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi

WOODS HOLE — There's still a lot to iron out when it comes to storing carbon in the world's oceans to mediate global warming. Scientists from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution held a public forum Friday to consider the pros and cons of fertilizing the oceans with iron, which produces increased phytoplankton — and other carbon dioxide-reducing plants — that could mitigate greenhouse gas accumulations in the atmosphere.

The good news, according to Ken Buesseler, a WHOI marine chemist, is a dozen iron fertilization experiments in recent years have shown success in reducing carbon dioxide levels by increasing algal productivity. However, Buesseler also said there are still too many unanswered questions to safely move forward.

Along with Scott Doney, a WHOI senior scientist of marine chemistry and geochemistry, and Hauke Kite-Powell, a research specialist at WHOI's Marine Policy Center, Buesseler told the 75 people in the audience about environmental concerns, the lack of long-term testing and the dangers of moving forward based solely on commercial interests.

There is at least one publicly traded company already trying to geo-engineer the ocean with iron, Buesseler said. The idea is gaining popularity because of the market demand for carbon offsets.

However, all three WHOI panelists agreed there is no method that exists to verify carbon has been permanently removed from the atmosphere

Once the carbon is sequestered in the deep ocean, it is dispersed and impossible to audit, Doney said.

"It's like the Wild West out there," Buesseler said.

This drew the ire of WHOI biologist Heidi Sosik, who asked why the discussion was even taking place if there's no way to hold companies accountable for the actual removal of carbon from the atmosphere.

The idea needs to be researched and proven effective, Sosik said. It should not be considered just because people are willing to invest in it, she added.

"It's just another money-making scam without regard for the health of our planet," Sosik said.

Further complicating matters are other unanswered questions, such as the legality of dumping iron into the ocean and whether it would be considered pollution internationally. Doney said studying iron fertilization to the point where a decision could be made would take five to 10 years. Even if it is proven effective, Doney said, iron fertilization is not a panacea for global warming.

"We can't look at this in isolation because we have to consider other technologies out there," Doney said. "Instead of one silver bullet, we may need three dozen technologies to make this work."

Arkansas native Luke Erickson, 20, attended the forum as part of his curriculum with the Sea Education Association down the road from WHOI.

Erickson has researched other methods of reducing carbon dioxide levels, including increasing the reflectivity of the atmosphere by adding sulfur compounds. He remains doubtful about iron fertilization in the ocean.

"It's enlightening to see a feasible possibility like this," Erickson said. "But I don't hold a lot of faith in any geo-engineering solutions."

Aaron Gouveia can be reached at agouveia@capecodonline.com.

Important state legislation that would help protect the quality of Cape Cod ponds has moved from the Senate Ways and Means Committee and is now before the full Senate for consideration.  Action by the Senate on this bill could begin as early as Thursday, Sept. 27.

Please call or write your state senator NOW (Senator Therese Murray or Senator Robert O'Leary on Cape Cod) and urge them to support S.536, "An Act Relating to the Distribution and Sale of Household Cleaning Products Containing Phosphorus."  Be sure to let your senator know you are a constituent, and don't forget to include your address and town.

Why is this bill important?

If passed, S.536 would phase out the sale in Massachusetts of household cleaning products containing phosphorus, which degrades the quality of freshwater ponds, lakes and rivers, including the approximately 400 sizable ponds found on Cape Cod.

Significant sources of phosphorus come from household cleaning products such as automatic dishwashing detergents, as well as from wastewater and fertilizers. Phosphorus pollution causes algae blooms resulting in the depletion of oxygen in water bodies, which harms water quality, destroys aquatic ecosystems, impacts tourism and reduces property values.  Treating phosphorus-impaired ponds is costly and controversial, and more communities will need to address this issue as populations continue to increase near fresh water bodies. Many of Cape Cod's once-pristine ponds are now showing the effects of phosphorus pollution, including instances of fish kills.

With the availability of cleaning products that perform effectively without the use of phosphorus, its continued use is an unnecessary threat to Massachusetts water resources.

Please pass this information on to all interested parties.