General discussion

Environmentalist Exposed as Stupid, Again.

Sometimes you "Just do it" when environmentalist are screaming about it. Now, the question is, will they ignore moratoriums which are not their own but imposed upon them by others, and benefit thereby, or will they buckle under to environmentalist who are ignorant, stupid, easily swayed by rhetoric rather than facts, and with strong lobbies to large federal govts in North America and probably elsewhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haida_Gwaii#2012_controversy_around_depositing_iron_in_the_ocean

In July 2012, entrepreneur Russ George dispersed 100 short tons (91 t) of iron sulphate dust into the Pacific Ocean several hundred miles west of the islands of Haida Gwaii. The Old Massett Village Council was persuaded to finance this geoengineering project as a salmon enhancement project with $1 million in village funds. The concept was that the formerly iron-deficient waters would produce more phytoplankton that would in turn produce more salmon.

Lawyers, environmentalists, and civil society groups are calling the dumping a "blatant violation" of two international moratoriums. In May 2013, the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation removed George as a director of the company and ended his employment. The 2013 salmon runs defied all expectations, more than quadrupling, from 50 million to 226 million fish.

However, many environmental groups objected to the process.


Fired, for being successful. Actually it was to alleviate pressures from the radical, foaming at the mouth environmentalist that he was fired.

Discussion is locked
Follow
Reply to: Environmentalist Exposed as Stupid, Again.
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: Environmentalist Exposed as Stupid, Again.
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Comments
- Collapse -
It's been proven to work
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization

But some environmentalist still claiming it doesn't, or it harms the ocenas, blah, blah,

"The parties to the London Dumping Convention adopted a non-binding resolution in 2008 on fertilization (labeled LC-LP.1(2008)). The resolution states that ocean fertilization activities, other than legitimate scientific research, "should be considered as contrary to the aims of the Convention and Protocol and do not currently qualify for any exemption from the definition of dumping"."

Now listen to this stupid "principle" they've manufactured from their imaginations.

"The precautionary principle (PP) states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm, in the absence of scientific consensus, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those who would take the action. The side effects of large-scale iron fertilization are not yet known. Creating phytoplankton blooms in naturally iron-poor areas of the ocean is like watering the desert: in effect it changes one type of ecosystem into another. The argument can be applied in reverse, by considering emissions to be the action and remediation an attempt to partially offset the damage."

Uh, how can you prove it's not harmful unless you can do it first?! See how they worded it to stop it from being effectively challenged. Also not a single word in there about any good that comes from it and how that factors into it. This is how these enviro-wackos think, or scheme. I say to Hell with them and their principle, do what's needed, and if there's negative consequences which offset the good more than it's worth, then we know. What we DO KNOW is the good it can do. What we DON'T KNOW and may not even exist, is anything bad it can do, and even then it seems to satisfy those concerned with "carbon sequestrations" in the short run too.

CNET Forums