Ocean Geoengineering & Diversity, Equity & Inclusion

Cause Before Symptom - With Your Host James Carner

Ocean Geoengineering & Diversity, Equity & Inclusion

Ocean-Based Geoengineering for Carbon Removal: A Look at Early Developments and Potential Players

The fight against climate change demands exploring innovative solutions. Although a hoax designed for tax payers, some of the climate change bullshit is man made. The elite’s race to get us to pay more than 40% in taxes have concocted global cooling in the 60’s which failed and global warming in the 80’s which failed as the data shows the earth cooled by .2% over the last 20 years. But destined to destroy the earth for profit, the mad men are now going after our oceans. Believe it or not, there is an initiative to curb the carbon emissions from our damns oceans. Ocean-based geoengineering for carbon removal is now on the books and there are several companies receiving tax payer funds to achieve such a disastrous idea with techniques like algae monoculture and biomass sinking gaining traction. This report explores the current state of this field, including the companies involved, potential risks, and the need for responsible implementation.

Who's Involved?

The field of ocean-based geoengineering for carbon removal is young, with a limited number of established companies.Here's a breakdown of some key players:

* Algae Monocultures and Sinking:
* Arbon Sea (Sweden): This company champions cultivating seaweed in open ocean farms. Harvested seaweed is attached to weighted pods and sunk to the seabed for long-term carbon storage.

Arbon Earth is a company focused on removing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere and storing it in the deep seabed. They utilize a method that leverages natural processes and aims to be cost-effective, scalable, and low-tech.

Here's a breakdown of their approach:

* Fast-Growing Biomass: They cultivate fast-growing macroalgae (like kelp) on structures called "Oceanpods" deployed in the open ocean.
* Biodegradation and Sinking: After a controlled period of growth, the algae naturally biodegrade and sink to the seabed, taking the captured carbon with them.
* Deep Sea Storage: The deep ocean offers a long-term storage solution for the sequestered carbon, potentially lasting thousands of years.

Benefits of Arbon Earth's Approach:

* Natural Process: They rely on natural biological processes for carbon capture and storage.
* Scalability: The use of readily available materials and natural processes allows for potential large-scale implementation.
* Cost-Effectiveness: Their method aims to be a cost-competitive solution for carbon removal.
* Marine Ecosystem Enhancement: The Oceanpods might create micro-habitats that could benefit marine life.

Here are some resources to learn more about Arbon Earth:

* Website: https://arbon.earth/
* Oncra Platform (Sales Partner): https://regeneration.org/nexus/onsets

* BlueGreen Technologies (US): They take a different approach, utilizing naturally occurring harmful algal blooms. Their technology concentrates and sinks these blooms to sequester carbon in the deep ocean.

BlueGreen Technologies is a company that focuses on water treatment solutions, with a specific emphasis on addressing harmful algal blooms (HABs). While they don't directly cultivate algae for carbon capture, they leverage naturally occurring blooms for a different approach.

Here's a breakdown of their technology:

* Targeting HABs: BlueGreen focuses on mitigating harmful algal blooms, which can have detrimental effects on water quality and ecosystems.
* Mineralization Process: Their technology applies a proprietary formulation that triggers a mineralization process within the algae.
* Carbon Sequestration: This mineralization process converts the algae and captured carbon into an inert form,essentially limestone, that sinks to the ocean floor.
* Benefits: Their approach removes harmful algae, improves water quality, and sequesters carbon dioxide in the deep ocean.

BlueGreen's Technology Offers:

* Dual Benefit: It addresses the issue of HABs while simultaneously removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
* Sustainable Carbon Sequestration: The converted limestone form offers a potentially stable and long-term storage solution for carbon.
* Scalability: They claim their technology can be applied to large bodies of water, potentially impacting a significant amount of harmful algae.

Here are some resources to learn more about BlueGreen Technologies:

* Website: https://bluegreenwatertech.com/
* Net Blue™ Carbon Capabilities: https://bluegreenwatertech.com/

Important Considerations:

* While BlueGreen's approach offers potential benefits, the long-term impacts of large-scale application on marine ecosystems require further research.
* Monitoring and verification of carbon sequestration effectiveness are crucial aspects of this technology.

Overall, BlueGreen Technologies offers an innovative approach to managing harmful algal blooms while simultaneously contributing to carbon removal. However, responsible implementation and continued research are necessary to ensure its effectiveness and minimize potential environmental risks.

* Other Techniques:
* Project Vesta (US): This is a research project by a consortium of institutions, not a company. They are exploring the concept of enhanced weathering. This involves spreading crushed rock on the ocean surface to accelerate natural processes that absorb CO2 from the atmosphere.

Companies to Watch:

While not directly involved in the techniques mentioned above, these companies are developing broader ocean-based solutions for climate change:

* Oceanos (US): Develops technology for ocean current energy generation that could potentially be integrated with carbon capture systems.
* Emerging Energy (US): Investigates using ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) technology to power carbon capture processes.
* Climeworks (Switzerland): A leader in direct air capture technology, they are exploring ocean-based applications for captured CO2 storage.

Important Caveats:

It's crucial to acknowledge some limitations:

* This field is in its early stages. Most techniques are in the research and development phase with limited real-world application.
* Regulatory frameworks for ocean-based geoengineering are still being developed.
* There's no large-scale approval process for these techniques as they haven't reached widespread implementation.

Potential Risks:

While the potential benefits of carbon capture are significant, potential risks require careful consideration:

* Marine Ecosystem Disruption: Monoculture algae farms or large-scale sinking could disrupt food webs and oxygen levels in certain areas.
* Unintended Consequences: Introducing new materials or processes to the ocean could have unforeseen ecological impacts.
* Monitoring and Verification: Long-term storage of carbon and potential for leakage need careful monitoring.

As of today, July 23, 2024, humans haven't geoengineered a significant portion of the ocean. The field of ocean-based geoengineering for carbon removal is in its early stages. Most techniques are still under development with limited real-world application.
Here's a breakdown of the current situation:

* Research and Development: Companies like Arbon Earth and BlueGreen Technologies are exploring concepts like algae cultivation and biomass sinking, but large-scale implementation hasn't begun.
* Project Vesta: This appears to be a program supporting startups and not directly involved in ocean geoengineering.
* Limited Footprint: Even if implemented, the initial projects would likely cover very small areas compared to the vastness of the ocean.

Reasons for Limited Geoengineering:

* Early Stage Development: The technology and its environmental impact are still being assessed.
* Regulatory Frameworks: Guidelines for responsible ocean-based geoengineering are still being developed.
* Focus on Research: The current focus is on research and development to ensure safety and effectiveness before large-scale implementation.

The Future of Ocean Geoengineering:

While the total area currently geoengineered is minimal, the future holds the possibility of more extensive projects if research shows positive results and responsible implementation is ensured. However, careful consideration of potential risks is crucial before widespread adoption.

It's impossible to give a specific amount of metal particulates needed to kill the entire ocean. Here's why:

* Ocean's Immensity: The ocean is a vast and complex ecosystem, with different zones and organisms tolerating varying levels of pollution.
* Metal Type and Distribution: Different metals have varying toxicity levels, and how they disperse in the water column would significantly impact their effect.
* Cascade Effect: Killing a large portion of the ocean would trigger a catastrophic collapse of the marine food chain,impacting everything from plankton to apex predators.

However, even small amounts of metal particulates can have detrimental effects:

* Disruption of Marine Life: Metals can bioaccumulate in organisms, impacting their growth, reproduction, and overall health.
* Disruption of Food Webs: Harming one part of the food web can have cascading effects on other organisms that depend on it.
* Dead Zones: Areas with excessive metal pollution can create oxygen-depleted dead zones where marine life struggles to survive.

Conclusion:

Algae monoculture and biomass sinking hold promise for carbon removal. However, significant research and development are needed to assess potential risks and ensure responsible implementation. International organizations are working on creating guidelines for responsible ocean-based geoengineering. But given the history of government funded research, we can assume the goal for such endeavors is control. They already control the weather. Look up geoengineering monitor dot org. They have a map of all America and each job to steer the weather. My point is, where is the ozone layer that supposedly was destroyed? They say it’s healing slowly and it’s not such a sensation anymore. Al Gore predicted polar bears in America rising on the ice discs. Yet, photographs from the 1800’s to today of coast lines have not changed at all. What a crock of shit. Now, it appears the life giving algae is the new enemy of the elite because it’s easy to grow and use for healing. Universities can’t write about conspiracy. The reason is, it’s hard to prove the intentions of private closed meetings of the ones with money and ambition. I don’t trust governments nor organizations that claim they are doing good for humanity. Especially since the oil companies hire protestors to give the idea that there is resistance to their efforts.

Diversity Equity & Inclusion

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion: Fostering Success, Navigating Challenges

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) have become central to building a successful and just workplace. However, while the goals are clear – celebrating a variety of backgrounds, ensuring equal opportunity, and fostering a welcoming environment – the journey isn't without its challenges.

The Pillars of DEI:

At its core, DEI is a three-pronged approach:

* Diversity acknowledges the richness of a workforce with a multitude of backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives. This encompasses race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and more.
* Equity ensures a level playing field by providing everyone with equal access to opportunities and resources to succeed, regardless of their background.
* Inclusion fosters a welcoming environment where everyone feels valued, respected, and can fully contribute their talents and ideas.

The Roots of the Movement:

The fight for DEI is rooted in social justice and civil rights movements. As the need to address systemic inequalities became undeniable, DEI frameworks emerged as a way to dismantle barriers and create a more equitable society.
Who Oversees DEI? A Shared Responsibility
There's no single entity policing DEI. It's a continuous effort requiring commitment from various stakeholders:

* Organizations: Many companies have dedicated DEI teams or departments working on initiatives like unconscious bias training and diversifying leadership.
* Government Agencies: Some governments establish policies or legislation promoting DEI, like affirmative action programs.
* Advocacy Groups: These organizations push for progress on DEI issues by raising awareness, holding institutions accountable, and advocating for policy changes.
* Individuals: Everyone plays a role by being open to different perspectives, challenging bias, and advocating for fairness.

Measuring Progress: A Landscape of Ratings
While there's no single ranking system for DEI, several resources offer valuable insights:

* Lists and Rankings: Forbes and Fair360 compile lists of top companies for diversity, often based on employee surveys and diversity data.
* Indexes: The Bloomberg Gender-Equality Index tracks companies committed to gender equality.
* Advocacy Groups: The Human Rights Campaign's Corporate Equality Index rates LGBTQ+ inclusion.
* Media Recognition: Publications like Fortune recognize companies for their DEI efforts.

It's important to consider the methodology and focus of each resource when evaluating these rankings.

Beyond Fines: The True Cost of Neglecting DEI
While there are no direct fines for not having a DEI program, the potential costs can be significant:

* Legal Issues: Companies lacking DEI can face lawsuits for discriminatory practices stemming from the absence of a strong DEI plan.
* Government Contracts: Federal contractors risk losing contracts without a plan demonstrating equal opportunity in employment.
* Indirect Costs: Companies without strong DEI may struggle to attract and retain top talent, face reputational damage, experience lower employee morale, and even be sued by investors claiming a lack of DEI hinders long-term performance.

Elon Musk has been critical of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Here are some reasons he has cited:

* Focus on identity over merit: Musk has argued that DEI can lead to hiring based on identity rather than qualifications https://www.windowscentral.com/software-apps/elon-musk-blames-diversity-efforts-for-the-widespread-crowdstrike-digital-pandemic-that-stunted-microsoft-services.
* Ineffectiveness: He has questioned the effectiveness of DEI programs, suggesting they don't achieve their goals.

Elon Musk has made public statements about his child, Vivian Jenna Wilson (formerly Xavier Musk), who is transgender.

Here's what we know from Musk's comments:

* Vivian Jenna Wilson identified as transgender and wanted to transition.
* Musk claims he was pressured into approving puberty blockers, believing it was necessary to prevent suicide.
* He feels misled about the potential long-term effects of puberty blockers on fertility.

It's important to consider several things:

* Puberty blockers are a medical decision. Doctors specializing in transgender healthcare typically prescribe them after careful evaluation and with parental consent. They are reversible and allow a person more time to consider their gender identity before permanent changes occur.
* Musk's portrayal of the situation is disputed. Vivian Jenna Wilson has not spoken publicly about these details.
* His comments have been criticized as inflammatory. They contribute to a negative view of transgender healthcare and may discourage transgender youth from seeking appropriate medical support.

Here are some resources for accurate information on puberty blockers and transgender healthcare:

* World Professional Association for Transgender Health (https://www.wpath.org/)
* National Center for Transgender Equality (https://transequality.org/)
* The Trevor Project (https://www.thetrevorproject.org/)

The Evolving Legal Landscape
The legal landscape surrounding DEI is dynamic. Some states are enacting laws restricting specific DEI practices. This adds complexity and underscores the need for companies to navigate this space carefully.

The Two Sides of the Coin: DEI's Potential Cons

DEI initiatives, while aiming for a positive outcome, can have some drawbacks:

* Focus on "check-the-box" compliance: Sometimes, companies implement DEI programs as a formality to meet quotas or appease external pressures. This can lead to superficial efforts that don't address underlying issues or create a genuine sense of inclusion.
* Backlash and resentment: Mandatory DEI training, if not handled sensitively, can create resentment among some employees who feel unfairly targeted or that their qualifications are diminished.
* Perpetuating stereotypes: Focusing too heavily on quotas or identity groups in hiring can unintentionally reinforce stereotypes. The best candidate should be chosen based on qualifications, not solely on meeting diversity goals.
* Cost and resource allocation: Implementing and maintaining a strong DEI program requires resources for training, hiring specialists, and addressing any systemic biases within the organization.
* Difficult to measure success: Metrics for measuring the effectiveness of DEI programs can be subjective. It can be challenging to isolate the impact of DEI from other factors that contribute to a company's success.
* Free speech concerns: Open discussions about race, gender, and other sensitive topics can be uncomfortable. Some employees may feel hesitant to express their opinions for fear of being seen as biased.

Conclusion: A Continuous Journey & No Checks & Balances

DEI, like communism, looks good on paper, but can be used as a corruption device to pinch smaller companies with loans, partnerships and resources. Smaller companies that simply cannot compete because they were offered a lower score of DEI based on fraud could lose greatly to larger corporations that have an interest in exploiting the company. There are 154 companies of the Fortune 500 that are DEI scored. They get their scoring based on The Disability Equality Index (DEI) which is a joint initiative of the American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD) and Disability: IN, a nonprofit organization that advises businesses on how to achieve disability inclusion and equality. There are no organizations yet that you can hire to audit a company here in the United States. It is voluntary and gaining momentum as 1/3rd are now scoring themselves. There are no checks and balances here and if the United Nations decides to put an organization together to police it, the chances of it being used as a weapon is really high. People put too much trust in things like this. The powers can use this to publicly humiliate a company to lower stocks and buy it up. If absolute power corrupts absolutely, DEI can be disastrous for companies hiring over conditions instead of experience. Case in point, the director of the NSA who recently resigned for her handling of the Trump assassination attempt. Kimberly Cheatle resigned from her position as director of the U.S. Secret Service after facing pressure from lawmakers who called for her to step down in the wake of the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump. Before overseeing the secret service, she oversaw all global security of PepsiCo. You know, where assassinations happen all the time by their competitor Coca-Cola. That was a joke. What kind of security does a soft drink company need that compares to the government’s secret service? She was way under qualified for that position given to her by Biden for DEI purposes. And the cost was almost an ex presidents life.

I believe, like all controversial movements, that DEI was created by the bloodlines to use for control. The public is never aware of the implementation of a movement that was never organic. Since the media is controlled by corporate and government interest, they can easily persuade the public that DEI has been around for a long time and is normal. The internet says it’s been around since the 60’s which I know based on my professional experience working in hardware and software that Human Resources existed but not DEI. This came right after the Obama election. It’s used because it tugs at the heart of the people. Not because it’s the right thing to do. This means DEI has been hijacked politically. Politics means to control a group of people. This is exactly what is happening. A divided and conquer strategy to keep the people yelling at each other over DEI policies while the government’s continue to steal your money and corporations make tax write offs for being brave and buy off competitors who can’t get a fair shake. If you think that the world is relatively good, full of people who care about other’s, you are mistaken. It’s a fallen world and dog eat dog mentality. Unfortunately, those who fall under to the DEI category are being used for their disability or life choices. We think the world is progressing, when in reality, it’s just exploiting the minority for gain.

News

Yellowstone Eruption first in its history. Biscuit Basin explosion. We were warned about Yellowstone for years about how unstable it is and movies have predicative programmed us to believe if it explodes, it’s the pole shift.

Biden done, Harris in. Worst decision ever for the democrats. How did they arrive at this decision? As if they were tricked into this mess? The Simpsons predicted Trump ruined the economy and they elected Lisa. According to the pew research center, there are 49% democrat voters and 48% republican voters. How bizarre that they are so close in separation. Almost as if it’s planned this way. On December 17, 2020, Gallup polling found that 31% of Americans identified as Democrats, 25% identified as Republicans, and 41% as Independent. Huh? It seems Wikipedia and the pew research are way off. Seems awful convenient that over the years of political turmoil and obvious shenanigans that the numbers are so close.

Sources

Gemini AI

Press release: Geoengineering our oceans needs to be halted – Geoengineering Monitor

This Then and Now Photo of Omaha Beach, Normandy Gave Me Chills

Just Stop Oil is secretly funded by big Oil companies. : r/LowStakesConspiracies

Disability Equality Index | Stanford Career Education

Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle resigns after Trump shooting security lapses - CBS News

Party affiliation and ideology of US registered voters | Pew Research Center

Political party strength in U.S. states - Wikipedia