I do think geoengineering should be an important issue to be discussed at the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference (C4) December 2009. Is anyone bringing this up? Has anyone seen what's on the agenda? Has anyone been invited to speak in Copenhagen?
Since C4 is a UN initiative. does a country like Russia have veto rights over this? How are decissions going to be made? Could sanctions against non-cooperative countries be endorsed/enforced without Russia's cooperation? Cheers! Sam Carana On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 7:24 AM, Stuart Strand <[email protected]> wrote: > Seems a bit overwrought to me. Of course preventing arctic ice melt and its > consequences is the number one geoengineering priority, but removing carbon > from the atmosphere is a perfectly valid geoengineering topic. > > But please discuss the science and politics of albedo modification etc to > your heart's desire. Here is a question that I haven't seen addressed: Do > the governments of the arctic nations even want to prevent arctic ice > melting? Russia? > > = Stuart = > > Stuart E. Strand > 167 Wilcox Hall, Box 352700, Univ. Washington, Seattle, WA 98195 > voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-3836 > skype: stuartestrand > http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/ > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Eugene I. Gordon > Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 3:32 AM > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > Cc: 'John Nissen'; 'greenhouse effect'; 'geoengineering'; 'geo-engineering' > Subject: [geo] Re: What is geo-engineering? > > > Is there anyone in this group who does not agree that the primary urgency, > virtually to the exclusion of all other geoengineering considerations, is > reversing the Artic ice melt. And if you agree than do you agree that the > issue is removing huge amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere quickly or > reducing the amount of sunlight falling on the Arctic region. Can you add to > that list? > > Priority 2 is how do we organize geoengineering into a valid professional > activity that can promote geoengineering into a position wherein these > overriding needs can be implemented? Once that is done it becomes a > professional activity that offers a recognized and critical venue for the > activity; and a vehicle for obtaining funding for a whole variety of > activities. > > Why do we continue to discuss longterm methods for reducing the amount of > carbon going into the atmosphere? You are fiddling while Rome burns. > > > > > Sam Carana wrote: >> Good point, John, the risk of a runaway greenhouse effect is such that >> we need to prepare to use everything we've got to counter this. >> >> For starters, we should use techniques that are safe, such as where >> suitable selecting vegetation, roofs and pavement that are as white >> and reflective as possible. Pyrolysis of organic waste and biochar >> burial should definitely be adopted. We should switch to clean and >> safe ways to produce energy, concrete, etc. >> >> The more wind turbines, the more surplus energy, which can be used to >> make hydrogen, for air capture of CO2 and to power spraying seawater >> into the sky to change albedo above the sea. >> >> So, not only do all these technologies add up, they go hand in hand. >> One hand washes the other! >> >> Cheers! >> Sam Carana --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
