"he refers to injecting reflective particles into low Earth orbit as
one of the most discussed geoengineering ideas.  ..  He says SRM would
be too expensive and would interfere with spacecraft."

I thought he said "one of the classic ideas" or something like that,
and then said only that that particular approach would be too
expensive and interfere with spacecraft.  I wonder whether he really
conflated mirrors-in-orbit with SRM in general, or whether it just
looks that way in a short clip.

On Apr 9, 4:46 am, "Alvia Gaskill" <[email protected]> wrote:
> http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/ynews;_ylt=AgWN.UaI3bpVBdthMQx.sxJdRJ...
>
> Here is part of the actual video of the interview with Holdren by Seth 
> Borenstein.  In it, he refers to injecting reflective particles into low 
> Earth orbit as one of the most discussed geoengineering ideas.  It is not.  
> He does seem to be aware of some of the generic arguments for and against 
> SRM.  He says SRM would be too expensive and would interfere with spacecraft. 
>  The other article I posted indicates he has a crude and possibly inaccurate 
> understanding of aerosol formation and effectiveness.  I don't expect all 
> people at the senior policy level to be conversant with all aspects of these 
> technologies, but his mixing up and confusion of these ideas concerns me, 
> especially given the low level of understanding of journalists, leading to a 
> "blind-leading-the-blind" scenario when the time comes to explain this to the 
> public.
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: David Keith
>   To: [email protected] ; [email protected]
>   Cc: [email protected] ; geoengineering
>   Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 11:22 PM
>   Subject: [geo] Re: John Holdren puts geoengineering on the table
>
>   I think this comment is (a) factually incorrect and (b) unhelpful. Holdren 
> has know about this and paid attention for some time, certainly since before 
> we held the 2007 Harvard meeting. I talked with him in the fall on this 
> topic. I don't think it's fair to say that he was "backed into a corner". 
> Further, I can think of several senior folks in DC who take geoengineering 
> seriously. (Heck, I am there twice in the next few weeks on the topic.) I 
> think over-statements like this do more harm than good.
>
>   -David
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>   From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Schnare
>   Sent: April 8, 2009 8:37 PM
>   To: [email protected]
>   Cc: [email protected]; geoengineering
>   Subject: [geo] Re: John Holdren puts geoengineering on the table
>
>   Holdren, unlike folks in the environmental advocacy community, can be 
> backed into a corner.  Holdren is not stupid and he is not an advocate, so he 
> has to answer the question asked, rather than spin any response into the "on 
> message" screed.  Thus, he said the least that he could get away with.  
>
>   Holdren actually understands the moral dilemma of rejecting AGW or 
> admitting it is too late to "fix" the problem through carbon emissions 
> reductions policies alone.  
>
>   I don't find any more support from Holdren than we have seen from Hawkins.
>
>   I repeat what I have written to this group before.  You have no friends in 
> Washington, D.C. (i.e., the government).
>
>   David Schnare
>
>   On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Alvia Gaskill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>   Not much different than what he said in the Hot Planet documentary.  Joe
>   Romm misrepresented Holdren's views on this in an article he write late last
>   year by selectively truncating a quote Holdren made about the use of
>   geoengineering.  What he actually said was the same as in these articles.
>   We can't take any option off the table.  The problems with air capture
>   extend beyond just cost also.  It continues to amaze me how journalists
>   still don't grasp the concept of aerosol precursors.  I guess it's like
>   teaching a dog to make a phone call.  It can be done with great difficulty,
>   but you still can't have an intelligent conversation.
>
>  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/08/obama-global-warming-plan_n_...
>
>   Obama Global Warming Plan Involves Cooling Air
>   digg  Huffpost - Obama Global Warming Plan Involves Cooling Air stumble
>   reddit del.ico.us ShareThisSETH BORENSTEIN | April 8, 2009 11:55 AM EST |
>
>   WASHINGTON - The president's new science adviser said Wednesday that global
>   warming is so dire, the Obama administration is discussing radical
>   technologies to cool Earth's air.
>
>   John Holdren told The Associated Press in his first interview since being
>   confirmed last month that the idea of geoengineering the climate is being
>   discussed. One such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles
>   into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays. Holdren said such an
>   experimental measure would only be used as a last resort.
>
>   "It's got to be looked at," he said. "We don't have the luxury of taking any
>   approach off the table."
>
>   Holdren outlined several "tipping points" involving global warming that
>   could be fast approaching. Once such milestones are reached, such as
>   complete loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic, it increases chances of
>   "really intolerable consequences," he said.
>
>   Twice in a half-hour interview, Holdren compared global warming to being "in
>   a car with bad brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog."
>
>   At first, Holdren characterized the potential need to technologically tinker
>   with the climate as just his personal view. However, he went on to say he
>   has raised it in administration discussions.
>
>   Holdren, a 65-year-old physicist, is far from alone in taking geoengineering
>   more seriously. The National Academy of Science is making climate tinkering
>   the subject of its first workshop in its new multidiscipline climate
>   challenges program. The British parliament has also discussed the idea.
>
>   The American Meteorological Society is crafting a policy statement on
>   geoengineering that says "it is prudent to consider geoengineering's
>   potential, to understand its limits and to avoid rash deployment."
>
>   Last week, Princeton scientist Robert Socolow told the National Academy that
>   geoengineering should be an available option in case climate worsens
>   dramatically.
>
>   But Holdren noted that shooting particles into the air _ making an
>   artificial volcano as one Nobel laureate has suggested _ could have grave
>   side effects and would not completely solve all the problems from soaring
>   greenhouse gas emissions. So such actions could not be taken lightly, he
>   said.
>
>   Still, "we might get desperate enough to want to use it," he added.
>
>   Another geoengineering option he mentioned was the use of so-called
>   artificial trees to suck carbon dioxide _ the chief human-caused greenhouse
>   gas _ out of the air and store it. At first that seemed prohibitively
>   expensive, but a re-examination of the approach shows it might be less
>   costly, he said.
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: "Kelly Wanser" <[email protected]>
>   To: "geoengineering" <[email protected]>
>   Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 11:52 AM
>   Subject: [geo] John Holdren puts geoengineering on the table
>
>   >http://www.startribune.com/nation/42671837.html
>
>   > Obama science adviser: Global warming so dire, we may need to tinker
>   > with Earth's atmosphere
>
>   > Associated Press
>
>   > WASHINGTON - The president's new science adviser said that global
>   > warming is so dire, the Obama administration is discussing drastic
>   > options to cool Earth's air.
>
>   > John Holdren told The Associated Press in his first interview since
>   > being confirmed last month that the idea of geoengineering the climate
>   > is being discussed. One such extreme option includes shooting
>   > pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's
>   > rays. Holdren said such an experimental measure would only be used as
>   > a last resort.
>
>   > As he put it: "It's got to be looked at. We don't have the luxury of
>   > taking any approach off the table."
>
>   > ---------
>   > Kelly Wanser
>
>   <br
>
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to