Thanks. Here's what I posted:
The geoengineering concepts mentioned in the interview coverage are out of date. If that provides any indication of Holdren's level of interest in the concept, then the people who recoil in horror at the thought of geoengineering can give a big sigh of relief -- both those who would rather go into Al Gore's worst nightmare than take responsibility by insufficiently Gaia-centric means, and those who want to avoid discussing what to do about global climate change because that would mean admitting that it's real. Unfortunately, those two categories account for such a large percentage of the population that even mentioning the concept is a risky act of leadership for anyone in politics. Kudos to Holdren for that at least. On Apr 10, 10:11 am, Andrew Revkin <[email protected]> wrote: > Just in case anyone wants to comment, an alert here that our comment > function on Times blogs is back up and running after a huge > tech-quake yesterday. Holdren post clarifying his stance following > the AP storm is here:http://bit.ly/dotHoldren > -- > Andrew C. Revkin > The New York Times / Environment > 620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018 > Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556 > Fax: 509-357-0965http://www.nytimes.com/revkin --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
