While there may be tactical reasons to support emissions reduction, the main reason is that it is the right thing to do.
Sent from a limited typing keyboard On Apr 30, 2009, at 10:25, Albert Kallio <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I think geoeng sells itself much better when we talk supportively to > projects like Nobel Prize winner Wangari Maatshai's efforts to re- > green Africa, this removes loads of CO2, increases biodiversity etc. > Albedo change can be addressed by planting lighter crops and plant > variants if there is a pressing need to bring local temperatures down. > > We do not make friends by telling others that their emissions cuts > through better insulation, renewable energy, nuclear energy, carbon > sequesteration, sustainable transport etc. > > Neither we do make friends with people who prepare higher sea walls > and forest fires, draughts, floods and disease epidemics that > climate change may bring to urban and other planners. > > So, by supporting everybody one best supports his own cause > (geoengineering) as we all are at the same problem from different > perspective. > > Veli Albert Kallio > > > > > Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:35:37 +0100 > > Subject: [geo] Re: Televised debate > > From: [email protected] > > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > > > > > > Dear Alvia and Samuel, > > > > You're right, that was bad phrasing on my part. > > > > In any case we would not take that university debating club > approach of > > debating a 'statement' - I was just trying to get the idea across... > > > > Best, > > > > Gus > > > > > > On 30/04/2009 15:26, "Alvia Gaskill" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Why the hell would anyone agree to a debate based on such a > strawman > > > argument? Almost no one involved in geoengineering research or > discussion > > > would agree with your premise. We all agree that reducing > emissions must > > > proceeed at an expedited, but realistic pace. Geoengineering is > simply to > > > buy time and prevent accumlating irreversible damage along the > way. A > > > better debate topic would be whether or not geoengineering > should be done at > > > all, addressing the major arguments for and against that we here > are all too > > > familiar with, but that the public or whatever your audience > consists of is > > > not. > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Gus Lamb" <[email protected]> > > > To: "geoengineering" <[email protected]> > > > Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 10:03 AM > > > Subject: [geo] Televised debate > > > > > > > > >> > > >> Dear all, > > >> > > >> We at One Planet Pictures are interested in setting up a > televised debate > > >> on > > >> geoengineering. Something on the lines of: "This house believes > we should > > >> give up trying to reduce emissions and concentrate instead on > finding a > > >> technofix". > > >> > > >> Can anyone suggest any companies or institutions that might be > interested > > >> in > > >> sponsoring such a debate? > > >> > > >> Many thanks > > >> > > >> Gus > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Upgrade to Internet Explorer 8 Optimised for MSN. " Download Now > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
