Ken's right. A further point is that there is a very long history of writing about proposed space projects as if they might be doable/ affordable even when they aren't under anything like business as usual. In 1999 there was a mars sample return mission being discussed at the $600m level for 2003/2005. Now we're looking at $4 billion for the 2020s.
On Mar 17, 2:37 pm, Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> wrote: > Again, this is speculating about motivation, which we are not supposed to be > doing in this group. > > Most journalists are trying to write factual and engaging stories. I think > journalists talk about space sunshades because (a) there is a scientific > literature about it (e.g., Early, Angel, Royal Society Report, etc), and (b) > it is an entertaining concept to think about and part of journalism is > entertainment. I do not think we need to assume nefarious political motives > in writing about this option. > > I agree with you about Solar Radiation Management (sun block options) > reducing near term risk while efforts to diminish atmospheric CO2 > concentrations reduce long term risk. > > I have had journalists (and scientists!) talking to me as if it were the > other way around. > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 11:54 PM, John Gorman <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think all of us in favour of geoengineering look upon the space sunshades > > idea as something put into articles by journalists to discredit > > geoengineering. It is totally irrelevant because it couldn't be implemented > > till very late in this century and we will have sorted out the CO2 balance > > and energy systems by then. > > > The time for SRM is the near future till we get CO2 extraction and non > > carbon energy sorted. > > > john gorman > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul" <[email protected]> > > To: "geoengineering" <[email protected]> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 7:48 PM > > Subject: Re: WWF also on geo-eng Re: [geo] Re: Friends of the Earth calls > > for geoengineering research & states that mitigation is not enough to stay > > safe > > > Ken -- Excellent post. > > > The British Friends of the Earth statement includes the sensible line: > > “For the solar radiation techniques solar shades remains the stuff of > > children’s sci-fi films.” > > > Geoengineering is giving itself a bad name by appearing overly > > enthusiastic about "Edward Teller" type ideas > > > [Remember Teller -- the 'father of the H-bomb', and proposer of many > > schemes to use nuclear devices for such purposes as extracting natural > > gas from tight formations, building a new 'Panama Canal' and building > > a deep water port in the far northwestern part of Alaska. The last of > > these lead to Inuit (Native Alaskan) self-protective reactions with > > consequences that last to this day. The long-term side-effects ended > > up being larger than the proposed main effect]. > > > The Sierra Club surely counts itself among organizations supporting > > well-understood activities that sequester carbon (e.g. forests) or > > change the albedo constructively (e.g. white roofs), and supporting > > sensible research (e.g. on CCS). This focus is implicit in the name > > or our main program: Climate Recovery Partnership (http:// > >www.sierraclub.org/crp/) > > > Research on concepts that will lead to increased ocean acidification > > might be acceptable if married to technologies to offset those > > effects. While "Everything is connected to everything else" is almost > > tautologically true, connections are often small enough that they can > > be ignored. With many geoengineering proposals -- not so. > > > If the geoengineering community hopes to bring on board environmental > > groups, it will need good answers to the kinds of questions implied by > > the above. There's some good thinking in the as yet small > > geoengineering literature on raising this kind of question. There's > > as yet a dearth of compelling responses. > > > Paul Craig > > Sierra Club > > > -- > > 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]<geoengineering%[email protected]> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > > > -- > > 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]<geoengineering%[email protected]> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- 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.
