I note that the CRS falls into the same nomenclature trap as everyone else.
By defining geoengineering to cover even things things that pose no novel risks, but seeking to make sweeping statements, they say things like: "Nevertheless, if geoengineering technologies are deployed, they are expected to have the potential to cause significant transboundary effects." Thus, as usual, reforestation, biochar, and point source removal of CO2 with geologic storage are tarred with the same brush that stratospheric aerosols are tarred with. Isn't it time we sharpened up our language? Since "geoengineering" is in effect a pejorative term, isn't it time that we refine its scope so that it refers only to activities that pose novel risks? _______________ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 [email protected] http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Rau, Greg <[email protected]> wrote: > Apologies if this link has already been discussed: > https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41371.pdf > > Greg > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
