Greg and list:
Not sure how Michael will respond, but I urge list members to look at
www.coolplanet.com. This is the only group I know of that are already driving
cars with this carbon negative slogan - but there are dozens of companies
saying something similar about carbon-negative cooking and making charcoal.
Cool Planet has plenty of funds. They are moving aggressively with 2
(maybe 3?) small engine-ready drop-in gasoline refineries scheduled for
Louisiana relatively soon.
Ron
On Feb 2, 2014, at 11:55 AM, Rau, Greg <[email protected]> wrote:
> Maybe i missed something, but what is "carbon negative biofuel production"?
> Greg
> From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on
> behalf of Michael Hayes [[email protected]]
> Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2014 11:33 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [geo] Geoengineering in a World Risk Society - By Tina Sikka.
>
> Oscar,
>
>
>
> The premise of the paper is highly biased. To quote: "I argue that it is
> their inherently global, unpredictable, uninsurable and potentially
> catastrophic character, which can be both inimitable, frightening,......".
>
>
>
>
> Carbon negative biofuel production is not "unpredictable", "uninsurable",
> "potentially catastrophic", "inimitable" nor "frightening". The same can also
> be said about MCB, direct air capture, biochar, olivine in its' many uses,
> flue capture etc.
>
>
>
> By characterizing the entire geoengineering tool box as Frankensteinish, the
> author shows her lack of in depth understanding of the science and
> engineering.
>
>
>
> Emily makes a good point in that we are constantly involved in activities
> which affect our planetary ecology. The truly "frightening" thing about these
> undeclared GE activities is that few have environmental or social value. GE
> has great potential for both.
>
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:07:32 PM UTC-8, Oscar Escobar wrote:
> Dear Emily,
>
> I am sorry you chose to focus on such narrow area of the paper, in which she
> perhaps did not elaborate appropriately. But she does so a bit more in the
> main body, if you read the complete work. Even so I think that , 'outlandish'
> is one of the more terse terms I have heard used to describe geoengineering
> in a negative manner. And I mean terse, compared to some other adjectives
> used by some geoeng. proponents.
>
> What I though more important than her assessments of individual techniques,
> was that, even though she is highly, and rightfully, critical of GE, she
> highlights the importance of not only the public's participation in the
> dialogue but the need for continued research.
>
> Now the fact that a few 'lay persons' may have a chance to post here, doesn't
> mean that the public at large is involved in the conversation. Consider that
> Geoengineering has been talked about (with its present CO2 focus) at least
> since the 1970s, and yet the science in general is still presented as new.
>
> Regarding her assessment that continued research is needed, I would think
> that is something geoengineering researchers would welcome.
>
> Dear Dr. Salter,
>
> Thank you for the paper, I have read and written a little on the cooling
> effects of these type of clouds and the hydrological cycle in general.
>
> I am not a professional scientist. I blog and comment from a layperson's
> point of view. I guess the knowledge I do possess is what the average lay
> person with some interest may be able to gather these days.
>
> I would generally agree with you that we need to know more. But, why not
> start first by being exhaustive about knowing the effects of aviation
> emissions and ship tracks, which are two of the closest anthropogenic analogs
> ("albeit imperfect") to SRM?
>
>
> Regarding the roll of clouds, and in my limited capacity, I have written a
> few entries in my blog such as these:
> On cirrus: A SAFER ALTERNATIVE TO SOLAR RADIATION MANAGEMENT
> http://geoengineeringclimateissues.blogspot.com/2013/03/a-safer-alternative-to-solar-radiation.html
> On type of cloud: Short cutting the cooling properties of the hydrological
> cycle
> http://geoengineeringclimateissues.blogspot.com/2013/04/short-cutting-cooling-properties-of.html
>
> Water vs Heat - Re. Global warming affects crop yields, but it's the water
> not the heat
> http://geoengineeringclimateissues.blogspot.com/2013/03/wow-out-just-today-march-4-2013-eye.html
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Oscar Escobar
>
> A #Geoengineering #Climate Issues Blog - Geoingeniería
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 3:01:47 AM UTC-5, Emily L-B wrote:
> Hi thanks for this. Perhaps it is a cultural or translation issue, but
> 'outlandish' is quite an 'outlandish' word for a scientific paper. - I am
> struck by the application of this term for painting roofs white, OIF and
> mirrors in space because taking these examples, we do all of these things
> already:
> We have, i dont know how many, black rooves in the world already(why is white
> worse);
> We pump sewage and drain fertiliser from the land around the world in I dont
> know what quantity daily in very concentrated time and space in inshore
> waters which are much more vulnerable (fertilising the ocean in shallow seas
> with low water exchange often);
> And we pump i dont know how much dust into the atmosphere daily, globally, on
> a rather large scale.
> On top of these, we are already doing an amazing amount of other things to
> Earth on the most incredible scale. And we dont seem to be able to agree to
> stop.
> I am not sure i understand why efforts with the intention of being positive
> are viewed so negatively when things we do in full knowledge of their
> negative impacts are allowed to continue and increase with little or no
> successful strategies to stop them.
> Best wishes,
> Emily.
>
> Sent from my BlackBerry(R) smartphone on O2
> From: Oscar Escobar <[email protected]>
> Sender: [email protected]
> Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 18:24:12 -0800 (PST)
> To: <[email protected]>
> ReplyTo: [email protected]
> Subject: [geo] Geoengineering in a World Risk Society - By Tina Sikka.
>
> Hello all,
>
> A short intro about me. My name is Oscar Escobar, I blog about geoengineering
> (climate engineering) here:
>
> A #Geoengineering #Climate Issues Blog - Geoingeniería
> Geoengineering - Climate Engineering from a layman's critical perspective.
> http://geoengineeringclimateissues.blogspot.com/
>
> Previously I described myself as 'opposed' to geoengineering. This continues
> to be largely accurate in the case of SRM and OIF deployment. But I do think
> that more public knowledge is important for all concerned.
>
> Twitt here: @oscare2000 https://twitter.com/oscare2000
> paperli http://paper.li/oscare2000/1347466963
>
>
> This article by Tina Sikka stroke a chord with me, I am posting it here
> hoping it helps in broadening the conversation,
>
> best regards,
>
> Oscar Escobar
> Lakeland, FL - EEUU
>
>
>
> Geoengineering in a World Risk Society
> By Tina Sikka.
> (Full paper in academia.edu (scroll down a few pages)
> https://www.academia.edu/5672333/Geoengineering_in_a_World_Risk_Society
>
> Abstract:
> http://ijc.cgpublisher.com/product/pub.185/prod.126
> Published by The International Journal of Climate Change: Impacts and
> Responses
>
> In the following paper, I draw on Ulrich Beck's model of the world risk
> society to examine, unpack and critique geoengineering technologies. Briefly,
> geoengineering can be defined as large-scale technological interventions into
> the environment in an attempt to mitigate or even reverse climate change.
> They include such proposals as painting the surfaces of buildings white to
> reflect the sun's rays, placing mirrors in space for similar ends or the more
> interventionist seeding of oceans with iron in order to encourage the growth
> of carbon absorbing algae blooms. What is startling about geoengineering is
> that despite its seeming outlandishness, it has recently been seriously
> considered by a number of governments, corporations, research institutes and
> professional scientific bodies.
>
> In an attempt to better understand and appreciate the possible normative,
> political, economic and environmental consequences of such large-scale
> technological interventions, I have found Beck's thesis of reflexive
> modernity and the world risk society to be particularly useful and
> illuminating. Essentially, Beck's thesis is that we live in a world that
> distinguished from the past by the extent to which it is constituted by
> global technological risks that one, tears down traditional boundaries
> between people and their environments (de-localization); two, resists
> anticipation by conventional scientific and/or rational means; three, denies
> compensation or insurability against danger; and four, re-orients social
> attention to the constant anticipation of catastrophe. These risks, as Beck
> argues, "represents a shock for the whole of humanity" who never could have
> anticipated "the self-destructiveness-not only physically but also ethical-of
> unleashed modernity" (Beck, 2006, p. 330).
>
> In applying these insights to geoengineering, it becomes clear that these
> technologies are, by definition, risk technologies. I argue that it is their
> inherently global, unpredictable, uninsurable and potentially catastrophic
> character, which can be both inimitable, frightening, which renders them in
> need of further study. As such, in undertaking an examination of these
> questions, I have chosen to divide this article into the following sections:
> I begin with a brief introduction to geoengineering technologies and discuss
> not only what they are and what they are supposed to do. Following this, I
> delve into a more considered discussion of how geoengineering technologies
> are in fact risk technologies as Beck defines them. I begin with an overview
> of reflexive modernization, followed by discussions Beck's concepts of risk,
> insurability and responsibility, and subpolitics, which I use to examine
> geoengineering in turn.
>
> --
> 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.
>
> --
> 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 [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.
