I would go further and say "climate geoengineering is distinguished by, and can be defined through, its capacity to decouple climate outcomes from atmospheric carbon dioxide (or other GHG) levels." Thus, the very different (and in my opinion usually lower) risks from atmospheric CO2/GHG management R&D and deployment are separated from those of SRM. Greg ________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of O Morton [[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2014 4:20 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [geo] Re: What Is Climate Geoengineering? Word Games in the Ongoing Debates Over a Definition
I'm not sure that you want to include intention in the definition, though it is hard to exclude. And I think srm, for example, could, though, unwisely, be used without abatement options being pursued; I don't think its reasonable to include normative assumptions about how geoengineering should be pursued in the definition. For me, climate geoengineering is distinguished by, and can be defined through, its capacity to decouple climate outcomes from cumulative carbon dioxide emissions. On Sunday, 16 February 2014 07:46:40 UTC, Emily L-B wrote: Hi is it only fossil-fuel use it's aiming to deal with, rather than including the effects of land use change, deforestation, burping cows, etc? I wonder if geo-engineering aims to 'reduce climate change (or global warming specifically) alongside efforts to reduce ghg emissions.' This can include srm and cdr. This captures other ghg emissions sources, so for example, human release direct to air, but we are also weakening natural carbon draw down pumps in the ocean and may be causing carbon stores to release, from, for example, the oceans, forests and methane hydrates. This also captures the suggestion that geo-eng is expressly intended to be used as well as emissione reductions and not instead and not wait till emissions reductions is declared inadequate because some people are differently optimistic about that and may disagree/ be too late. Best wishes, Emily. Sent from my BlackBerry(R) smartphone on O2 ________________________________ From: Greg Rau <[email protected]<UrlBlockedError.aspx>> Sender: [email protected]<UrlBlockedError.aspx> Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 15:03:20 -0800 (PST) To: [email protected]<UrlBlockedError.aspx><[email protected]<UrlBlockedError.aspx>>; [email protected]<UrlBlockedError.aspx><[email protected]<UrlBlockedError.aspx>> ReplyTo: [email protected]<UrlBlockedError.aspx> Subject: Re: [geo] Re: What Is Climate Geoengineering? Word Games in the Ongoing Debates Over a Definition How about: "geoengineering schemes seek to mitigate the effect of fossil-fuel combustion on the climate in the event that fossil fuel emissions reductions prove inadequate to avoid dangerous climate change." Due to very different risks and benefits, my preference would be to have geoengineering be synonymous with SRM, and to treat CDR separately. Greg ________________________________ From: Oscar Escobar <[email protected]<UrlBlockedError.aspx>> To: [email protected]<UrlBlockedError.aspx> Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 12:24 PM Subject: [geo] Re: What Is Climate Geoengineering? Word Games in the Ongoing Debates Over a Definition I think the most accurate definition of climate geoengineering - Climate Engineering or (Insert new term here_________________), should include the following concept: "geoengineering schemes seek to mitigate the effect of fossil-fuel combustion on the climate without abating fossil fuel use." David Keith Ecyclopedia of Global Change - Environmental Change and Human Society - volume 1 (2002) Also here: "Geoengineering Climate - David Keith - Dept. of Chemistry and Chemical Biology - Harvard University - Cambridge, Massachusett http://keith.seas.harvard.edu/papers/16_Keith_1998_GeoengClimate_s.pdf I think this is doubly accurate in the case of fossil fuel CCS and enhanced oil recovery with carbon storage. I don't think any level of language sophistry, or legalese, will separate this fact from reality. I have to say that, I understand that the many climate geoengineering schemes have many different levels of risk, and other issues such as those raised by Dr. Smolker, but I don't oppose them in such a blanketed way. Best regards, Oscar E. -- 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]<UrlBlockedError.aspx>. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<UrlBlockedError.aspx>. 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]<UrlBlockedError.aspx>. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<UrlBlockedError.aspx>. 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 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.
