Eugene cc list
Since I can't imagine that you can believe you can convince me on any
of your topics below, I presume that you meant this to go to the full list.
Ron
On Feb 17, 2014, at 8:09 AM, euggor...@comcast.net wrote:
> What is the proof that carbon reduction plays any significant role in cooling
> or geoengineering? Carbon may or may not be a source of warming but no one
> has proven it. It is totally speculative. Attractive ;perhaps but unproven.
> If so inclusion of carbon reduction should be qualified as speculative
> whenever it is mentioned. Since carbon reduction is part of the thinking of
> this group perhaps the first step should be to prove it. If you don't prove
> it where does it leave you --- claiming a potential junk idea. Not very
> bright !!
>
> From: "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlar...@comcast.net>
> To: "Oliver Morton" <omeconom...@gmail.com>
> Cc: "Geoengineering" <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>, "Emily Lewis-Brown"
> <em...@lewis-brown.net>
> Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2014 1:50:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [geo] Re: What Is Climate Geoengineering? Word Games in the
> Ongoing Debates Over a Definition
>
> Oliver, Emily etal
>
> The word "decouple" seems too vague. I agree with Emily that if we
> use "fossil" we should also mention "land use", but mentioning both doesn't
> seem necessary.
>
> My first concern about the term "geoengineering" is that the primary
> emphasis is always on SRM - when that is the most controversial part; not
> good PR. Second , Ken Caldeira's placement between mitigation and
> adaptation seems helpful but I can't recall a definition that ties them all
> together in his circular fashion. Third, we don't here enough on ethics -
> which the term "rectification" covers. So here is a first try, fixing these
> three concerns. I don't expect it to be taken too seriously, but I feel
> better having gotten this written down. What is missing is how to decide
> what to do with both - neither, one or the other, or both.
>
> Geoengineering consists of two mostly unused types of technologies that
> follow mitigation (relatively low cost carbon reduction through energy
> efficiency and renewable energy) but precede high cost adaptation (minimizing
> future damages) and rectification (financial compensation for the most
> harmed)). Close to mitigation are the carbon dioxide removal (CDR)
> technologies, that are low risk and can be started now, but are relatively
> expensive. Close to adaptation are solar radiation management (SRM)
> technologies, which are low cost, but do not address ocean acidification, are
> risky, and will require new time-consuming international treaties, before
> being able to then react quickly.
>
> Ron
>
>
> On Feb 16, 2014, at 5:20 AM, O Morton <omeconom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
<snip as not relevant to this exchange>
--
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
