On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Greg Rau <[email protected]> wrote:
snip > Regardless, we need further research to > better understand if we have any globally effective options whose (cost > +impact+ risk)/benefit passes whatever $, environmental, and ethics smell > tests the world community wishes to apply. This issue should apply to > potential actions/technologies that are far broader than whatever currently > qualifies as GE. I agree with Greg. Perhaps a group called "globally effective options" is needed. It would be very useful to be able to put numbers on (cost+impact+ risk)/benefit There is also the problem of "inadvertent" effects on a global scale, of which wind power and the surface blackening by solar has been mentioned. What I have been talking about falls into that class as well from dumping hundreds of million of tons of water (mostly as hydrogen) into the stratosphere along with small amount of oxides of nitrogen. The first can mess with the radiation balance and the second can chew up ozone. Keith -- 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.
