Ron, With regard to your point 1, you have seen the full text as it was a 'Letter to the Editor' not a paper. Chris.
On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 6:51:57 PM UTC+1, Ron wrote: > Greg, Andrew, list: > > 1. Thanks for the saving on paying for an abstract. Hopefully someone > can supply a location to see the full paper or include me in any off-list > distribution. > > 2. The Irvine - Barrett dialog is on governmental policy toward the SRM > side of geoengineering. However many forms of CDR are both mitigation (by > ICCP definitions), and still a geoengineering approach (there is overlap in > a Venn diagram sense). This note to expand the governmental policy > discussion a bit. > > 3. The first good news I am aware of on the broader geoengineering > political feasibility topic was announced a few days ago. The City of > Stockholm won one million Euros in a (former NYC Mayor) Bloomberg > competition between larger European cities. There are dozens of > announcement cites possible via easy googling. Harder to find was the 15 > page winning proposal from Stockholm, which directly and favorably > addresses the issue of political feasibility (first time ever?). I am > unaware of any other competition entry that was geo-oriented; none of the > four other winners was. Stockholm’s entry was on biochar. Maybe some of > the city’s thoughts could inform the SRM debate - the Bloomberg judging > panel found “governmental policy” (the contest theme) merit. > > > -- 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/d/optout.
