Chris etal
1. Thanks. I did indeed find the full Irvine letter at
http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/nclimate2360?utm_campaign=readcube_access&utm_source=nature.com&utm_medium=purchase_option&utm_content=thumb_version
Much easier to read than in the email sent by Greg Rau.
2. Nature is also willing to sell it to you for $18 (the only source I
earlier found) at:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n10/full/nclimate2360.html .
I misunderstood the "readcube" option.
3. My main point though remains - that this seems to be an exchange of
pro-con views on SRM that this list would presumably like to hear more about.
We have the Irvine side, but not yet a short summary of the Barrett et al side
- perhaps even best with Barrett et al (or surrogates) responding to Irvine et
al.
Ron
On Oct 6, 2014, at 2:19 AM, Chris Vivian <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
--
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.
