On 4, perhaps more accurate to say that they believe it *shouldn't be treated as* an alternative
On Wednesday, 7 January 2015 20:07:38 UTC, andrewjlockley wrote: > > I've been trying to answer some basic questions from a lay inquirer on > Twitter. I thought I'd share some of the explanations I've used. > > I'd really value comments, corrections, ideas and feedback > > A > > ------- > > 1. The sky will look hazy white, like it's viewed through a jug of water > with a teaspoon of milk in it > 2. SRM is much more about controlling future temperature rises than > winding back old ones (near term). > 3. Although sulphur injections aren't physically ideal, the fact that > they're nature-identical reduces the risks of unforeseen consequences > 4. Nobody working in geoengineering seriously believes it's an alternative > to mitigation > -- *This e-mail may contain confidential material. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies. It may also contain personal views which are not the views of The Economist Group. We may monitor e-mail to and from our network.* *Sent by a member of The Economist Group. The Group's parent company is The Economist Newspaper Limited, registered in England with company number 236383 and registered office at 25 St James's Street, London, SW1A 1HG. For Group company registration details go to http://legal.economistgroup.com <http://legal.economistgroup.com> * -- 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.
