Amen, Mike. Given this dangerous trajectory, I'd say it's time for another 
reading from our experts on the ethics of alternative climate management 
methods. And I don't mean adaptation.   
Greg
--------------------------------------------
On Sun, 5/31/15, Mike MacCracken <[email protected]> wrote:

 Subject: [geo] On why we'll very likely need climate engineering
 To: "Geoengineering" <[email protected]>
 Date: Sunday, May 31, 2015, 10:28 AM
 
 For those who argue that it is best
 to keep relying on mitigation as the
 only acceptable approach, it is because of disgraceful
 decisions such as
 described in:
 
 http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-10-billion-tons-of-coal-that-could-eras
 e-obamas-progress-on-climate-change
 
 that this will be the case. I've done declarations for a
 couple of lawsuits
 trying to fight the leasing of such coal lands. The
 Administration could
 have acceded to their calls for a high quality environmental
 review of the
 consequences of such leasing (so including GHG effect), but
 instead they
 have fought those lawsuits and rely on a really outdated EIS
 (their analysis
 starts on page 4-130--and is only a few pages long). Or they
 could have
 imposed the social cost of carbon as an additional fee if
 one wants to use
 the free market system to level the field across
 technologies--but no,
 leases would be at very low prices.
 
 So, first, the criticism that those of us favor
 geoengineering first are
 just wrong--we've been fighting hard for mitigation. But
 decisions like this
 keep coming, and I would suggest have nothing to do with
 whether
 geoengineering might or might not help. So, we keep having
 to go deeper and
 deeper in to the barrel to try to find some way to slow the
 devastating
 consequences of warming lying ahead.
 
 Second, given decisions like this by the US, no wonder the
 rest of the world
 is not yet really making commitments that are strong enough
 to make a
 difference for the future. Truly embarrassing decision--it
 makes all the
 clamor over stopping the Keystone pipeline to limit tar
 sands development
 ring very hollow.
 
 Mike MacCracken 
 
 -- 
 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.

Reply via email to