I think I overstated my formulation. I was not talking about the science but really the level of enthusiasm and energy around various options. While we see people full-throatedly arguing for MOAR BECCS NOW we don't really see the same breadth of enthusiasm for immediate SAI. ᐧ
On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> wrote: > I think of carbon dioxide removal as a form of mitigation and of solar > geoengineering as an extreme form of adaptation. > > They are not not mutually exclusive, and not substitutes except insofar as > more carbon dioxide removal reduces the motivation to deploy solar > geoengineering. > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 07:52 Fred Zimmerman <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> What I find interesting about this is that it had seemed to me that this >> community >> had largely moved on to CDR & especially BECCS as the preferred mechanism, >> most people accepting David Keith's view of SAI as a last-ditch option for >> slowing the rate of change. Do others agree with my formulation? >> >> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected] >> > wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html >>> >>> Extract >>> >>> Another example is the array of technologies—often referred to >>> collectively as geoengineering—that potentially could help reverse the >>> warming effects of global climate change. One that has gained my personal >>> attention is stratospheric aerosol injection, or SAI, a method of seeding >>> the stratosphere with particles that can help reflect the sun’s heat, in >>> much the same way that volcanic eruptions do. >>> >>> An SAI program could limit global temperature increases, reducing some >>> risks associated with higher temperatures and providing the world economy >>> additional time to transition from fossil fuels. The process is also >>> relatively inexpensive—the National Research Council estimates that a fully >>> deployed SAI program would cost about $10 billion yearly. >>> >>> As promising as it may be, moving forward on SAI would raise a number of >>> challenges for our government and for the international community. On the >>> technical side, greenhouse gas emission reductions would still have to >>> accompany SAI to address other climate change effects, such as ocean >>> acidification, because SAI alone would not remove greenhouse gases from the >>> atmosphere. >>> >>> On the geopolitical side, the technology’s potential to alter weather >>> patterns and benefit certain regions at the expense of others could trigger >>> sharp opposition by some nations. Others might seize on SAI’s benefits and >>> back away from their commitment to carbon dioxide reductions. And, as with >>> other breakthrough technologies, global norms and standards are lacking to >>> guide the deployment and implementation of SAI. >>> >>> -- >>> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> >> ᐧ >> > -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
