Dear Rob, I am sorry to see that you still seem confused between what is the best path to addressing the climate change challenge we face and what are the practical problems in achieving it. An even simpler statement of what Klaus wrote is that in an emergency one puts all ones resources into a solution that can solve the problem . The solution is to do renewables as fast as possible and to do CDR as fast possible. This focus on a solution in an emergency is made even more powerful because of the benefits of learning and scale. As Al Gore once stated and was ridculed for it, we should not spend another dollar on fossil fuel plants . clean or not. This is really straightforward yet remarkable you and other experts never have supported that proposition leaving Klaus and I who are vulnerable to attacks of self interest to make the case. The abuse klaus has taken for being an early advocate of this even from those supposedly trying to solve the problem will go down in history as a hopefully not too fatal error that delayed reaching the inescapable truth of our need to foccus on renewables and CDR.
Your perspective and many others who are committed to solving the problem that stress the realities are in my opinion just rationalizing dealing with the institutions(DOE) and companies(Fossil Fuel Industry ) that have the resources. I do not have to point out in current America how the latter distorts the former(Senator Byrd is responsible for the DOE focus on coal) . Now when you wrote you paper with Pacala it was plausible to advocate the wedges approach you described. But since then our understanding of the carbon cycle and how long extra co2 persists in the atmosphere has advance so that we now know there is no solution without CDR. Yet those institutions and people that were committed to the old understanding (eg the oxymoron of clean coal) decided to fight rather than switch. From the earliest days of the APS study populated by experts in cleaning flue gas we heard the self serving conclusion that DAC had to be very costly and thus should be relegated at best to doing some research. As a leading advocate of this perspective I encourage you in the strongest possible terms to become an advocate for a solution that can work. Sure there will be more coal plants built and sure their will be resistance but the simplest aphorism of all time is that you cannot get somewhere if you do not know where you are going . We need to first decide where we are going and then deal with all the comprises and realities that exist. Your final statement about using CO2 from flue gas as opposed to DAC to make fiber is a classic example of this flawed and tragic logic. The notion that using coal plants makes sense is only because the absolutely scientically bankrupt concept of avoided carbon that was invented by DOE to legitimize using CO2 from power plants fro other purposes . My favorite example of this is that currently one can take CO2 already sequestered in a dome , pipe it ot Texas and inject it underground where 50% remains and get a tax credit for doing taking already sequester CO2 and outing it in the air. A correct LAC, not one corrupted by clean coal, would put the boundary at the interface with the atmosphere and conclude that coal to carbon fiber is at best carbon neutral ( they still emit about 10% ) while DAC to carbon fiber is carbon negative. I have talked with LAC experts and theya cknowedge their LAC has not kept up with new understanding of how long extra CO2 remains in the atmosphere. So if the world had the right framework any carbon mitigating policy would place a higher value on CDR carbon as opposed to avoided carbon. Finally of course it turns out that Co2 from air is not that much more costly than from the flue and it turns out land near power plants is limited and costly so that if one has to transport the CO2 to the carbon fiber factory it will cost more than DAC done right at the factory. I truly hope you will reconsider your position and add your voice the the need to focus on renewable energy and CDR . Peter On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 6:57 AM, Robert H. Socolow <[email protected]> wrote: > Klaus: You formulate the problem well. The question, however, is what “the > long run” means. When will we run out of “old” coal plants? Certainly not > before we stop building new coal plants. And “we” is not the U.S. The > argument for CCS is that coal-plant construction has hardly abated yet. > Steve Davis’s and my article on “committed emissions” in Environmental > Research Letters is now a couple of years old, but at least as of then the > number of new coal plants built each year globally was monotonically > increasing. As you know, I am not optimistic that CCS can be married to new > coal, because neither the environmentalists nor the coal industry will > support it. But there are good arguments for trying to make the marriage > happen. > > > > Buying down the costs of CCS is a fool’s errand only if the nations of the > world actually are firmly committed to a dramatic reduction in the rate of > arrival of climate change, rather than only saying that they are. I > advocate mixing worst-case thinking into an optimist’s brew. My view hasn’t > changed that avoiding five degrees is the highest priority task, and > getting to two rather than three is next. The progress over the past decade > with wind and solar is astonishing, and if similar progress can be achieved > with storage and system innovation (including demand management), coal may > really be over. We need to pay attention to choices made by India and its > neighbors, as well as by Africa, over at least the next decade and put > priority on R&D and policy that will tip the scales. Moreover, If storage > and system innovation arrive slowly, wind and solar will penetrate more > quickly in concert with natural gas, which will continue to assure > dispatchability as it does now, and then the marriage of CCS with natural > gas will become important. > > > > In short, it is dangerous to pretend that it’s already OK to devote our > entire attention to two degrees. > > > > The education our energy analysis community has received regarding CCS > over the past decade extends to DAC as well. The storage part was initially > essentially too cheap to meter. It is now regarded as formidable. If there > is an end run, for example based on CO2 reuse as fiber, then that makes CCS > for coal less unattractive as well. (Fiber will come from coal before it > comes from air, won’t it?) In short, I recommend caution before joining > advocacy of DAC and denigration of CCS. They are synergistic campaigns, > both facing steep uphill climbs and to a considerable extent for the same > reasons. > > > > Rob > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:geoengineering@ > googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Klaus Lackner > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 23, 2017 8:14 PM > *To:* [email protected]; Greg Rau > *Cc:* Geoengineering; [email protected] > > *Subject:* Re: [geo] The influence of learning about (CDR) on support for > mitigation policies > > > > Let me phrase the critical part of Peter’s argument slightly differently. > > > You should do things with future, because learning here matters. If you > build solar energy, it will get cheaper and cheaper over time. The same is > true for DAC. It is even true for retrofitting old cold plants, but then > you know you run out of old coal plants and all the learning was for > naught. If you had picked another clean energy source with long term > potential that would be fine, because it would have gotten cheaper, and you > can’t know to begin with which of the different options will win. But you > picked something that you know can’t compete in the long run and is going > to be phased out. You learned a dying art. If the owners of coal plants > find it competitive to fix the plant, let them do it. But there is no good > reason to spend public money on that support. > > > > Klaus > > > > > > > > > > *From: *<[email protected]> on behalf of Peter Eisenberger < > [email protected]> > *Reply-To: *Peter Eisenberger <[email protected]> > *Date: *Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 15:56 > *To: *Greg Rau <[email protected]> > *Cc: *Geoengineering <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> > *Subject: *Re: [geo] The influence of learning about (CDR) on support for > mitigation policies > > > > Hi Greg , > > Just for a moment of truth- free of moral hazards and climate change > politics > > 1 Emissions reductions through capturing and storing CO2 cannot solve the > climate problem alone (and cost too much ) > > 2 CDR can solve the problem alone -it is just more difficult without > emissions reductions > > 3 While it is true that in the short term an emission reduction from a > plant already operating is equivalent to a CDR reduction of the same size > one can most effectively reduce emissions by switching to renewables > > 4 Now the tricky point is that any technology has a practical limit of > how fast it can be implemented -so lets use a doubling of capacity every > two years - we know that experience curves result in cost reductions with > installed capacity > > 5 So if one wanted to achieve the paris targets as fast as possible one > would invest in renewables and in CDR (DAC) and not spend a penny on > emissions reductions which in reducing the rate (the opprotunity cost of > emissions reductions)on would be slowing down the other two deployments > increasing the time it would take for both renewables and CDR to reach the > scale needed - because the last doublings ( when all the factories making > CDR and renewable will quickly make up for the increased emmissions from > existing plants -alternatively if one was to focus first on emissions > reductions and then on the other two that would be the longest time to > reach the capacities needed. > > > > This could easily be modeled but the key is the positive feedback created > by building plants which results in enhanced rate ( new installations per > year because of lower costs and earlier establishment of mass production > capability ) make the opportunity cost of investing in emmissions > reductions that will eventually end so large they are not worth doing . In > simpler terms one does not ususally invest in solutions that cannot solve > the problem if one has available approaches that do . > > > > I believe this logic is solid . The reason is has not been widely if at > all accepted is because clean coal got started in an era where we > mistakenly( Socolow and Pacala) thought that they together with renewables > and other things (eg conservation , efficiency etc ) could solve te > climate problem . Lots of vested interests exist(DOE in particular) that do > not want to admit that all their effort was in a dry hole so to speak. > > > > So my position is if we are serious about the climate threat we should all > focus on renewable energy and CDR and I believe of course (which I want > others to evaluate) that DAC followed by use of the carbon that stores it > is the CDR technology that can scale and offers a low cost solution > because the co2 makes money . The other approach I would support > investigating is enhancd weathering and of course fusion . > > > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Greg Rau <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks, Peter. Just to amplify, the IPCC states that to stay below 2degC > warming and esp below 1.5degC warming, both emissions reduction and CDR are > required, not either/or. So how about the concept that emissions reduction > presents a "moral hazard" to (required) CDR development? > > > > In any case, if even thinking about CDR (let alone doing it) is perceived > by humans as a threat to emissions reduction (Campbell-Arvai et al., 2017), > it's game over. We have to do both. I seriously doubt that humans are > truly incapable of doing 2 things at once, but if they are we're toast > (IPCC). > > Greg > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Peter Eisenberger <[email protected]> > *To:* Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> > *Cc:* geoengineering <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 22, 2017 1:40 AM > *Subject:* Re: [geo] The influence of learning about (CDR) on support for > mitigation policies > > > > This line of reasoning is logically flawed and is one of the best examples > of how the role of CDR is misunderstood and distorted by others who have an > anti technology > > orientation that pervaded the original environmental movement. > > > > It is logically flawed because it is normal for people to react to news > that a new solution exists, CDR ,to a problem they thought they could solve > by renewable energy, emissions reductions and conservation . The 2014 IPCC > report confirmed what many knew that those processes are not adequate for > avoiding a climate disaster and that CDR is needed. So switching ones > emphasis to CDR solution that can solve the problem from ones that cannot > makes sense- to not change ones emphasis is illogical. > > The original approach has its origins in the original environmental > movement in which renewable energy , emissions reductions ,and energy > conservation were the central tenets. The latter two garnered the support > of the people who believe industrialization and human consumption is the > real problem and want us to change. The two are combined in the moral > hazard argument - eg CDR will reduce our commitment to the previous plan > and will also be a technological fix that will argue against the > fundamental tenet of the early environmental supporters - human development > has to harm the environment so we have to reduce our footprint to zero. > > > > On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 11:59 PM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Poster's note: I'm working in this field, and the divide between liberals > and conservatives is discussed in my paper. journals.sagepub.com/ > doi/full/10.1177/ 1461452916659830 > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__journals.sagepub.com_doi_full_10.1177_1461452916659830&d=DwMFaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=aeIX0GnCm5RzRarzHD7FMNe7Fou5h5BjIEukq8Fy8ME&s=m9lZyelFxOBb-nKkMsLz26iN7BVJl-jAPA2xvmmYgic&e=> > > > > Climatic Change > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__link.springer.com_journal_10584&d=DwMFaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=aeIX0GnCm5RzRarzHD7FMNe7Fou5h5BjIEukq8Fy8ME&s=fkMf8Ml8ngKEsV19Vtgb7IkUGZWul-OjcDWrwlKqn5s&e=> > > August 2017 , Volume 143, Issue 3–4 > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__link.springer.com_journal_10584_143_3_page_1&d=DwMFaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=aeIX0GnCm5RzRarzHD7FMNe7Fou5h5BjIEukq8Fy8ME&s=mDuYOEWRxZFVgm7aUOEu9vzh9gcDkFLAr3JM1-m0RSQ&e=> > , pp 321–336 > The influence of learning about carbon dioxide removal (CDR) on support > for mitigation policies > > · Authors > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__link.springer.com_article_10.1007_s10584-2D017-2D2005-2D1-23authors&d=DwMFaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=aeIX0GnCm5RzRarzHD7FMNe7Fou5h5BjIEukq8Fy8ME&s=kBeTsNzRRyzEOpX-mnfx4Stjb1OyTBu3Yy2pWKu_w5o&e=> > > · Authors and affiliations > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__link.springer.com_article_10.1007_s10584-2D017-2D2005-2D1-23authorsandaffiliations&d=DwMFaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=aeIX0GnCm5RzRarzHD7FMNe7Fou5h5BjIEukq8Fy8ME&s=MwtU82AafqV_jm0UooLSL--AxYlN-oihY_AaIE1j-1w&e=> > > · Victoria Campbell-ArvaiEmail author <[email protected]> > > · P. Sol Hart > > · Kaitlin T. Raimi > > · Kimberly S. Wolske > > · > > o > > · > > o > > · > > o > > · > > o > > o > > 1. 1. > > 2. 2. > > 3. 3. > > 4. 4. > > 5. 5. > > Article > > *First Online: * > > 28 July 2017 > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__link.springer.com_article_10.1007_s10584-2D017-2D2005-2D1-23article-2Ddates-2Dhistory&d=DwMFaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=aeIX0GnCm5RzRarzHD7FMNe7Fou5h5BjIEukq8Fy8ME&s=lt-lYZYkqMyc-HFbsgdkEQGGamCGrQwsi6huCB7XdV8&e=> > > · 44Shares > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.altmetric.com_details.php-3Fcitation-5Fid-3D22932693-26domain-3Dlink.springer.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=aeIX0GnCm5RzRarzHD7FMNe7Fou5h5BjIEukq8Fy8ME&s=0iRKcZ19LtkJl1aMYNyMyPMoHUN04I4InPi4XAQMFnI&e=> > > > > · 201Downloads > Abstract > > A wide range of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) strategies has been proposed > to address climate change. As most CDR strategies are unfamiliar to the > public, it is unknown how increased media and policy attention on CDR might > affect public sentiment about climate change. On the one hand, CDR poses a > potential moral hazard: if people perceive that CDR solves climate change, > they may be less likely to support efforts to reduce carbon emissions. On > the other hand, the need for CDR may increase the perceived severity of > climate change and, thus, increase support for other types of mitigation. > Using an online survey of US adults (*N* = 984), we tested these > competing hypotheses by exposing participants to information about > different forms of CDR. We find that learning about certain CDR strategies > indirectly reduces support for mitigation policies by reducing the > perceived threat of climate change. This was found to be true for > participants who read about CDR in general (without mention of specific > strategies), bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, or direct air > capture. Furthermore, this risk compensation pattern was more pronounced > among political conservatives than liberals—although in some cases, was > partially offset by positive direct effects. Learning about reforestation, > by contrast, had no indirect effects on mitigation support through > perceived threat but was found to directly increase support among > conservatives. The results suggest caution is warranted when promoting > technological fixes to climate change, like CDR, as some forms may further > dampen support for climate change action among the unengaged. > Electronic supplementary material > > The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10584-017-2005-1 > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__doi.org_10.1007_s10584-2D017-2D2005-2D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=aeIX0GnCm5RzRarzHD7FMNe7Fou5h5BjIEukq8Fy8ME&s=8Nc7FzpUkQf4JE2M8vQVJ8bDjrwqeVEBsYJwfOu5-Dc&e=> > ) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. > > -- > 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 geoengineering+unsubscribe@ googlegroups.com > <[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups. com > <[email protected]>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/ group/geoengineering > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_group_geoengineering&d=DwMFaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=aeIX0GnCm5RzRarzHD7FMNe7Fou5h5BjIEukq8Fy8ME&s=GDb_2oWddSqwHhwQLU5QUiqcN1mn2sUPro8M4GKnedI&e=> > . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ optout > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_d_optout&d=DwMFaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=aeIX0GnCm5RzRarzHD7FMNe7Fou5h5BjIEukq8Fy8ME&s=_9YXhmQrFnFRL6DlWkY9Ot57VlTiWTT4h9aEfzGfdf0&e=> > . > > > > > > -- > > CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: This email message and all attachments contain > confidential and privileged information that are for the sole use of the > intended recipients, which if appropriate applies under the terms of the > non-disclosure agreement between the parties. > > -- > 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 > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_group_geoengineering&d=DwMFaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=aeIX0GnCm5RzRarzHD7FMNe7Fou5h5BjIEukq8Fy8ME&s=GDb_2oWddSqwHhwQLU5QUiqcN1mn2sUPro8M4GKnedI&e=> > . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_d_optout&d=DwMFaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=aeIX0GnCm5RzRarzHD7FMNe7Fou5h5BjIEukq8Fy8ME&s=_9YXhmQrFnFRL6DlWkY9Ot57VlTiWTT4h9aEfzGfdf0&e=> > . > > > > -- > 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 > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_group_geoengineering&d=DwMFaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=aeIX0GnCm5RzRarzHD7FMNe7Fou5h5BjIEukq8Fy8ME&s=GDb_2oWddSqwHhwQLU5QUiqcN1mn2sUPro8M4GKnedI&e=> > . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_d_optout&d=DwMFaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=aeIX0GnCm5RzRarzHD7FMNe7Fou5h5BjIEukq8Fy8ME&s=_9YXhmQrFnFRL6DlWkY9Ot57VlTiWTT4h9aEfzGfdf0&e=> > . > > > > > > -- > > CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: This email message and all attachments contain > confidential and privileged information that are for the sole use of the > intended recipients, which if appropriate applies under the terms of the > non-disclosure agreement between the parties. > > -- > 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 > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_group_geoengineering&d=DwMFaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=aeIX0GnCm5RzRarzHD7FMNe7Fou5h5BjIEukq8Fy8ME&s=GDb_2oWddSqwHhwQLU5QUiqcN1mn2sUPro8M4GKnedI&e=> > . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_d_optout&d=DwMFaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=aeIX0GnCm5RzRarzHD7FMNe7Fou5h5BjIEukq8Fy8ME&s=_9YXhmQrFnFRL6DlWkY9Ot57VlTiWTT4h9aEfzGfdf0&e=> > . > > -- > 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. > -- CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: This email message and all attachments contain confidential and privileged information that are for the sole use of the intended recipients, which if appropriate applies under the terms of the non-disclosure agreement between the parties. -- 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.
