Let me clarify a point. CCS is not just geological storage, it is not just point source capture at power plants and CCS in my view is necessary to balance the books. If we do not capture CO2 and store it safely and permanently, we will not manage 2 degrees. We may make 5 degrees without it. Unlike Peter, I am not sure that we have enough infrastructure to hold the carbon we need to hold. I am very open to all sorts of strategies to reduce CO2 emissions. If we do, that would be great, if not we end up storing the carbon we get from somewhere. I very much doubt that this somewhere includes many old coal plants. I very much doubt that retrofitting of coal plants is what will save us. First there are not enough of them, and second we haven’t figured out how to do it cost-effectively. I think we have to seriously consider the possibility that fossil fuels will keep playing a role in the future. But I also want to be very clear that looking to retrofitting old coal plants is a lousy insurance policy. In my view it will simply not work.
At the same time, I understand the conundrum of the old coal plants, which is mainly a problem for their owners. I also realize that many of these “old” coal plants outside of the United States are brand new coal plants and therefore would under normal circumstances have a 50 to 70 year life span left. They are only “old” in the sense that they have been built already and are running. They result in a locked in amount of future CO2 emissions. Eliminating these emission means shutting them down. The hope is that we can remove 70% of their carbon footprint by retrofitting them with scrubbers and CCS. I doubt this will work. This makes a 2 degree strategy very difficult. I also agree with you that our strategy should not be 2 degree or bust, we should figure out how to stop warming as expeditiously as we can. In part, this will depend on the political will to deal with the problem, which also includes tradeoffs between economic growth and CO2 mitigation, which are not always ours to make. It may very well be that the next generation will have to stop warming at 5K. Our goal has to be to help as much as we can today. I will make two arguments. First coal plants are not so big that focusing on them is all that useful. Second, retrofits have failed as a strategy. As the cost of electricity has come down over the years, retrofitting old plants will make them uncompetitive. Alternatives will stop the old plants, with or without carbon constraints. So, let’s first look at the capacity of existing coal plants to cause climate change: World CO2 emissions from coal are around 14 Gt per year, this includes steel and cement and not just coal electric power. Even though it includes more than coal power plants, let’s go with that number. It is our coal legacy infrastructure. If we assume the average remaining life of this infrastructure is 30 years, we are looking at about 400 Gt of CO2 emissions locked in (about 110 Gt C). This is a lot, but nowhere close to a 5-degree warming. According to the modelers who talk about transient responses (see for example Andrew MacDougall, Curr Clim Change Rep (2016) 2:39–47), the warming response to a given amount of CO2 emission is linear in the emission and the warming is between 0.7 and 2.5 K/EgC. On the high end, the current coal consumption for 30 years would add 0.3K warming. (I am not sure I really believe the details of these models, but the order of magnitude seems right. Coal is maybe a third of the total, and we warmed by three to four times as much on 550 GtC). The conclusion from this is that if you are worried about 1.5 degree warming or 2 degree warming, then coal emissions may have to be eliminated, because coal legacy alone could push you over the limit. (If you take the low end of their numbers, then you would still make it even if they kept running). If instead, you worry about five degree warming, you should develop a strategy that for the least possible cost lowers total emissions the most, not a strategy that goes after a particular source because that source looks particularly offensive. For the five-degree case Peter’s logic is particularly pertintent. Indeed, if this logic is correct, then the highest priority is to stop increasing the size of the future legacy pool and stop building more coal plants. For this you have to make sure that alternatives to coal are cheaper than coal. You could do this via policy which biases the playing field to alternatives, but then many a country with cheap coal would balk. It is more effective to develop cheaper alternatives, and such alternatives are clearly emerging, so let’s help them along. Since coal plants have a hard time with load following, the introduction of cheap PV into the grid, actually pushes coal out, as it improves the competitiveness of natural gas that can load follow. You don’t need storage to push coal out! Even without storage becoming cheap, coal will lose competitiveness with PV delivering more power to the grid. Again, Peter’s point of focusing on renewable energy will help push the system in the right direction. It puts us on a pathway that renders new coal plants (of the old style) non-competitive, and in many places will even force old-coal plants into shutdown. By the way pushing coal out through competition is not an economic catastrophe for developing countries. It of course will economically hurt the owners of the coal plants, but society will end up with cheaper power than it would have otherwise, so there is a social benefit in such a transition. You can think of it as an example of Schumpeter’s creative destruction. I would add one more point: Retrofitting CCS on an existing coal plant is not likely an economic choice. 25 years of research have shown that it does not pay. Assume the world decides to actually deal with the CO2 problem, will we then retrofit the old coal plant with scrubbers or will we write them off as stranded assets? I argue that we have no choice but to do the latter. Many years ago, I argued that a coal plant could afford $60/ton of CO2 before it loses competitiveness with a US nuclear power plant. However, today it is not nuclear power that acts as direct competitor. The competition is a combination of gas and solar energy that puts out maybe a third of the CO2 the coal plant puts out. They are a lot cheaper than nuclear power. It seems that in the US right now the coal plant cannot compete with the natural gas fired power plant. At best they are at parity, at worst the coal plants are running on borrowed time. So how could the coal plant possibly compete, if it had to put away twice as much CO2 as the gas fired power plant? Therefore, the demand for scrubbing away the difference to a natural gas plant would kill the coal plant, at least in the US. In other countries, the comparison may not be so straight forward, because natural gas is often more expensive. If gas fetches a higher price than in the US, there remains a residual cost of CO2, at which the coal plant may stay competitive. As a rough rule of thumb the gas plant makes a pound of CO2 per kWh, the coal plant makes nearly a kilogram, or about 500 g more. Assuming the same carbon cost for coal and gas, the coal plant spends an extra half penny per kWh for every $10 per ton of CO2. If the gas plant pays a premium for the gas, at 40% efficiency, one dollar extra per MMBTU would add 0.85 cents to the price of a kWh. Every dollar of a premium for a MMBTU of natural gas would give coal the ability to absorb $17 per ton of CO2 without losing competitiveness. The premium varies, but could be a few dollars. Where coal is cheap and gas is very expensive, there may be a niche for retrofitting. However, this assumes that both coal and gas get retrofitted and nothing else is on the horizon. If coal retrofits compete with new gas plants, the discussion becomes much more complicated. Then you should compare coal electricity to the dispatch price of the new competitor. And the coal dispatch price goes up at about 1 cent per kWh for every $10 you pay for a ton of CO2. Also, coal does not have a constant dispatch price. It effectively competes against a 24 hour price average, because the plant takes time to ramp up or down. What will likely stop coal is intermittent supply of PV at a price that undercuts coal electricity during daylight hours. If none of that happens, there is still the very real possibility that advanced coal plants that are more efficient and smarter designs will outcompete the old retrofits. So, I don’t see much room for retrofitting, and we may have to face the reality that most of the old plants are stranded assets the moment people take CO2 emissions seriously. Before people take CO2 seriously, you can’t afford the retrofit anyhow, and they either make money, or they get pushed out by combinations of renewable energy and gas. Making renewables cheaper is therefore a great strategy to reduce CO2 emissions. Lastly, if we really hit 5K warming, having DAC is absolutely critical, because otherwise we will live with a dangerous climate for a very long time. To summarize, I believe we are wasting our time on fixing old coal plants. They will not compete with all the other options available. I don’t rule out different coal plant designs that have an easier time to collect their CO2, but given the current state of renewable and gas energy, it will be an uphill battle for such plants to enter the market. The existing fleet is doomed with or without climate change. Climate change will accelerate the process. If your goal is to stop at 2K warming, focus on renewable energy and DAC because you can’t do without it. If you worry about 5 degree warming, try to make coal obsolete before it runs out its natural life time without a specific focus on CO2. Encourage people to take a path of maximum CO2 reductions. This is not the path of flue gas scrubbing, because it is simply too expensive to scrub an inefficient power plant. In the first case of 2K time frame, today’s coal plants are going to be stranded assets, in the second case, they may serve out their life time, but they are still in danger of being outcompeted by other technologies. If gas prices stay low in the US and start dropping elsewhere, old coal plants do not stand a chance (even though coal per unit of energy is still much cheaper than gas). Once PV reaches less than 3 cent per kWh of levelized cost, it is below the marginal cost of most coal plants (and natural gas plants), and thus will take on market share against coal, unless governments actively protect coal against the best interests of their citizens even without their interest in a decent climate. PV will be supplemented by flexible natural gas not old-fashioned coal. I also believe that we are at or very close to this tipping point. Klaus From: "Robert H. Socolow" <[email protected]> Date: Friday, August 25, 2017 at 07:57 To: Klaus Lackner <[email protected]>, Peter Eisenberger <[email protected]>, 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 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:[email protected]] 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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>> To: Andrew Lockley <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: geoengineering <[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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<mailto:[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<mailto:[email protected]>. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups. com<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<mailto:[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=DwMGaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=1XucUpTIH7h9ob9oh28FfYNXpQ6mIxuB1bKvn_o3Bec&s=kid_Y52N7KCrzwcQqGrJmcLZnDjmnf18K6xaCJAHaKA&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=DwMGaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=1XucUpTIH7h9ob9oh28FfYNXpQ6mIxuB1bKvn_o3Bec&s=vXCDEaJenznEyFsmMbNZCLGBiHang26H0B7Bs6A2ssk&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.
