Hi Peter--You might be interested that at the hearing Rep. Veasey
(ranking Democratic member on one of the subcommittees at the
hearing--see https://veasey.house.gov) indicated that he would soon be
putting forward a bill pursuing CDR research/efforts. He has a
Subcommittee on Energy minority staffer, Joe Flarida, working on this
issue who sounds both quite well-informed and also interested in getting
input ([email protected]). While there was discussion about
might be done on SRM, I did not get the impression that a bill on that
was as far along.
On SRM & CDR issue, both are certainly needed. While CDR can get started
now, scaling up seems likely to take a bit of time, though this depends
mainly on level of commitment. SRM is indeed not a long-term approach,
but it can be an approach that I think could be applied early in low
deployment levels while mitigation and CDR are building up and getting
emissions toward zero. I think this notion of waiting decades to get
started makes little sense, because of the climate change and impacts
that will occur in the interim, the shock that sudden and significant
SRM deployment would induce, and that by that time it would be nice to
have mitigation and CDR phased up a good bit (so CO2 emissions down, or
at least no longer rising). Ultimately, we of course prefer having CDR
be the dominant approach--for me the question is having a comprehensive
effort that recognizes what needs to get done and what the capabilities
are and deployments can be over time.
Mike
On 11/11/17 2:24 PM, Peter Eisenberger wrote:
Hi Doug,
I wish your statement was factually true but I can provide if you want
many examples of people adovcating SRM using the status of CDR to
justify its need . Furthermore with all respect
even your statement that CDR is in the same state -eg need for
research as CDR is just factually incorrect . CDR is ready to be
implemented , it does not carry the risk of unintended consequences ,
and as opposed to SRM it can
address the climate challenge whereas the best SRM can do is provide
more time to address it. This is why I wrote that I too support
research on SRM but do so making clear that CDR is both a higher
priority and more advanced by far than SRM
If we were as we should be all on the same team focussed on addressing
the threat we all agree exists than all who support research on SRM
would also make clear that it is a lower priority than CDR .
Furthermore as i wrote the failure to do that will result in a
diffusion of effort so that we will make incremental progress on many
fronts without a commtted response on any single effort thus unwittingly
delaying the critical large scale effort needed while we do research
and thus losing precious time we can ill afford to do . Unfortunately
this is not an academic issue and in the future experts will look at
what we have done and what was really known at the time and come to
their own conclusion. I hope we do not have to wait for that judgment
and somehow develop the internal capability to develop a consensus on
a prioritized plan to address the threat we face. At this time we need
to go beyond letting a thousand flowers bloom which in itself is
paradoxical with the argument that we have no time to waste .
I of course am willing to be shown that my logic is flawed and engage
in respecful dialogue with you or anyone that would argue against 1
that CDR is higher priority than SRM , and 2 we need to have an
internal effort to develop a prioritized program for addressing the
threat we face.
Peter
On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 10:02 AM, Douglas MacMartin
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Peter - I think that the risks of future climate change are
sufficiently concerning that it would be premature to stop all
research on some options on the assumption that other options are
100% guaranteed to suffice. I think that pretty much everyone
who thinks we need to research SRM also thinks we need to research
CDR quite aggressively. So when you try to set things up as an “us
vs them” framing, I don’t think you are doing justice to anyone’s
perspective that I know (and I think I can safely say that I know
pretty much everyone who works on SRM). Relax; we’re all on the
same team, and this isn’t a competition.
Doug
*From:*[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of *Peter
Eisenberger
*Sent:* Saturday, November 11, 2017 12:46 PM
*To:* Greg Rau <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
*Cc:* [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [geo] Climate science foe Lamar Smith -
geoengineering is ‘worth exploring.’
The sophisticated opposition to climate change initiated by George
Bush Senior is to appease by supporting imcreased knowledge
and thus avoid the need to act. This is just the most awkward and
least nunanced of this pattern -or may I say another example of
how far from knowledge based our political dialoque has become .
I have stated my view that those who make the case for SRM by
diminishing the status and potential for CDR to address the
challenge of climate change are unwittingly
playing into the hands of those opposed to action. A coordinated
community focussed on the threat and not their individual idea
would insist that CDR be funded and aggressively pursued
before pursuing SRM - or at least would begin every interaction
with the statement that CDR is a much higher priority.
On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Greg Rau <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>
http://grist.org/briefly/climate-science-foe-lamar-smith-says-geoengineering-is-worth-exploring/
<http://grist.org/briefly/climate-science-foe-lamar-smith-says-geoengineering-is-worth-exploring/>
>
>
“Despite Smith’s endorsement of geoengineering, his opening
statement made it clear that he’s still unwilling to talk
about the reasons why the technology is being researched in
the first place: “The purpose of this hearing is to discuss
the viability of geoengineering … The hearing is not a
platform to further the debate about climate change.”
GR Just in case the climate change hoax is a hoax?
--
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:geoengineering%[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://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
<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]
<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://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
<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]
<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.
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
