Sure that is correct but we are fighting  ideology on two fronts . The
first is that anything industrial is bad giving support to so called
natural approaches that actually create risks if done at a global scale and
whose adherents argue that doing something like DAC is a moral hazard . On
the other hand we have the true geoengineers who argue we are going to fail
and so we need a backup plan . One can explain the survival of the BEECS
approach , despite the fact it makes no sense , because it seems to combine
all our distortions - use trees , clean power plants , and sequester .  So
industrial approaches like Klaus and I are pursuing have few supporters
compared to those other perspectives and find ourselves telling those
touting natural solutions - that we are in fact already managing the planet
in the course of meeting the needs of 7 billion of us and then turning
around and arguing against the SRM and seeding the ocean etc approaches
because they will have unexpected consequences-the cure could be worse than
the disease and by the way it is not a cure at all.

I have tried to argue that there is currently only one approach that avoids
the weaknesses of both alternatives and that is  an industrial approach
that removes Co2 from the air and sequesters it in solid carbon products
thus turning a cost into global economic development that can address
global poverty while addressing the threat of climate change .
The response is basically silence though I must say that recently there is
a slow but growing support for this approach . I take heart in knowing it
took seven years after the first flight for it to be broadly accepted that
humans can indeed fly ( without growing wings that mimic the way other
species fly as others tried and crashed) .


I have suggested we need to create some mechanism to update our assessments
of where we are and look critically at all the alternatives and where the
assessment will be compelling. Not sure how to do that but would welcome
any suggestions -otherwise we will have to wait till CDR flys and the time
for it to be accepted . Not sure we have that time.

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 11:13 AM, Hawkins, David <dhawk...@nrdc.org> wrote:

> It is well said but I will observe that putting a geo-engineering label on
> what we are doing to ecosystems and the climate through human use of energy
> and agriculture is not in my opinion an effective communication technique
> to get people to have less visceral reactions to the topic of
> intentional geo-engineering.  We need to recognize that there are big
> differences in context in the two realms.
>
> It is a strong point that a full evaluation of the risks of intentional
> geo-engineering should also consider the climate risks that are potentially
> altered by specific geo-engineering approaches.  But I think saying
> something like "we are already geo-engineering" will fall on deaf ears with
> the broader audience that is thinking about this subject.
>
> David
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
> on behalf of Peter Eisenberger <peter.eisenber...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 22, 2018 1:47 PM
> *To:* Klaus Lackner
> *Cc:* christopherpreston1...@gmail.com; geoengineering
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] Intention matters in Climate Engineering
>
> Klaus
> Well said !
> Peter
>
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 10:16 AM, Klaus Lackner <klaus.lack...@asu.edu>
> wrote:
>
> I get it, and I get that intentions matter.  On the other hand, we are
> globally engineering and energy system (rather than a climate system).  It
> certainly has in aggregate geo-engineering scale, and also individual
> companies operate on truly global scale.  That said, this is a form of
> geo-engineering, which deliberately ignores the climate consequences.  So
> maybe we are not geo-engineering the Earth Climate, but we have created an
> energy flux that is about 4 orders of magnitude larger than “natural”
> energy fluxes flowing into the metabolism of members of a mammalian
> species.  We consume in the developed countries about 100 times as much
> energy per capita as our own metabolism consumes, and in part because of
> it, we are able to attain a population density that is hundred times higher
> than that of other mammals our size.  It also turns out that species of
> different size have comparable energy consumption per unit area of land.
> We humans have engineered a system that provides a four orders of magnitude
> larger energy input.
>
>
> So we are geo-engineering, and we ignore the consequences on the climate.
>
>
>
> Klaus
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *<geoengineering@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Christopher
> Preston <christopherpreston1...@gmail.com>
> *Reply-To: *"christopherpreston1...@gmail.com" <
> christopherpreston1...@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 7:53 PM
> *To: *geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
> *Subject: *[geo] Intention matters in Climate Engineering
>
>
>
> An introductory blog piece about why intention makes a difference in
> climate forcing.
>
>
>
> https://plastocene.com/2018/02/20/philosopher-meets-meteorol
> ogist-to-talk-about-climate-engineering/
>
> --
> 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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to