This kind of discourse simply frustrating. The assumption is that CDR and solar geo are being proposed as "solutions" - which they simply aren't, and shouldn't be discussed as such. The word "solution" should be struck from the record of climate discussions as a whole.
Just because any particular technology doesn't qualify as a "solution" doesn't mean R&D shouldn't be pursued. If an additional measure like solar geo, or DAC *could *reduce climate risk, or (in the case of CDR) even *enhance *mitigation for hard-to-abate sectors - then it's clearly worth at least thinking seriously about. It's particularly frustrating that Mann writes about these in the same context as "clean coal" and bridge fuels, which is a different kind of debate, and in the case of the former, universally recognized to be moot anyway. I do wonder if the semantic confusion around the word "solution" merits further investigation. Hell, there's probably a paper or two waiting to be written just on the angst around the word "geoengineering" alone. On Wednesday, 27 January 2021 at 6:00:41 am UTC+11 Andrew Lockley wrote: > > https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/01/scientist-mike-manns-must-read-book-the-new-climate-war/ > > Extract > > The Non-Solution Solution chapter details Mann’s concerns that those > opposing climate action promote “solutions” (natural gas, carbon capture, > geo-engineering) that Mann argues aren’t real solutions at all. “Part of > their strategy is using soothing words and terms – ‘bridge fuels,’ ‘clean > coal,’ ‘adaptation,’ ‘resilience’ – that convey the illusion of action but, > in context, are empty promises,” he writes. Mann’s preferred “viable path > forward on climate involves a combination of energy efficiency, > electrification, and decarbonization of the grid through an array of > complementary renewable energy sources. The problem is that fossil fuel > interests lose out in that scenario, and so they have used their immense > wealth and influence to stymie any efforts to move in that direction.” > -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/0066fca9-11f9-4f5d-bd7b-ba6555a6bea7n%40googlegroups.com.
