I’m with Michael Mann on this. We have a huge problem: GW. We have to solve it. Any single thing we do that attempts or purports to shrink the problem can be considered among the potential solutions and should be evaluated it to see if it is a real solution. I think the conclusions from his evaluations make a good deal of sense.
John Harte Professor of the Graduate School Ecosystem Sciences ERG/ESPM University of California Berkeley, CA 94720 [email protected] > On Jan 26, 2021, at 2:49 PM, Adrian Hindes <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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/ > > <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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/0066fca9-11f9-4f5d-bd7b-ba6555a6bea7n%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/0066fca9-11f9-4f5d-bd7b-ba6555a6bea7n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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/78ED737F-1AFB-4BF8-9A5A-77D43F10510A%40berkeley.edu.
