Hello, a couple more papers on our side on regional SRM: - Quaas, J., Quaas, M.F., Boucher, O. and Rickels, W. (2016), Regional climate engineering by radiation management: Prerequisites and prospects. Earth's Future, 4: 618-625. [ https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000440 | https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000440 ] - Dipu, Sudhakar, Johannes Quaas, Martin Quaas, Wilfried Rickels, Johannes Mülmenstädt, and Olivier Boucher. 2021. "Substantial Climate Response outside the Target Area in an Idealized Experiment of Regional Radiation Management" Climate 9, no. 4: 66. [ https://doi.org/10.3390/cli9040066 | https://doi.org/10.3390/cli9040066 ] Maybe regional radiation management works better in some regions than in others. Where we tried, however, it wasn't so obvious that it would work. One has to hit the system quite hard to get a significant regional response. Best, Olivier
De: "Mike MacCracken" <mmacc...@comcast.net> À: rpbai...@gmail.com, "Clive Elsworth" <cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk> Cc: "Daphne Wysham" <dap...@methaneaction.org>, "H simmens" <hsimm...@gmail.com>, "John Nissen" <johnnissen2...@gmail.com>, "Robert Tulip" <rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au>, "geoengineering" <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>, "Planetary Restoration" <planetary-restorat...@googlegroups.com>, "Shaun Fitzgerald" <sd...@cam.ac.uk>, "Hugh.Hunt" <he...@cam.ac.uk>, "healthy-planet-action-coalition" <healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com>, "Andrew Lockley" <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> Envoyé: Dimanche 30 Janvier 2022 16:45:18 Objet: Re: [HCA-list] Re: [geo] Solar geoengineering: The case for an international non-use agreement And studies/analyses I've done a good bit back suggest the same thing. See MacCracken, M. C., H-J. Shin, K. Caldeira, and G. Ban-Weiss, 2013: Climate response to solar insolation reductions in high latitudes, Earth Systems Dynamics , 4 , 301-315, 2013; [ http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/4/301/2013/ | www.earth-syst-dynam.net/4/301/2013/ ] ; doi:10.5194/esd-4-301-2013. MacCracken, M. C., 2016: The rationale for accelerating regionally focused climate intervention research, Earth’s Future 4 , 649-657, doi:10.1002/2016EF000450. Glad to hear of recent work in this area. Mike On 1/29/22 9:11 PM, Ron Baiman wrote: Follow Up to Clive's post: The folks at Cornell U. are apparently leaning in this direction: regional SAI for the Arctic where the Tropopause is lower, during the early summer or late spring - as I recall - months. Their climate models suggest that this is more efficient than uniform year around global SAI, and it could be less of a lift politically - though for balance this might have to be done at the south pole as well. Walker Lee discusses this in this podcast with Andrew Lockley: [ https://open.spotify.com/episode/2HVbDS3tp4sHruZ79kTfup | https://open.spotify.com/episode/2HVbDS3tp4sHruZ79kTfup ] Best, Ron On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 2:51 PM Clive Elsworth < [ mailto:cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk | cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk ] > wrote: BQ_BEGIN Daphne My intention was not to associate ‘moral hazard versus moral imperative’ with stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), but rather to highlight it as a usefully succinct way to describe a common dilemma. It could apply just as well to the dilemma faced by border forces. Should they save poor souls from perishing in the desert or drowning at sea, or leave them to die to dissuade others from making the same trip? (Note that I’m not trying to associate you with that either.) SAI is more complex because it involves physical hazard as well. The addition of solid particles into the ozone layer provides increased surface area for catalytic release of halogens that then go on to deplete ozone. That is why Franz and I hope that if it really must be done then it will be applied below the stratosphere in the Arctic during summer months only. The downward flow of air from Brewer Dobson circulation should bring the particles down to sea level with minimal amounts entering the stratosphere. Clive BQ_BEGIN On 29/01/2022 02:24 Daphne Wysham < [ mailto:dap...@methaneaction.org | dap...@methaneaction.org ] > wrote: Greetings. I don't follow this list closely, but I do want to make sure that my quote, which was taken out of context, not be misconstrued as having anything to do with SRM, which I know very little about and am, frankly, quite uneasy about. In this quote which Clive shared from one of our methane group meetings, I was referring to methane removal, not SRM, when I said we have a moral obligation to act on rapidly rising methane levels in the atmosphere, while acknowledging that there is a moral hazard we also must admit to in including methane removal in the mix. My feeling is that the moral obligation to ensure methane removal is part of the mix, if acted on with good governance, social license, and integrity, would weaken the moral hazard critique. We must be mindful of and avoid all moral hazards, but the moral obligation to act on methane removal while there is still time is greater than the moral hazard in my mind. This is something Bill McKibben touched on much more cogently in his piece [ https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-a-warming-planet/are-we-finally-ready-to-tackle-the-other-greenhouse-gas | for The New Yorker on our work. ] Daphne On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 4:46 PM Clive Elsworth < [ mailto:cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk | cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk ] > wrote: BQ_BEGIN The pithiest argument I've heard recently is "Moral Hazard vs Moral Imperative". That came from Methane Action CEO Daphne Wysham. Clive BQ_BEGIN On 29/01/2022 00:21 Ron Baiman < [ mailto:rpbai...@gmail.com | rpbai...@gmail.com ] > wrote: Thank you John for starting the ball rolling on this. In addition to Herb's excellent comments, I think an opposition letter should address the "moral hazard" problem raised (as I recall) at the end of the non-use letter and that I think is really the core issue behind the opposition to direct cooling. I would recommend flipping this concern around by pointing out the moral hazard of pretending that the climate change problem can be solved through national voluntary, mostly rich-country, emission reductions, and financial contributions to poor countries. The moral hazard here is that, though vitally important, these efforts, especially if they are viewed as the only acceptable response to climate change, have become an excuse to avoid tackling the real problems of urgent direct cooling, and resurrecting a global Kyoto-like mandatory regime for GHG removal and funding transfers that is necessary for rapid (within decades) global GHG drawdown at the necessary scale. This is evidenced by the fact that the EU that continued the Kyoto regime (supplemented with individual country carbon taxes) is the only major region of the world to have significantly reduced GHG emissions (by 24%) from 1990 to 2019, as compared, for example, to 2% growth for the US. Paris accord national voluntary NDCs will also not induce the 25 countries and 1.1. billion people that depend on over $ 4 trillion in revenue from oil related exports that make up 10% or more of their total exports to stop producing and selling oil, or the (with some overlap with the former) 1.5 billion people (20% of the global population) in 72 Europe and Central Asia or Sub-Saharan Africa countries, both excluding high income, and Other Small States, for which on average (weighted by population) 26% of total exports are fossil fuel exports that in 2019 generated approximately $ 149 billion of foreign exchange. A good example is the leftist President of Ecuador who offered to not drill in the rainforest if his country could be compensated for the lost revenue, received no offset, and commenced drilling. The Paris Accord voluntary Green Development Fund has raised only $ 18.8 billion (2014 - 2021) compared with $ 303.8 billion by the global mandatory Kyoto Clean Development Mechanism (2001 - 2018) that was effectively allowed to lapse in 2012. See references and more discussion in the attached paper. Does anyone else in the lists above want to work on this? Needless to say, I think a collaborative effort is needed to produce an effective response. Best, Ron On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 2:19 PM H simmens < [ mailto:hsimm...@gmail.com | hsimm...@gmail.com ] > wrote: BQ_BEGIN Hi John, (I deleted the HCA list in response to Peter‘s request.) I appreciate you taking the initiative in drafting a response letter. I think it is important however that the letter respond to the specific arguments that are made by the proponents of this non-use agreement. And their primary objection even more than the adverse effects is their assertion of the impossibility of developing an effective governance mechanism, particularly one that could represent the interests of the global south. They also make no attempt at examining the most obvious issue which is what the consequences are to the planet in the absence of cooling. You do address that in your draft letter. They do not recommend that research be prohibited though it appears that the primary reason for that is their inability to come up with a description of what research that would entail. I would suggest a letter that offers them a partnership rather than is oppositional in tone. One that essentially says: “we agree with you there are risks, we agree with you that governance is challenging, we agree with you that power imbalances and equity issues are difficult and need to be addressed. (We want the reader to see that we are agreeing at least in part with many of their key points.) But in light of the existential risks to everyone of us due to the alarming acceleration of harmful climate impacts we believe the approach should be to challenge the leaders of the world in cooperation with business and civil society to develop a fair and effective governance structure. And to accelerate research and field testing to better understand the benefits and risks of the increasingly wide variety of proposed approaches towards directly and quickly cooling the planet at local, regional and planetary scales. (They appear to be mostly or only against approaches that operate at the planetary scale.) Thus will you join with us in working to create a fair and effective governance structure and in supporting research and field testing to better understand the implications of the variety of forms of direct cooling being proposed.” It seems to me that that puts them on the defensive because their central argument is that governance is impossible even though there has never been a serious attempt by the world community to develop a governance structure. By offering them the invitation to join with us to address their objections I have little illusion that it would change the minds of any of the signers. Our goal is not to do that but rather to educate those who are drawn to Geo engineering by this controversy that there is a reasonable approach that incorporates their concerns rather than simply attempting to dismiss them. Herb Herb Simmens Author A Climate Vocabulary of the Future @herbsimmens BQ_BEGIN On Jan 28, 2022, at 2:24 PM, John Nissen < [ mailto:johnnissen2...@gmail.com | johnnissen2...@gmail.com ] > wrote: BQ_BEGIN A draft letter is attached, using much of the email I wrote unchanged. Cheers, John On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 7:14 PM John Nissen < [ mailto:johnnissen2...@gmail.com | johnnissen2...@gmail.com ] > wrote: BQ_BEGIN Hi Ron, I will draft a letter within the next 24 hours. We could discuss it at the PRAG meeting on Monday (8 pm UK time) to which everyone is invited. I will send the draft as a Word document, so people can mark up proposed changes and additions before the meeting. Concerning your “moral hazard”, I think you have a good point that rich countries have been acting without due regard to the interests of poorer countries, many of which are already suffering badly as a direct or indirect result of global warming. Bangladesh is an obvious example. Global cooling would have been applied years ago if the rich countries really cared and if there hadn’t been so much misinformation or even disinformation about geoengineering from people who should know better, e.g. in the Royal Society 2009 report [1]. Cheers, John [1] Royal Society, 2009 Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty [ https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/publications/2009/geoengineering-climate/ | https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/publications/2009/geoengineering-climate/ ] On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 6:22 PM Ron Baiman < [ mailto:rpbai...@gmail.com | rpbai...@gmail.com ] > wrote: BQ_BEGIN Thank you John. I agree that it would be excellent to draft and publish an opposition letter. Per my prior post, I would also include the "moral hazard" of substituting mostly rich country emissions reduction or "net zero" targets within one or a few decades as either a solution to the short-run emergency, or adequate for necessary long run GHG drawdown. Emphasizing that we wholeheartedly support rich country emissions reductions, but pretending that these national voluntary emissions reduction targets will rapidly get us to the massive level of global GHG drawdown necessary to try to regenerate a stable and healthy climate and ecosystem, has become a fig leaf. A way of avoiding necessary work on resurrecting a global binding regime (like Kyoto) that would transfer massive funding (not the Green Climate Fund voluntary donation relative pittance) from rich to poor countries that is essential to achieve required levels of GHG drawdown within say decades, rather than perhaps a century or longer - if some form of human civilization can last under those conditions. This also I think would make the point that if we can't get it together to act globally in a decisive and mandatory way we're absolutely going to need direct cooling to stave off disaster. Repeating myself, but hopefully more clearly in summary form! Best, Ron On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 9:27 AM John Nissen < [ mailto:johnnissen2...@gmail.com | johnnissen2...@gmail.com ] > wrote: BQ_BEGIN Hi Ron, Thanks for your work on drawing attention to the short-term crisis which I see as three crises arising mainly from rapid warming in the Arctic: escalating extremes of weather and climate; accelerating sea level rise; and feedback to global warming (especially from methane). I would like to see a direct attack on the open letter. The non-use open letter has been publicised by Mongabay: “News and Inspiration from Nature’s Frontline” [1]. The 60+ authors should be castigated for utter irresponsibility, promoting unwarranted fears about technology for cooling the planet in general, and the Arctic in particular, when the latest science indicates that this cooling is vital in the short term : * to reverse the trend towards extreme weather and climate before parts of the world become unliveable; * to slow sea level rise which is currently accelerating from glacier melt; * to avoid the possibility, however remote, of the planet becoming a hot-house, e.g. as the result of a huge outburst of methane from permafrost already in a critical condition. Cooling is a vital band-aid while CO2 emissions are reduced and CO2e ppm is brought down significantly towards its pre-industrial level. The fear they promote is totally unwarranted. They tacitly choose Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) as the geoengineering to denounce. The risks from SAI mentioned by one of the lead authors are absolutely without foundation, and anyway are negligible compared to the harm being done by global warming and the even more rapid Arctic warming, which BTW are affecting ecosystems as well as humans. * Stratospheric aerosol might whiten the sky by 1% with slightly redder sunsets on average. * No permanent chemical change to ozone or ocean would occur, assuming any slight ozone depletion would be rectified. * Photosynthesis is, if anything, improved. * Biodiversity and agriculture would, if anything, be improved. * Global weather patterns would tend to stabilise if AA is reduced. Otherwise, a diffuse application of SO2 would not have a direct effect on weather patterns. If anyone disagrees with anything I’ve said above, let’s discuss it. We need to be unified in our condemnation of the letter. Cheers, John [1] Shanna Hanbury in Mongabay Efforts to dim Sun and cool Earth must be blocked, say scientists [ https://news.mongabay.com/2022/01/efforts-to-dim-sun-and-cool-earth-must-be-blocked-say-scientists/ | https://news.mongabay.com/2022/01/efforts-to-dim-sun-and-cool-earth-must-be-blocked-say-scientists/ ] Blocking the sun’s rays with an artificial particle shield launched high into Earth’s atmosphere to curb global temperatures is a technological fix gaining traction as a last resort for containing the climate crisis — but it needs to be stopped, wrote a coalition of over 60 academics in an [ https://www.solargeoeng.org/non-use-agreement/open-letter/ | open letter ] and [ https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wcc.754 | article ] released in the WIREs (Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews) Climate Change online publication on January 17. “Some things we should just restrict at the outset,” said one of the open letter’s lead authors, Aarti Gupta, a professor of Global Environmental Governance at Wageningen University. Gupta placed solar geoengineering in the category of high-risk technologies , like human cloning and chemical weapons, that need to be off-limits. “It might be possible to do, but it’s too risky ,” she told Mongabay in an interview. The color of the sky could [ https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012GL051652 | change ] . The chemical composition of the [ https://www.pnas.org/content/113/52/14910 | ozone layer ] and oceans may be permanently altered. Photosynthesis, which depends on sunlight, may slow down, [ https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180808134302.htm | possibly harming ] biodiversity and agriculture. And global weather patterns could [ https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2020GL087348 | change unpredictably. ] On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 9:08 PM Ron Baiman < [ mailto:rpbai...@gmail.com | rpbai...@gmail.com ] > wrote: BQ_BEGIN Needless to say I absolutely agree with Robert. Below is a complementary response (based on the attached updated paper that I've been circulating). The real "moral hazard" is promoting the delusion that cutting emissions will; a) "solve" the current emergency climate crisis and b) quickly produce a stable and sustainable, climate, ecosystem and economy to the long- term GHG draw down crisis , before potentially avoidable catastrophic harm is caused to us and our fellow species, particularly the most vulnerable. The truth is that: a) without implementing immediate direct cooling we are facing the reality of enormous and possibly irreversible suffering to humans and nature now and in the immediate future, and that b) without resurrecting a gobal mantatory Kyoto-like cap and trade agreement that addresses the real political economic reality of the need for massive transfers of funding from rich to poor countries, it will take many decades and possibly a century or more to achieve sufficient GHG draw down and a stable and sustainable, climate, ecosystem and economy under the current national voluntary Paris Accord scheme. Pledging to cut (not achieve net drawn down) GHG emissions by a certain percentage in a decade or two or three, has become a moral hazard excuse for not tackling the difficult (or not so difficult for local direct cooling) choices and work that is really required: immediate direct cooling, and forging a long term binding global agreement that includes massive funding transfers from rich to poor countries. Unfortunately, our faltering and morally inexcusable global response to COVID vaccination may be presaging our delusional and inadequate two climate crises response. Ron Baiman On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 12:26 AM 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering < [ mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com | geoengineering@googlegroups.com ] > wrote: BQ_BEGIN The essay Solar geoengineering: The case for an international non-use agreement by Biermann et al (link below) displays a breathtaking level of political foolishness and indifference to scientific solutions to the climate emergency. It reflects a dominant false thinking within the climate action movement, whereby political conflict with the fossil fuel industry is totally prioritised over any practical response to improve the future of the world. If our goal is a stable liveable climate, then banning geoengineering is the most stupid action imaginable. The world reality is that the climate action movement lacks the political power to achieve anything close to the commitments under the Paris Accord. Emissions in 2030 are projected to be higher than in 2015. So instead they resort to bullying ideological argument typified by this call for a world fatwa against solar radiation management, seeking victory by intimidation rather than by reason. All the bluster of arguments like this article will do nothing to slow emission growth, let alone slow warming. Meanwhile, extreme weather events continue a rapid escalation, and warming continues to inflict irreversible damage to biodiversity. But the authors are so caught up in their class-war type of thinking that they do not care about immediate measures to mitigate weather or extinction impacts. The solution according to this article is to do precisely nothing in this decade that would have immediate material impact to mitigate extreme weather or climate-induced biodiversity loss. They flatly reject the observation that field research for a range of SRM methods could demonstrate easy, cheap, fast and safe activities. We should use scientific evidence rather than hypothetical speculation to answer serious questions about unintended consequences and optimal deployment strategies. And contrary to the argument about geoengineering promoting conflict, the real likelihood is that activities such as refreezing the North Pole would serve to strengthen international cooperation, confidence, peace, dialogue and security. The G20 is likely to be the best forum for this debate. The UN is hopelessly corrupted by the type of ideological thinking seen in this article. Climate change is the primary material threat to global stability and security. Engaging the G20 to refreeze the North Pole could directly reduce the destabilising effects of extreme weather while also providing a major program to strengthen mutual respect and political stability. These “governance scholars” express a number of opinions that are grossly ignorant of climate science. When the North Pole is melting, action to refreeze sea ice by increasing albedo could safely mitigate climate risks, returning toward previous stability. But no, that must be banned, because... Their comment about marine cloud brightening recognises its potential to stop bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef. Field trials of MCB could also show ability to mitigate the strength of hurricanes and tornadoes, significantly reducing climate damage, especially for the poor, supporting climate justice. MCB could also cool water flowing into the Arctic, slowing down Greenland ice melt, permafrost melt, methane release and sea level rise. It seems none of this has occurred to these authors in their mindless advocacy of political polarisation. Decarbonising the economy will do precisely nothing to stop the pole from melting. Instead, the argument of this paper is to delay any real mitigation of climate change until long after expected tipping points could have shifted our planet into a hothouse phase. Opposition to SRM is no solution at all. Robert Tulip From: [ mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com | geoengineering@googlegroups.com ] < [ mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com | geoengineering@googlegroups.com ] > On Behalf Of Geoeng Info Sent: Wednesday, 19 January 2022 2:00 AM To: [ mailto:Geoengineering@googlegroups.com | Geoengineering@googlegroups.com ] Subject: [geo] Solar geoengineering: The case for an international non-use agreement [ https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.754 | https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.754 ] Solar geoengineering: The case for an international non-use agreement Frank Biermann, Jeroen Oomen, Aarti Gupta, Saleem H. Ali, Ken Conca, Maarten A. Hajer, Prakash Kashwan, Louis J. Kotzé, Melissa Leach, Dirk Messner, Chukwumerije Okereke, Åsa Persson, Janez Potočnik, David Schlosberg, Michelle Scobie, Stacy D. VanDeveer Abstract Solar geoengineering is gaining prominence in climate change debates as an issue worth studying; for some it is even a potential future policy option. We argue here against this increasing normalization of solar geoengineering as a speculative part of the climate policy portfolio. We contend, in particular, that solar geoengineering at planetary scale is not governable in a globally inclusive and just manner within the current international political system. We therefore call upon governments and the United Nations to take immediate and effective political control over the development of solar geoengineering technologies. Specifically, we advocate for an International Non-Use Agreement on Solar Geoengineering and outline the core elements of this proposal. -- 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 [ mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com | geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com ] . To view this discussion on the web visit [ https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAKSzgpYFzMLKEUR-Eqg%2BLDdXT1jQ8fX2iBquGM08JFUB2WFy7A%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer | https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAKSzgpYFzMLKEUR-Eqg%2BLDdXT1jQ8fX2iBquGM08JFUB2WFy7A%40mail.gmail.com ] . -- 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 [ mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com | geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com ] . To view this discussion on the web visit [ https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/00f001d80dc6%2495efdc40%24c1cf94c0%24%40yahoo.com.au?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer | https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/00f001d80dc6%2495efdc40%24c1cf94c0%24%40yahoo.com.au ] . BQ_END -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [ mailto:healthy-planet-action-coalition+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com | healthy-planet-action-coalition+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com ] . To view this discussion on the web visit [ https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAPhUB9DRLHthfByXSy%2BGu7-DvXm%3DnJYFp3bmpWoks04JPtdp0w%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer | https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAPhUB9DRLHthfByXSy%2BGu7-DvXm%3DnJYFp3bmpWoks04JPtdp0w%40mail.gmail.com ] . For more options, visit [ https://groups.google.com/d/optout | https://groups.google.com/d/optout ] . BQ_END BQ_END BQ_END BQ_END -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Climate Alliance" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [ mailto:healthy-climate-alliance+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com | healthy-climate-alliance+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com ] . To view this discussion on the web visit [ https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-climate-alliance/CACS_Fxr%3Dthfk2RHPWgLND2WO2GaQNwMhH6LzojKunDG%2Bdesmzw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer | https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-climate-alliance/CACS_Fxr%3Dthfk2RHPWgLND2WO2GaQNwMhH6LzojKunDG%2Bdesmzw%40mail.gmail.com ] . BQ_END BQ_BEGIN BQ_END BQ_END -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [ mailto:healthy-planet-action-coalition+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com | healthy-planet-action-coalition+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com ] . To view this discussion on the web visit [ https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAPhUB9AJDssq-nshkCoF0uboa3YFpJFSERWCb-XVLAjTCgy0RA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer | https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAPhUB9AJDssq-nshkCoF0uboa3YFpJFSERWCb-XVLAjTCgy0RA%40mail.gmail.com ] . For more options, visit [ https://groups.google.com/d/optout | https://groups.google.com/d/optout ] . BQ_END -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [ mailto:healthy-planet-action-coalition+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com | healthy-planet-action-coalition+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com ] . To view this discussion on the web visit [ https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/939682660.868937.1643417170371%40email.ionos.co.uk?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer | https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/939682660.868937.1643417170371%40email.ionos.co.uk ] . For more options, visit [ https://groups.google.com/d/optout | https://groups.google.com/d/optout ] . BQ_END BQ_END BQ_END -- 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 [ mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com | geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com ] . To view this discussion on the web visit [ https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAPhUB9AoLZW9Zhcd%2Bu8EHJaE9f_E3KUSn-uW1yMS4Jj-OOU%3DKQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer | https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAPhUB9AoLZW9Zhcd%2Bu8EHJaE9f_E3KUSn-uW1yMS4Jj-OOU%3DKQ%40mail.gmail.com ] . BQ_END -- 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 [ mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com | geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com ] . To view this discussion on the web visit [ https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/aeefe2d8-741c-8e29-fe55-5a5e86ec3900%40comcast.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer | https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/aeefe2d8-741c-8e29-fe55-5a5e86ec3900%40comcast.net ] . -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/1943208922.1244443.1643614998490.JavaMail.zimbra%40ipsl.fr.
