Good point Clare! This is where I'm thinking that we may be able to make a difference if we can get a wide array of climate leaders from different fields including natural science, social science, policy, etc, signing a letter with an opposing, "all options, including and specifically direct cooling, need to be considered", viewpoint - as we did in our HPAC letters to the IPCC.
A small WG has started working on this effort and we welcome participation - please contact me, if you, David Mitchell, or others reading these posts are interested. Our various groups may produce more than one letter, but I think the key to an effective response, specifically to the no-use letter, is something that can attract a large and broadly diverse group, including with regard to discipline and background, of signatories. It might even be good to make the point you just made in such a letter. Best, Ron On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 10:07 AM Clare James <[email protected]> wrote: > I know many of you have seen Holly Buck’s thread on twitter about the > non-use letter - she addresses many of the vague statements and illogical > conclusions and was the peer review on the main article so perhaps someone > could reach out to her in relation to the draft response letter? > > One thing I have noticed is that almost all of the original 16 signatories > were governance scholars. Any kind of intentional cooling needs a properly > interdisciplinary approach to avoid silo preferences and ill advised > moratoria demands. Governance, atmospheric physics, ethics, Law, > engineering, risk analysis are just some academic areas that might > contribute to a more nuanced pathway to research and maybe deployment. > > Moral hazard is two fold as you say and too often used as a club to bat > away the uncomfortable truth that given the magical BECCS permeating the > IAMs, things are even worse than forecast. > > Clare (@clare_nomad_geo) > > On 29 Jan 2022, at 00:21, Ron Baiman <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 >> >> On Jan 28, 2022, at 2:24 PM, John Nissen <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> 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 <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> 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/ >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 6:22 PM Ron Baiman <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> 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 <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>> open letter >>>>> <https://www.solargeoeng.org/non-use-agreement/open-letter/> and >>>>> article >>>>> <https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wcc.754> 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 change >>>>> <https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012GL051652>. >>>>> The chemical composition of the ozone layer >>>>> <https://www.pnas.org/content/113/52/14910> and oceans may be >>>>> permanently altered. Photosynthesis, which depends on sunlight, may slow >>>>> down, possibly harming >>>>> <https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180808134302.htm> >>>>> biodiversity >>>>> and agriculture. And global weather patterns could change >>>>> unpredictably. >>>>> <https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2020GL087348> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 9:08 PM Ron Baiman <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> 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 < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> 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:* [email protected] < >>>>>>> [email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Geoeng Info >>>>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, 19 January 2022 2:00 AM >>>>>>> *To:* [email protected] >>>>>>> *Subject:* [geo] Solar geoengineering: The case for an >>>>>>> international non-use agreement >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 [email protected]. >>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAKSzgpYFzMLKEUR-Eqg%2BLDdXT1jQ8fX2iBquGM08JFUB2WFy7A%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAKSzgpYFzMLKEUR-Eqg%2BLDdXT1jQ8fX2iBquGM08JFUB2WFy7A%40mail.gmail.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/00f001d80dc6%2495efdc40%24c1cf94c0%24%40yahoo.com.au >>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/00f001d80dc6%2495efdc40%24c1cf94c0%24%40yahoo.com.au?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> [email protected]. >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAPhUB9DRLHthfByXSy%2BGu7-DvXm%3DnJYFp3bmpWoks04JPtdp0w%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>> . >>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>> >>>>> >> -- >> 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 [email protected]. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-climate-alliance/CACS_Fxr%3Dthfk2RHPWgLND2WO2GaQNwMhH6LzojKunDG%2Bdesmzw%40mail.gmail.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-climate-alliance/CACS_Fxr%3Dthfk2RHPWgLND2WO2GaQNwMhH6LzojKunDG%2Bdesmzw%40mail.gmail.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/CAPhUB9AJDssq-nshkCoF0uboa3YFpJFSERWCb-XVLAjTCgy0RA%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAPhUB9AJDssq-nshkCoF0uboa3YFpJFSERWCb-XVLAjTCgy0RA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > <Our Two Climate Crises Challenge_11.pdf> > > > -- 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/CAPhUB9CHPNW9hQEhA%3D7O5CDDzJvU-T8_k%2Bx1CeUfctiPVU2MVw%40mail.gmail.com.
