Hi, I've heard that SRM is necessary because neither emissions reductions nor GHG removal strategies, even if enacted globally with gusto, can possibly impact rising temperatures before we won't have an ecosystem left that can support human life, or most other life for that matter. So it's really about not having enough time left to NOT turn to SRM, which also voids the moral hazard argument as well. But I haven't been able to find any hard research confirming this. Has anyone found such research?
-- 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/be5b2788-05b7-43cd-bf48-42266cbfcfa9n%40googlegroups.com.
