Likely here is a good moment to consider whether, as a general rule,
when one really finds it necessary to call an interlocutor "insane,"
accuse them of employing "weasel words," or the like, it might be
preferable to refrain from circulating to the CDR list. I know the
list's originator aimed to convey important information and promote
thoughtful discussion, so while occasional snark may not be
inconsistent with that aim, overt animosity likely is not. [Certainly,
at least, I'll try to remember my own admonition before engaging in
any posting.]
On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 5:55 AM 'Robert Tulip' via Carbon Dioxide
Removal <[email protected]> wrote:
1 June Reply to Robert Chris, dot points below
Robert Tulip
*From:*[email protected]
<[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Robert Chris
*Sent:* Tuesday, 31 May 2022 10:52 PM
*To:* Robert Tulip <[email protected]>
*Cc:* 'healthy-planet-action-coalition'
<[email protected]>; 'Planetary
Restoration' <[email protected]>;
'geoengineering' <[email protected]>;
[email protected]; 'Healthy Climate Alliance'
<[email protected]>
*Subject:* [geo] Re: [CDR] Climate Security Timeline
Hi Robert
Nothing snide about my comments. I was merely noting that your
focus is a climate change policy regime that addresses the
property rights of the fossil fuel industry, as opposed to an
industrial policy that responds to the needs of climate change.
* You are still distorting my view, perhaps understandably as my
perspective is counter cultural and I have only explained it
briefly. The entire point of the house analogy is to
construct an industrial policy that responds to the needs of
climate change, so how you could say otherwise is surprising.
The “needs of climate change” are for action that stops
dangerous warming. GGR and emission reduction can’t achieve
that on relevant timeframes (effect within decades), so we
need to research the only method that could, solar radiation
management, which for convenience and simplicity I call albedo
enhancement, although it does also include radiation methods
like cirrus brightening that do not involve albedo.
It's a subtle distinction but it establishes the order of
priority. It may be that that the two are not in conflict and
therefore the distinction is irrelevant, but if they are, your
positioning puts the property rights first.
* The order of priority should flow from defining a critical
engineering path that can stop dangerous warming. As in
building a house, we start with the foundations and then build
the walls and roof. We can identify the analogy in climate by
looking at the triage process. In any emergency, triage
requires the identification of the third of cases where action
can make most difference. If we triage climate change,
looking at albedo, GGR and emission reduction, the situation
is that delaying action on emission cuts would make little
different to temperature and tipping points, whereas delaying
action on albedo would make an enormous difference to
temperature and tipping points. And GGR cannot have much
effect for several decades but needs immediate investment in
order to scale up when needed. So the rule of triage
indicates that albedo should be our priority.
* It just so happens that this analysis can align with the
commercial interests of fossil fuel companies to preserve
their business model. Please note I have never had any direct
contact with the fossil fuel industry, except for a few
incidental conversations while I ran AusAID’s mining for
development program ten years ago that went nowhere. My point
is not to shill but to understand policy that can actually
work. Far from putting property rights first, I am simply
observing that a policy of expropriating the expropriators,
despite its revolutionary ring, will inevitably create
reaction and conflict (Trumpism), and is physically unable to
achieve key climate objectives. The expropriation line of
seeking to strand fossil assets only deals with future
emissions, not the much bigger problem of past emissions.
Happily, a policy that sidesteps this conflict is available,
promoting cooperation on albedo with the fossil fuel industry,
and with others who stand to benefit from the prevention of
extreme weather and sea level rise such as insurance and shipping.
An issue that you'll need to address when promoting an albedo
management (AM) driven climate policy regime is the substantial
body of research that suggests that a climate cooled by AM is a
quite different climate from one cooled by lower atmospheric GHG
concentrations and quite different from the one we have now.
* I just don’t think the climate policy regimes based on GGR,
let alone decarbonisation models, properly factor in just how
politically difficult it would be for those scenarios to
produce genuine cooling. The high risk, identified in
scientific papers such as Trajectories for the Anthropocene by
Steffen et al, is that a phase shift would make any scenario
driven by lowers GHGs irrelevant. That does not apply for
albedo driven approaches which are designed to minimise the
risk of phase shift.
* I read /The Sixth Extinction/ by Elizabeth Kolbert and would
like to read her /Under a White Sky/, although the reviews I
have read suggest she does not quite get the strategic problem
that indicates the urgent need for albedo increase.
AM entrains environmental impacts that are different from those
from unrestrained warming, but not necessarily less impactful.
* How could AM have worse impactful than business as usual?
Higher albedo would directly reverse warming, mitigating coral
bleaching, poleward migration and numerous other harmful
environmental impacts.
In addition, AM does nothing for ocean acidification, which would
accelerate in your scenario.
* My friend Stephen Salter explained that his work on marine
cloud brightening has been no-platformed by the British
Government for this bizarre reasoning. Nothing will help stop
acidification until GGR ramps up to a bigger scale than total
emissions. Global work on albedo can provide a governance
framework that will help to optimise work on deacidification
through GGR. In the meantime, we should address the immediate
climate crisis by brightening the planet. Emissions make
almost no difference.
* To illustrate the hypocritical absence of logic and evidence
among those whose ritual incantation is to follow the science,
the Australian Greens have a slogan “Stop Adani Save the
Reef”. While it is true there are some direct reef impacts,
the emissions from a single mine have basically zero impact on
climate change. The total emissions from Adani would worsen
warming by about one part in a thousand. If warming without
Adani would be four degrees, warming with Adani would be about
3.99 degrees, a rounding error.
Your comments about the availability and economics of renewables
are interesting. There is certainly not enough of them available
today but new renewables are already generally cheaper than new
fossil fuels, and even more so if the imbalance in subsidies were
addressed.
* If so, fossil fuels can be allowed to die a natural death
without government help to smooth the dying pillow. The
political backlash from increasing fuel prices is high, and in
my view is not worth it as a way to save the planet. I tend to
be suspicious of all such projections on price as there is a
large element of motivated reasoning involved.
But much the same could be said about AM. That doesn't yet exist
as a deliverable technology at scale, so there's an equal timing
problem about its availability.
* Your “much the same” here is unclear. A global moonshot
approach could establish a major albedo industry in this
decade, largely stabilising the climate by 2030. That is not
the case for carbon based solutions. Research funding can
ensure any AM deployments are rapid, safe, cheap and
effective, once the implicit UN fatwa is removed. Also, the
accounting for carbon credits needs to change to instead be
based on radiative forcing, directing investment to the
activities that are most effective to cool the planet.
Refreezing the Arctic is a great idea and some people are thinking
about it. But no one is doing it. There's no sense of urgency
outside of a few academics waving their arms frantically, and
ignored by most everyone else.
* I am working quite closely with groups on refreezing the
Arctic. Given that Trump’s Secretary Pompeo trumpeted the
benefits for shipping and mining of an ice-free pole,
alongside the rather distracted situation at the moment in
Moscow, getting geopolitical agreement is tough. I think the
quid pro quo to bring China into play is likely to be ice
canals between the Pacific and Atlantic.
* Antarctica is likely to be easier, with Australia well
positioned to mobilise a coalition of nations to test marine
cloud brightening for the Southern Ocean, building upon its
research for the Great Barrier Reef. This would reduce sea
ice melt, glacial collapse, biodiversity loss, sea level rise
and warming of ocean currents, bringing major benefits and
providing the governance cooperation model that could then be
applied in the Arctic where the methane emergency really has
to be addressed quickly.
The resources are available to promote either or both AM and
renewables to get to climatically significant scale within a
couple of decades. It's a choice.
* I dispute that renewables can achieve climatically significant
scale. Total annual emissions are 10-15 GtC against a climate
problem approaching 1000 GtC
<https://www.globalwarmingindex.org/>. Projections are that
emissions will barely fall by 2050
<https://climateactiontracker.org/data-portal/>, despite much
banging of heads against brick walls and corrupt Borisian spin
about the wonders of net zero long after current politicians
have left office. And there is the slight problem that
accelerating the renewable shift antagonises some rich and
powerful interests, making it more difficult and risky.
* By contrast, intensive AM could stabilise the climate in this
decade, and its main opponents are uninformed green activists.
Scientists are certainly worried, but can be brought on board
by rigorous assessment such as proposed by GESAMP
<http://www.gesamp.org/site/assets/files/1723/rs98e.pdf>.
* Better to just chill out about the evils of the current energy
system and put effort into activities that have a prospect of
being climatically significant. The carbon-based activity
with most cooling promise may be converting CO2 into useful
commodities like soil. The earth has a billion hectares of
arable land. To just toss around an order of magnitude
illustration, adding ten tonnes of carbon per hectare as
biochar (1 kg per square metre) to all agricultural soils
would address 1% of the carbon problem while increasing food
production, and could probably be scaled up beyond that level.
Will the fossil fuel industry now start putting some serious money
into AM to realise the future climate management you envisage? Or
are they expecting that this will be funded by the public purse?
If so, it'll raise an interesting debate about which is more
deserving of public funds, renewables or AM.
* Before private investment can scale up, governments need to
give regulatory permissions. I think marine cloud brightening
for Antarctica could proceed as a public private partnership,
with industries chipping in to improve their public image and
to develop the concept of radiative forcing credits. I cannot
for the life of me understand why the insurance industry has
not yet realised that MCB can prevent or mitigate Atlantic
hurricanes, with all their immense destruction. It shows
there are some strange psychological blockages at work in this
space. Renewable energy does not deserve public subsidy and
should be driven by market economics.
Securing social licence for extensive AM is also likely to be
significant challenge, quite apart from the technology aspects .
* It is essential to integrate the technological and social
analysis, for example showing how cooling the planet can
benefit indigenous and other marginalised people and prevent
ecological damage. It is a shame that the great benefits of
AM have not been properly publicised, and that scurrilous fear
campaigns have misinformed the public.
I am fully aware that 80% of energy is currently provided from
fossil fuels. Indeed, that defines the scale of the problem we face.
* No, the scale of the problem we face is defined by the total
amount of carbon in the air, not the pace at which we are
increasing it.
I share your scepticism about our capacity to invert that
percentage, the historical record going back more than 200 years
demonstrates the unprecedented nature of the challenge. I have no
illusions about the likelihood of it being achieved. While I have
never doubted that we have the wherewithal to do so, that doesn't
mean that we can organise ourselves to actually make it happen.
* I did not suggest cutting fossil energy to 20%, but rather
targeting that 80% of climate investment should be in
geoengineering, based on the Pareto 80/20 Principle that 20%
of work delivers 80% of results.
Human history is littered with such failures. The systems point I
was making is that not doing everything we can to retire fossil
fuels at the earliest opportunity, is a good indicator of the
likelihood of success (or failure!).
* “Doing everything we can to retire fossil fuels at the
earliest opportunity” means supporting investments with high
opportunity cost, where that money could be better used
elsewhere to cool the planet more effectively. The system we
should be most worried about is the earth system equilibrium,
and that can best be protected by albedo management.
I rather like your comment about the 'popular tribal myth that
emission reduction is enough to fix the climate'. I'm not sure
what 'fixing the climate' actually means and how you can know in
advance that any policy will 'fix' it. It's more likely to be a
continuing process of trial and error, like almost all public
policy interventions.
* Fixing the climate means treading a path back toward Holocene
stability, removing the drivers of tipping points, stepping
back from the current hothouse precipice.
Do people really believe that emissions reductions are enough?
I'm not sure about that.
* The popular media narrative on climate gives almost no space
to the scientific recognition that emission reduction is not
enough, let alone to the central role of albedo in warming.
When I explained this to the Australian Religious Response to
Climate Change, they asked me to keep my view to myself as it
conflicted with their simple narrative on climate action.
I think that most informed commentators would argue that the
evidence strongly suggests that emissions reductions are an
important part of the mix, yet might still not be enough.
* Yes, the IPCC scientific consensus recognises the need for
GGR, but not albedo management. Your weasel word “might” is
rather like saying the earth “might” orbit the sun.
However, that they might not be enough is not a reason not to do
as much of them as possible.
* I do admire your valiant defence of a failed paradigm here
Robert. Remember Einstein’s purported definition of insanity
<https://www.professorbuzzkill.com/einstein-insanity-qnq/>?
I also think that most informed commentators would argue that the
evidence strongly suggests that more emissions are not likely to
'fix' the climate.
* That is pretty obvious, but more emissions alongside a global
albedo program could prevent dangerous tipping points. World
emissions have such a marginal total system effect at annual
scale that it is not worth expending precious political energy
trying to stop them. If people want to burn stuff and can pay
for it, just let them, within the boundaries of local
environmental rules.
Burning fossil fuels that emit GHGs and then paying to have them
sucked out of the air and disposed of, or using AM to mask their
warming effects, is much like burying banknotes and then paying
someone to dig them up.
* No. Burying banknotes has no value, whereas there are massive
global industries that find immense value in combustion.
Incidentally, this banknote metaphor shows why BECCS is a
really bad idea. Rather than storing CO2 underground, what is
needed is to find ways to convert CO2 into useful
commodities. I call it the 7F strategy – fuel, food, feed,
fish, fertilizer, fabric and forests. This could be done with
large scale ocean based algae production, once a strategic
vision gains political traction.
Robert Chris
On 31/05/2022 10:40, Robert Tulip wrote:
Further response to Robert Chris, dot points in email below.
*From:*Robert Chris <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Tuesday, 31 May 2022 4:42 PM
*To:* Robert Tulip <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Cc:* 'healthy-planet-action-coalition'
<[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>;
'Planetary Restoration'
<[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>;
'geoengineering' <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected]; 'Healthy Climate
Alliance' <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [CDR] Climate Security Timeline
Hi Robert
I'll leave others better qualified to comment on your numbers
and in particular, your statement that 'Albedo management and
carbon management could combine to return the planet to 280
ppm CO2 [...]. That could occur alongside ongoing
emissions.' I suspect there might be a little push back on that.
1. Happy to debate numbers. Total emissions by the end of
this century will be about one billion gigatonnes of
carbon, while annual emissions are about 15 gigatonnes C
including equivalents. The yearly amount is roughly 1.5%
of the GHG forcing, leaving aside factors like ocean
interactions and the additional forcing from albedo
feedbacks. I have not seen a peer reviewed statement of
the ratio between annual emissions effect and total
radiative forcing so this is just my estimate. Another way
to calculate the ratio might be to set the proxy for
radiative forcing as the CO2e increase since the Holocene,
about 200 ppm, and note that the annual 2.3ppm increase is
just over 1% of that total. Even rounded up to 5% of RF,
cutting emissions is still marginal to climate stability.
280 ppm CO2 is an important target as it represents the
stable climate that enabled our current sea level with
beaches and ports and fragile coastal ecosystems. These
would all be destroyed under current climate policies but
could be saved by a rapid shift to an albedo focus. The
main constraint to starting SRM and scaling up GGR much
bigger than emissions is political understanding.
Nevertheless, I am pleased that we've established that the
core driver for you is the protection of the fossil fuel
industry's property rights.
2. Excuse me Robert, I appreciate this is a fraught topic,
but such wilful distortion does you no credit. The core
driver for me is climate security, as clearly stated in
this thread. I am simply pointing out that snide
dismissal of property rights inevitably causes social
conflict. Climate solutions that preserve legal rights
are to be preferred when this gives their owners an
incentive to cooperate in measures to solve their own and
wider problems. That is the situation for fossil fuel
industries and geoengineering.
An extension of that is that by truly embracing renewable
energy the industry could retain its pre-eminent position in
supplying the world with plentiful energy and in so doing
create a whole new set of property rights to replace those
that are causing most of our GHG related the problems. Those
new property rights will emerge. Whether the current fossil
fuel industry is one of their primary owners depends on the
choices they now make.
3. And an extension of a proposed strategy to rely mainly on
transforming the energy sector is a burning earth.
Renewable energy potential is far too small, slow,
contested and expensive to stop dangerous warming.
Framing this as an ideological 'left/right' issue is also
interesting. I don't see it that way at all. For me it's
about the internal functioning of complex adaptive systems.
4. The political left largely want to destroy the fossil fuel
industry, on the misguided assumption that to do so would
stop climate change, while the political right and centre
largely want to protect these industries from unjustified
attacks. That political divide opens the need for
dialogue on how ongoing emissions could be compatible with
a path to a stable climate.
Too big a topic to deal with here but briefly, such systems
_always_ grow and die. Their temporal and spatial extent goes
from the tiny to the huge, but they all eventually die.
Empires, governments, economic systems, cities, corporations,
industries, species, and so on. Sometimes they collapse due
to overwhelming external events such as the volcanic
destruction of Pompeii. Other times they collapse due to
human failure such as Enron and Lehman Bros. Sometimes they
collapse because the world just moves on and despite their
best efforts, what they offer is no longer required - where
are all the farriers, thatchers and candlestick makers? But
in every case, the collapse arises due to the failure of the
system to adapt to changing circumstances. Sometimes the
change is too great or sudden for such adaptation to be
possible. Other times it is due to a lack of foresight.
5. I am pointing out that a good way for the fossil fuel
industry to adapt to a changing climate is to support
geoengineering. That will solve the warming problem and
enable a more gradual tradition away from fuel sources
that are less economic. I do need to point out that the
world now relies on fossil fuels for over 80% of energy
use. Blithe elegies for the main infrastructure of our
economy are very premature, and certainly not inevitable
in our lifetimes. If we can scale up GGR enough then
ongoing emissions will not harm the climate. It is
disturbing to revel in predictions of the demise of
industries that are central to world prosperity
There are probably very few who do not now consider the glory
days of the fossil fuel industry to be numbered. What that
number is, is an open question, as is the depth of foresight
within the industry and in government about how to manage the
transition.
6. “Glory days” could still be ahead if this industry opens a
conversation on the potential of geoengineering to salvage
its business models. If the oil majors offered to
cooperate to refreeze the Arctic Ocean, in exchange for
greater social and political licence to operate, it would
be a good deal. A frozen Pole would slow down tipping
points, whereas a few more gigatonnes of emissions is
neither here nor there in the greater scheme of climate
stability and security.
You frame that as an ideological question, I see it in
systemic terms. In systemic terms, there is a sweet spot on
one side of which a system can be sustained by continual
adaptation, and on the other side of which attempts to
preserve elements that undermine the system, hasten its
collapse. Where we are right now in relation to that sweet
spot can only be known retrospectively. Foresight isn't an
exact science but a lack of it is.
7. Your ‘sweet spot’ analogy does not work in the way you
suggest, which seems to imply the precautionary principle
requires accelerated decarbonisation. A far more
precautionary approach is to shift focus to albedo, as the
main urgent global cooperation priority for climate. But
the sweet spot does apply to climate policy. What an
irony it would be if the main “element that undermines the
system” turns out to be the popular tribal myth that
emission reduction is enough to fix the climate. Thanks
for interesting comments. Regards, Robert Tulip
Robert Chris
On 31/05/2022 02:55, Robert Tulip wrote:
To Robert Chris
H Robert,
I don’t agree with your comment that the need to manage
albedo “has only been because of the fossil fuel industry
blocking progress on transitioning to renewables.”
Transition to renewable energy was never going to be the
main climate solution. Faster progress on cutting
emissions would not make much difference to ice melt.
Most radiative forcing is from past emissions, with annual
emissions worsening the problem by maybe 5%.
Cutting emissions in half would slow the worsening annual
effect of committed warming by about 2.5% on that measure,
marginal to the scale of the climate problem.
Albedo management and carbon management could combine to
return the planet to 280 ppm CO2, the amount that gave us
stable sea level. That could occur alongside ongoing
emissions.
To blame the fossil fuel industry for not jumping to give
up its property rights while still supplying the world
with plentiful energy creates a polarised climate debate.
It would be better to find a climate strategy that both
left and right can agree on. Easing off on emission
reduction (~20% of the problem) while expanding
geoengineering technologies (~80% of the solution) is the
best way to build climate consensus.
Regards
Robert Tulip
https://planetaryrestoration.net/
*From:*[email protected]
<[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]> *On Behalf
Of *Robert Chris
*Sent:* Tuesday, 31 May 2022 1:00 AM
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [CDR] Climate Security Timeline
Robert, nothing new here. This was considered and
dismissed at least as far back as 2009 (see Royal Society
report here
<https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/publications/2009/geoengineering-climate/>),
and repeatedly since then by those that understand that
climate change and global warming are not synonymous.
Albedo management is now necessary to refreeze the Arctic,
as you note. However, this has only because of the fossil
fuel industry blocking progress on transitioning to
renewables. Far from making albedo management _the
_priority action, their behaviour has now made _both
_emissions reductions _and _albedo management more
urgent. They have nowhere to hide. Their industries are
in their final sunset phase. They have a simple choice,
do they get behind the transition and make things better
for everyone, or continue to resist and place us all in
peril. Their fate is sealed either way.
Perhaps you can explain this to me. If I was running a
major corporation and I knew that the market for my
primary product would more or less disappear in a matter
of a few decades, why would I not now do everything in my
power to reposition my business to be best placed to
capitalise on what will follow it and to minimise the
losses from my stranded assets? The fossil fuel sector
has the finance, skill set and the global reach to rapidly
totally transform the global energy sector. Why don't
they do that, instead of paying lip service to the need
for change but all the while consigning themselves to a
slow and painful death that will hurt countless others in
the process? Is it so difficult for them to go from zero
to hero?
Regards
Robert Chris
On 30/05/2022 12:40, 'Robert Tulip' via Carbon Dioxide
Removal wrote:
The attached Climate Security Timeline shows a new
suggestion on climate priorities.
It calls for a shift away from emission reduction as
the main agenda, to instead focus at global level on
albedo enhancement. Brightening the planet to reflect
more sunlight can stabilise and reverse the movement
toward a hotter world as the foundation of a new
climate approach. Agreed systems to increase albedo
should be in place before 2030. With a brighter
planet as the foundation, the direct cooling effects
make time available to scale up greenhouse gas
conversion and removal to levels well above emissions.
By the 2040s, GGC&R can produce steady decline in GHG
levels over the second half of this century. Carbon
dioxide conversion can store hundreds of billions of
tonnes of carbon in valuable locations such as soil,
biomass, etc, reducing the need to sequester as CO2.
Market demand can regulate global emissions, which at
annual scale are a minor factor in radiative forcing
compared to albedo and GHG concentrations.
The critical engineering path suggested for the
planetary climate is like building a house. Albedo is
the foundation, greenhouse gas conversions and
removals are the walls, and decarbonisation caps the
roof by a future move away from fossil fuels. You
cannot build walls and roof until you have laid the
foundation. That creates a timeline whereby global
focus on a brighter world in this decade can replace
the sole political emphasis on emissions and can give
practical support to the recognition that removal of
atmospheric carbon is essential.
Without higher albedo, GHG effects cannot cool the
planet. Higher albedo can only be engineered by
peaceful global cooperation on new technologies such
as marine cloud brightening. Albedo needs to be
addressed first, especially at the poles, where
refreezing should be an immediate global priority for
climate security. Turning the polar oceans from dark
to light by stopping the melting of summer ice will
make a critical difference in the planetary energy
balance. A main focus on albedo will give time for the
slower effects of GHG conversion, removal and
reduction to contribute over the next decades to a
stable and secure and productive planetary climate.
This order of priorities can sustain the biosphere
conditions that have enabled humans and all other
living species to flourish on our planet Earth.
Robert Tulip
--
You received this message because you are subscribed
to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" 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/CarbonDioxideRemoval/061801d8741a%240aecc350%2420c649f0%24%40yahoo.com.au
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/061801d8741a%240aecc350%2420c649f0%24%40yahoo.com.au?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to
the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" 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/CarbonDioxideRemoval/a952e272-a15f-0f50-00a5-01c9c19d0186%40gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/a952e272-a15f-0f50-00a5-01c9c19d0186%40gmail.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/cc8faa14-7324-b0bf-27c8-d9aaac83bf55%40gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/cc8faa14-7324-b0bf-27c8-d9aaac83bf55%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" 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/CarbonDioxideRemoval/08d001d875b6%24ec43e5c0%24c4cbb140%24%40yahoo.com.au
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/08d001d875b6%24ec43e5c0%24c4cbb140%24%40yahoo.com.au?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" 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/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CANNDMDqKW-_zkUaHe-B0SHvy5X-iUzgf2ksb0n02AuYq6-uApA%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CANNDMDqKW-_zkUaHe-B0SHvy5X-iUzgf2ksb0n02AuYq6-uApA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
