Hi Rocio, Regarding distributing aerosols from commercial ships, the second "ask" of this letter: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MwB5PuV0GuqzcINowIXrJBqQkSgwI5Lv/view?usp=sharing (now being reviewed by the Secretary General of the IMO - or so his office has informed us) may be of interest.
Best, Ron On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 10:07 PM Rocio Herbert <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Chris, > > How about ISA from commercial ships in international waters? What does > the LC/LP say about that? > > Cheers, > > Rocío > > On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 3:17 PM 'Sev Clarke' via Healthy Planet Action > Coalition (HPAC) <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Thanks, Chris, >> >> This is helpful. I did not mean that the LC/LP did not cover EEZ and >> other national waters, just that it was each nation which determined its >> responsibilities in its own waters for actions coming under its >> responsibilities under the LC/LP. This gives them leeway regarding ocean >> restoration and direct climate cooling experimentation approvals. Of >> course, some nations, such as the USA, have not even ratified the LP - >> though they may still tend to follow its strictures. >> >> Cheers, >> Sev >> >> On 8 Feb 2024, at 9:48 pm, Chris Vivian <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Sev, >> >> Responding to your 2 emails below: >> >> >> 1. It is a widespread misconception that the LC/LP only covers >> international waters. The LC/LP cover all waters up to the baselines that >> are the base from which the territorial waters and EEZ are measured. On a >> straight coast the baseline is the low water mark. Also, the LP has a >> provision that it applies to marine internal waters i.e., behind the >> baselines, that includes large bays and estuaries unless a Party opts out >> when it then has to have effective permitting and regulatory measures to >> control dumping activities and marine geoengineering activities when they >> come into force. So, testing in EEZ waters could fall under the LC/LP >> depending on what was being done. >> 2. Currently, the LC/LP Parties are considering whether MCB could be >> regulated under the 2013 marine geoengineering amendments. There is a >> precedent from the past when the LC regulated marine incineration of toxic >> (e.g., organochlorines) or very smelly (e.g., mercaptans that are put in >> natural gas at very low concentrations so you can smell gas leaking) >> chemicals on the basis that material from the plume was deposited onto the >> sea surface. I think that spraying ferric chloride aerosols into the >> atmosphere from vessels which eventually rain out into the sea would >> likely be considered to fall under the LP remit. Done from land it would >> not fall under the LP remit. >> 3. Sea ice thickening may unlikely to fall under the LP. >> 4. About the other things you queried: >> 1. offshore drilling platforms, their products if released – >> activities associated with the exploration, exploitation and associated >> offshore processing of seabed mineral resources are excluded from the >> remit >> of the LC and LP. The influence of the oil and gas industry! >> 2. Wind turbines – installation is considered placement that is >> excluded from the definition of dumping. This applies to all >> construction >> activities in the marine environment e.g., sea walls, pipelines >> jetties. >> 3. Unrecovered buoys, containers, plastic waste, nets – this is >> not deliberate disposal so therefore not dumping. >> 4. By-catch – this is incidental to the operation of fishing >> vessels so not dumping. >> 5. Any marine research equipment left in the marine environment >> that cannot be recovered e.g., sensors, is not deliberate disposal as >> it >> was placed for a purpose other than mere disposal. >> 6. Waste from fish farms – usually regulated as a discharge so not >> dumping. >> >> >> I hope that answers your questions. >> >> Best wishes >> >> Chris. >> >> *From:* 'Sev Clarke' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) < >> [email protected]> >> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 7, 2024 8:51 AM >> *To:* Clive Elsworth <[email protected]> >> *Cc:* Sev Clarke' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) < >> [email protected]>; Ron Baiman < >> [email protected]>; Oswald Petersen <[email protected]>; Mike >> MacCracken <[email protected]>; Herb Simmens <[email protected]>; >> Dr. Robert Chris <[email protected]>; Gregory Slater < >> [email protected]>; Planetary Restoration < >> [email protected]>; geoengineering < >> [email protected]>; Healthy Climate Alliance < >> [email protected]> >> *Subject:* Re: [prag] [HPAC] Solar geoengineering could start soon if it >> starts small | MIT Technology Review >> >> It is the widely-ratified, international marine dumping ’treaty’, the >> London Convention and London Protocol, see >> https://www.imo.org/en/KnowledgeCentre/ConferencesMeetings/Pages/London-Convention-Protocol.aspx >> Chris Vivian is our expert on it. >> Sorry, it is usually acronymed LC/LP. >> Whilst it definitely covers ocean fertilisation, it may possibly, but >> doubtfully, be judged to cover spraying seawater into the air for MCB >> purposes, releasing ferric chloride aerosols into the atmosphere which >> eventually rain out into the sea, and even sea ice thickening where either >> the ice or the equipment that produces it (particularly at the end of its >> life) might be called dumping. Chris should be able to tell us whether >> offshore drilling platforms, their products if released, wind turbines, and >> unrecovered buoys, containers, plastic waste, waste from fish farms, >> by-catch, nets and sensors are covered by it. Dredged material is usually >> exempt. Intent is a key factor in determining what is dumping. >> >> Sev >> >> >> On 7 Feb 2024, at 6:44 pm, Clive Elsworth <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Self, what is LP/LC? >> >> On 07/02/2024 06:21 GMT 'Sev Clarke' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition >> (HPAC) <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Folks, >> >> Some are making a mountain out of a molehill. My three principle climate >> restoration technologies, Buoyant Flakes, Seatomiser/ISAs and Ice Shields >> could *all* be separately approved and tested in the EEZ waters of many >> states at pilot, then local, then cautiously scaling up to regional scales, >> without either Security Council or other UN approval - though open >> discussion of the plans in advance and independent and transparent MRV >> during, should also occur. Several such tests by different organisations >> should both give confidence to local communities and the international >> community, and allow us to proceed quickly in learning by doing. Approval >> for use in international waters might be sought from either an enhanced >> LC/LP (preferably), the International Maritime Organisation, the G20 (in >> order to bring in several Global South members), the Security Council, or >> even the UNEP or General Assembly. Any holdout spoilers should be shamed, >> bypassed or compelled by whatever means are necessary to save the planet - >> after their views had been properly considered (and, if necessary, >> exposed). >> >> Best, >> Sev >> >> >> On 7 Feb 2024, at 1:27 pm, Ron Baiman <[email protected]> wrote: >> Dear Herb, Mike, and Oswald, >> >> I think the issue right now is pervasively couched in far too general and >> absolutist terms that would make it very difficult/impossible to get >> universal (or even just Security Council) agreement for deployment from the >> UN. If pilot testing were started small-scale with willing actors >> consisting of countries with polar regional jurisdictions that are willing >> to try this in this from their territory (as probably not all polar >> jurisdictions or polar peoples will agree right away) and done carefully >> with maximum transparency, openness, etc. this could hopefully make it less >> of an abstract 'politicized and moralized' hot potato and more of a cooling >> method that is perceived as potentially valuable, useful, and (quite >> likely) indispensable to avoid climate catastrophe. >> >> I'm assuming here of course mostly measurable positive impacts from the >> pilot testing, and an ability to adjust to smaller and less significant >> undesirable impacts. My thinking is that this would be a way to make >> gradual polar SAI a more practical and tangible technique and less of a >> boogie man on which to project every manner of global geopolitical >> armageddon (per the Futerman talk and I'm guessing - from the abstract - in >> the Keith and Smith paper as well). At this point, my hope is that it >> would be easier to arrive at, at least, "tacit" and at some point "formal" >> consent by the Security Council, or a sufficient number of major world >> powers, for continued, slowly upscaled, global deployment without >> geopolitical disaster. >> >> *My thinking is that (as with the research/deployment dichotomy), the >> governance/deployment dichotomy should not be looked at as strictly >> separable.* My hope is that moving on both tracks simultaneously and >> trying to build confidence, trust, and knowledge with gradual deployment >> would hopefully change international perceptions and discussions of SAI and >> direct climate cooling more broadly in a positive way, and that this could >> then hopefully allow for global tacit, and at some point formal, political >> support. >> >> I should also note that countries are already currently engaging in large >> scale climate efforts 'on their own territory' that probably have cross >> boundary impacts. See for example discussion of China's large scale cloud >> seeding efforts (as I recall in the Himalayas to regenerate snow pack, >> discussed in this podcast: >> https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cloud-seeding-law-simon/id1529459393?i=1000632950341 >> >> >> Also by starting SAI in the spring in the poles, as the aerosol falls out >> (in the poles) at the end of the polar summers, all, or most of, the direct >> impact will be on the poles, and hopefully if there is enough indirect >> impact on reducing polar amplification to affect the jet stream and polar >> ice melt - these global climate effects would be overwhelmingly positive. . >> >> >> Best, >> Ron >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 4:17 PM Oswald Petersen < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> Dear Herb and Mike >> >> Prenotice >> >> Europeans like me are still quite unfimiliar with the new habit to adress >> a community without an adressee. Adressees do have the advantage that I >> can disregard everything I am not addressed for. So far for US globalimsus. >> >> Dear all, >> >> The UN are our only hope. We cannot diverge from the UN. Let´s stick to >> the UN! >> >> Regards >> >> Oswald >> >> >> Oswald Petersen >> Atmospheric Methane Removal AG >> Lärchenstr. 5 >> CH-8280 Kreuzlingen >> Tel: +41-71-6887514 >> Mob: +49-177-2734245 >> https://amr.earth >> https://cool-planet.earth >> >> >> >> *Von:* [email protected] < >> [email protected]> *Im Auftrag von* Michael >> MacCracken >> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 6. Februar 2024 23:03 >> *An:* H simmens <[email protected]>; Ron Baiman <[email protected]> >> *Cc:* [email protected]; Gregory Slater <[email protected]>; >> healthy-planet-action-coalition < >> [email protected]>; Planetary Restoration >> <[email protected]>; geoengineering < >> [email protected]>; Healthy Climate Alliance < >> [email protected]> >> *Betreff:* Re: [prag] Re: [HPAC] Solar geoengineering could start soon >> if it starts small | MIT Technology Review >> >> It is really not clear to me why the United Nations could (and should) >> not be the structure--or at least the designator of the structure, but >> better yet, of the overall goal, namely to offset future warming and >> gradually return the climate to something similar to its mid-20th century >> situation (with allowances for those nations facing special needs to ask >> for consideration of possible fine scale adjustments as knowledge >> improves--or something similar). >> There is a UN Commission on Sustainable Development (UNCSD), and if there >> were ever anything that is impinging on their mandate, it is climate >> change. The UN Secretary General, with concurrence I imagine of General >> Assembly, could refer matter to them asking for a report on the matter and >> to propose a recommendation to the General Assembly and Security Council. >> I'd note that I was on a panel that prepared a report for the UN Commission >> on Sustainable Development (see >> https://www.sigmaxi.org/programs/critical-issues-in-science/un-sigma-xi-climate-change-report), >> and I and other lead authors, courtesy of contacts made by former Senator >> and UN Foundation lead Tim Wirth (the UN Foundation having provided some of >> the funding for the effort), met with the UN Secretary General upon the >> report's issuance. >> I'm not clear on how the Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC might >> mesh (or not) with the UNCSD, but this too could be outlined. The UNCSD I >> think meets annually and so could well move things along, >> Mike MacCracken >> On 2/6/24 2:41 PM, H simmens wrote: >> >> Ron, >> >> It’s quite telling I think that a breakthrough article like this has been >> released without essentially anyone noticing. >> >> The only mention of it I see is from the excellent Technology Review >> reporter James Temple who posted it on X. >> >> The only comments the post received were from Andrew Lockley and someone >> posting a vile obscenity. >> >> I was the only one who even retweeted the post to my loyal following of >> bots, trolls, fake porn stars and a few Climate informed folks. >> >> Is it fair to observe that most everyone laments the understandable and >> very real challenges of developing a governance architecture but no one in >> any kind of authority has yet to propose a serious effort to get such a >> governance structure discussed and agreed to by the world community? >> >> If and until that happens the strategy you’re proposing while sound will >> be very difficult to advance very far. >> >> Herb >> >> Herb Simmens >> Author of *A Climate Vocabulary of the Future* >> “A SciencePoem and an Inspiration.” Kim Stanley Robinson >> @herbsimmens >> HerbSimmens.com <http://herbsimmens.com/> >> >> >> >> >> On Feb 6, 2024, at 2:20 PM, Ron Baiman <[email protected]> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Good catch Herb! Thanks for sharing. I haven't read the article yet, but >> though acknowledging the feasibility and possible relevance gradual polar >> SAI scenario would definitely be progress (that David Keith was very >> critical of this in his HPAC talk), from skimming the abstract the article >> appears to focus on SAI geopolitical concerns that echo Gideon Futerman's >> recent HPAC talk. >> >> On this, needless to say, I agree with Robert C and Mike. Waiting for a >> fully operational global governance regime (like hoping for a super >> expidited emissions and drawdown only policy) is not realistic in the near >> future - the only future that counts if humanity is going to have a >> non-catastrophic immediate future, at all. >> >> I think the alternative of starting slow by getting the consent of polar >> jurisdictions and peoples for a 'Save the polar ecosystems' effort >> (following current MCB 'save the Great Barrier Reef' efforts) and inviting >> all nations who wish to contribute to contribute in a 'coalition of the >> willing' model (as with the 'International Space Station') that would be >> gradual (initially local SAI focused on polar summers), public, and >> transparent, and hopefully successful in gradually reducing warming and >> cooling the poles and helping to stabilize the global climate is an example >> of a more realistic approach for urgent deployment. Waiting for 'global >> governance' or 'absolute confidence from research that does not include >> deployment pilot testing' before beginning deployment is not an urgently >> workable option. At the risk of beating a dead horse I'm again attaching a >> draft of this proposal that many of you may have seen: >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1o5xQogx1kKgD-QlM4MVPdWeL2BzBtwUm/view?usp=sharing >> >> Best, >> Ron >> >> On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 12:38 PM <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Herb and Greg and all >> Working on something else, the other day I chanced upon the dedication >> for my PhD thesis written in 2012/13. It was addressed to my then two >> year-old and newborn grandchildren expressing the hope that as adults they >> would come to be awestruck by humanity's achievements, yet forgive it its >> failings, and all the while see the funny side of both. This piece by >> Keith and Smith definitely requires one to see the funny side. >> First, they're playing a great game of dissimulation, straining to >> present their 'we're the good guys' credentials by espousing caution and >> concern, while also chomping at the bit to get some serious sulphates into >> the sky. Their greatest fear is clearly being dubbed the Dr. Strangelove >> of climate change. >> But what's even funnier is the bizarre cognitive dissonance displayed by >> those opposed to SAI. On the one hand the global shipping industry can >> with no serious public debate whatsoever force changes to bunker fuel that >> will greatly accelerate global warming, with who knows what consequences >> for both human and other life, on the grounds that the pollution it will >> reduce will save the lives of a much smaller number of people. No need to >> consider the negative climate consequences of reducing the sulphur content >> of the fuel because, quite obviously, no one really cares about that. If >> they did, there would at least have been some public conversation about the >> relative merits of changing the fuel. They didn't, so there wasn't. 30 >> years of IPCC really has changed things, hasn't it! >> Other amusing bits from this article are the implications that it'll take >> decades to scale SAI to make a significant difference to global warming and >> that this requires long-term anticipatory action by governments both in >> relation to the technology and its governance. That completely knocks on >> the head the idea that some maverick Greenfinger or national leader is >> going to go off and do their own thing. The rogue geoengineer is shown to >> be the joke it always has been. >> Similarly, Keith and Smith's highlighting of the social licence issues >> that have hitherto delayed, and are likely going forward to continue >> delaying, if not totally frustrating any move to deploy SAI, or even do the >> research and small scale deployment that they're proposing, completely >> kills off the equally nonsensical moral hazard argument that the mere >> prospect of SAI is sufficient reason for the climate baddies to continue >> being baddies. The climate baddies can relax, their foes are going to make >> sure we need all the oil and gas they can produce for as long as they can >> so dutifully provide it. >> For those of us on this list, it is hard to fathom how humanity has boxed >> itself into this paralysis. For some us, it has become clear that the >> basic rules of neoclassical economics are unfolding according to plan. >> Boom and bust. Boom and bust. As the excesses destabilise the system, the >> system reacts. This is euphemistically called a correction. The greater >> the excess. The more severe the correction. The corrections are a form of >> catharsis. But at some point the excess becomes sufficient to provoke a >> correction that collapses the system. That happens when the system's >> resilience is sufficiently compromised that it can't adapt fast enough to >> the changed circumstances it is then facing. >> 1.5C, 2C, 2.5C, 3C and beyond, here we come! >> There's little I can do to protect my grandchildren from what will >> confront them decades hence. Maybe they'll be among the lucky ones. Some >> people will make it through, why shouldn't it be them? However it unfolds, >> I'm sure they'll find it easier if they can retain the ability to see the >> funny side. >> Thanks David and Wake. I needed reminding how tragic this comedy is. Or >> is it, how comic this tragedy is? >> Regards >> Robert >> >> On 05/02/2024 17:17, Gregory Slater wrote: >> >> >> Hello Herb, >> >> Thank you for this link. >> >> ( >> https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/02/05/1087587/solar-geoengineering-could-start-soon-if-it-starts-small/ >> ) >> >> I think this is more evidence of the (glacially) slow progression of the >> scientific and engineering community (such as Keith and Smith) beyond their >> (completely disingenuous) *"SAI is the most insane idea in the history >> of the Multiverse, but we should fund numerical simulations (etc.) of it >> for the next fifty years just in case things get 'really bad' (for me >> personally)"* and toward (the inevitable) acceptance and eventual >> advocacy for deployment of SAI, without wating for a unanimous vote in >> favor of it by the entire population of the earth (all 8 billion) before >> the deployment of even a single molecule of any aerosol for the stated >> intent of cooling the earth is allowed to be released, which is the current >> (psychotic) demand of SJWs. >> >> However, it is still riddled with disclaimers (for example, last >> paragraph) and they coyly seem to be pitching the *'small scale SAI'* >> scenario >> not as a scientific test of the physical effects of SAI's on the atmosphere >> and climate, but rather as a 'political or sociological science' test of >> the political reaction of the world to such a test (that is, dump a little >> SO2 in the stratosphere and measure the blood pressure of the anti-SAI >> crowd). >> >> It is actually difficult for me to tell, at first reading, whether they >> are "fer or agin;" such a test. And I think that ambiguity was carefully >> crafted. >> >> Of course, it's not like Keith and Smith (and other *'ultra-cautious >> geoengineers'* just 'discovered' the possibility of 'small-scale SAI'. >> It's straightforward and obvious, and they certainly know that this has >> been outlined and advocated for a long time, including by members of this >> group. I mean, when Keith spoke on the HPAC zoom just last year, in answer >> to my question about low level tests, he directly said that he saw no >> usefulness in small scale tests. >> >> I think they are starting to put the tip of their toes in the side of >> advocacy, while describing it as 'cautionary'. I think the proper response >> is, "thanks for stating the obvious about the possibilities for 'low-scale >> SAI' tests". But point out their timidity and disingenuousness in not >> advocating for the scenario they describe is uncompelling. They describe >> one variant of) a first obvious small scale SAI test, but at the end say >> they still say they are against it until we get a unanimous vote in favor >> by the entire population of the planet. >> >> They still seem to be trying to maintain their increasingly precarious >> and wobbly perch on the fence between denouncement and advocacy of SAI, >> while requesting lots more money for numerical simulations of SAI and >> studies of the 'sociological' effects of its deployment. >> >> Those who support immediate measures to stabilize global mean temperature >> should double down and press for actual tests and not be satisfied with >> 'cautionary notes' like this about the potential dangers of not starting >> tests. >> >> When will they find the testicles to actually advocate? >> >> Greg Slater >> >> >> >> On Feb 5, 2024, at 5:29 AM, H simmens <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> This article published this morning by David Keith and Wake Smith argues >> that it is entirely feasible that SAI could begin to be deployed at small >> scale within five years by launching aerosols at higher latitudes where the >> lower stratospheric boundary is easily accessible by current aircraft. >> >> It appears that their proposal is consistent with what Mike Maccracken >> has long been advocating - start small and learn by doing testing. >> >> They also argue that such testing should be subject to a formal >> moratorium - absent the development of a viable governance structure - >> consistent with the recommendations of the Climate Overshoot Commission. >> >> The risks of igniting a geopolitical free for all, particularly if >> testing were only done by one country and not by a coalition, are >> substantial they argue. >> >> Is this proposal something that those on these lists should get behind? >> >> Herb >> >> >> https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/02/05/1087587/solar-geoengineering-could-start-soon-if-it-starts-small/ >> >> Herb Simmens >> Author of *A Climate Vocabulary of the Future* >> “A SciencePoem and an Inspiration.” Kim Stanley Robinson >> @herbsimmens >> HerbSimmens.com <http://herbsimmens.com/> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" 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/086AD4FC-0128-4F76-9E06-11B5A46D3FD1%40gmail.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/086AD4FC-0128-4F76-9E06-11B5A46D3FD1%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Planetary Restoration" 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/planetary-restoration/aabf34ae-6529-4e39-968d-e3e1159b7ffc%40gmail.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/aabf34ae-6529-4e39-968d-e3e1159b7ffc%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" 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/CDF4D93B-504F-4532-A2EA-64DF65DBB237%40gmail.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CDF4D93B-504F-4532-A2EA-64DF65DBB237%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" 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/329c7a99-85d3-4b94-99dc-3b22c495a783%40comcast.net >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/329c7a99-85d3-4b94-99dc-3b22c495a783%40comcast.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Planetary Restoration" 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/planetary-restoration/CAPhUB9DJ3WcyEYcPQMvn6xSixYQA0fZwEQ51wCoKevkjs8-rGw%40mail.gmail.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CAPhUB9DJ3WcyEYcPQMvn6xSixYQA0fZwEQ51wCoKevkjs8-rGw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" 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/A10A72DA-6525-4925-A574-FD2C7F637646%40me.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/A10A72DA-6525-4925-A574-FD2C7F637646%40me.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" 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/3C1FF62C-FBFE-4181-A3EB-AB0D218FD814%40me.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/3C1FF62C-FBFE-4181-A3EB-AB0D218FD814%40me.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" 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/923A8C5D-31AE-4DD5-B16A-754D6470940A%40me.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/923A8C5D-31AE-4DD5-B16A-754D6470940A%40me.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> > > > -- > Rocío Herbert, Blue Dot Change > Director of Outreach > 650-575-3607 > [email protected] > -- 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/CAPhUB9BuFKQ4EejPxSJwghjrJT2TOZtFxk7utApBSuS06rf2XA%40mail.gmail.com.
