Dear Chris,
well, it’s the same as with SAI, nobody believes that either.
That’s why I keep repeating the message like a mantra. We CAN remove
enough CH4 and CO2 to stop GW. Because apparently nobody is willing
and able to read the pdfs I attached recently to almost all my emails
in this forum (enclosed again) we have now created a website to get
the message across.
You can find it here:
https://georestoration.earth
With the GeoRestoration Action Plan we can cool the climate within 20
years by 0.5 to 1.0 °C. That’s sufficient to avert the worst scenarios.
If, as you say, nobody believes it, could one of those non-believers
please explain why? This would be most interesting for us.
Regards
Oswald Petersen
Atmospheric Methane Removal AG
Lärchenstr. 5
CH-8280 Kreuzlingen
Tel: +41-71-6887514
Mob: +49-177-2734245
https://amr.earth <https://amr.earth/>
https://cool-planet.earth <https://cool-planet.earth/>
*Von:*'Chris Vivian' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)
<[email protected]>
*Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 21. März 2024 16:50
*An:* 'Oswald Petersen' <[email protected]>; 'Robin Collins'
<[email protected]>; 'Sev Clarke' <[email protected]>
*Cc:* 'Alan Kerstein' <[email protected]>; 'Clive Elsworth'
<[email protected]>; 'Herb Simmens' <[email protected]>;
'Mike MacCracken' <[email protected]>; 'Planetary Restoration'
<[email protected]>; 'geoengineering'
<[email protected]>; 'healthy-planet-action-coalition'
<[email protected]>
*Betreff:* RE: [prag] [HPAC] Harvard has halted its long-planned
atmospheric geoengineering experiment | MIT Technology Review
Oswald,
It’s fine in theory to say “All we have to do is remove the GHG which
cause Global Warming” but few people believe it can be scaled up fast
enough to avoid tipping points, worsening climatic effects etc. How do
you think it can be done fast enough?
Best wishes
Chris.
*From:*'Oswald Petersen' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)
<[email protected]>
*Sent:* Thursday, March 21, 2024 2:10 PM
*To:* 'Robin Collins' <[email protected]>; 'Sev Clarke'
<[email protected]>
*Cc:* 'Alan Kerstein' <[email protected]>; 'Clive Elsworth'
<[email protected]>; 'Herb Simmens' <[email protected]>;
'Mike MacCracken' <[email protected]>; 'Planetary Restoration'
<[email protected]>; 'geoengineering'
<[email protected]>; 'healthy-planet-action-coalition'
<[email protected]>
*Subject:* AW: [prag] [HPAC] Harvard has halted its long-planned
atmospheric geoengineering experiment | MIT Technology Review
Hi Robin,
we do not need SRM. All we have to do is remove the GHG which cause
Global Warming. It is safe, natural and much more efficient than SRM
(any variety),
Regards
Oswald Petersen
Atmospheric Methane Removal AG
Lärchenstr. 5
CH-8280 Kreuzlingen
Tel: +41-71-6887514
Mob: +49-177-2734245
https://amr.earth <https://amr.earth/>
https://cool-planet.earth <https://cool-planet.earth/>
*Von:*[email protected]
<[email protected]> *Im Auftrag von
*Robin Collins
*Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 21. März 2024 14:01
*An:* Sev Clarke <[email protected]>
*Cc:* Alan Kerstein <[email protected]>; Clive Elsworth
<[email protected]>; Herb Simmens <[email protected]>;
Mike MacCracken <[email protected]>; Planetary Restoration
<[email protected]>; geoengineering
<[email protected]>; healthy-planet-action-coalition
<[email protected]>
*Betreff:* Re: [prag] [HPAC] Harvard has halted its long-planned
atmospheric geoengineering experiment | MIT Technology Review
I think Herb’s question directed at a core of environmentalists is key:
Is there a point when the climate worsens so much more* that you
would support the deployment of cooling if shown to be reasonably
safe and effective?
*Note: this can mean too late.
I have raised the same question and I think the answer is that
unambiguous critics of SRM methods (“anti-human interventionists”) see
the question as a trap, and therefore it “shouldn’t” be answered.
The only rational response to the question is, of course: a resounding
Yes. But if you acknowledge that possibility, then you must deny the
arguments against testing SRM. And you also have to believe (or
pretend) that decarbonization-only IS sufficient, on track, and that
the evidence is available to show this. If the evidence points in the
opposite direction, then — to stick with your ideology — you must
deny, refute or hide it. This is why the problem is now ideological
and very dangerous if it spreads into governance. (UNEA!)
I agree with Sev that the publication of the paper (and more of them)
will be very important (although I disagree with a MCB-only approach.)
I wonder if the publication will be blocked?
We need bullet-proof publications to point to, to build the case in
public and government circles. We need a breakthrough or two.
Robin
On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 6:45 PM Sev Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
Herb,
Grandiose solutions and strategies are appropriate only for those
who can command grandiose resources. We do not. Having our DCC
paper published in the Oxford Open Climate Change journal would be
a good start; and persuading research organisations (following
more the community consultative lead of the Great Barrier Reef MCB
experiment, rather than that of SCoPEx/SAI) to model, experiment
with, and publish the results from, our many proposed climate
solutions would give the article both intellectual and possibly
public & political support/funding. Many such experiments and
modelling do not require international governance and approval if
done in the confines of the EEZ waters of one or more nation
states. Successful experiments, followed by gated trials, seem to
me to provide our best chance of gaining widespread support for
further, cautious deployment. Learning by doing should allow us to
minimise any adverse effects whilst maximising the net benefit.
Sev
On 19 Mar 2024, at 5:20 am, H simmens <[email protected]> wrote:
Alan, Robin and Clive,
We all have our theories that attempt to explain and
understand the almost visceral opposition to any effort to
directly cool the climate.
The three arguments you cite Robin certainly account for some
signiicant proportion of the opposition. And as you point out
Alan the lack of information about the urgency of the
situation and that there are remedies that could turn things
around is I believe beyond dispute.
I have attempted to engage with many leading Climate
scientists and activists on Twitter about cooling. I’m amazed
at how superficial their responses have been to my comments
and questions when they bother responding at all. (And several
have blocked me entirely as I guess my questions were too
inconvenient.)
One question I have never been able to get ANY knowledgeable
Climate scientist or activist opposed to cooling to answer is
a very simple one:
Is there a point when the climate worsens so much more that
you would support the deployment of cooling if shown to be
reasonably safe and effective?
Your guess is as good as mine as to why they refuse to answer
but it would sure be important to find out!
What is needed to answer these and other questions at the risk
again of being annoyingly repetitive is a carefully researched
and developed plan of action that starts out with the
development of a strategic /power map/ that identifies who the
individuals, groups and other entities are that make decisions
to advance or stymie the acceptance of cooling.
Perhaps those of us on these lists and our allies will be
fortuitous enough to convince or persuade a person who is
trusted by other key people who could then positively change
the dynamic.
But would any of us be willing to bet the future of humanity
and the natural world on the ability of some of us - who are
essentially almost totally unorganized - to achieve that?
If we were a multinational corporation who developed not just
a new product but a new product category (cooling) and we
wanted to market it to a world that didn’t even know that
there was such a product category or even the need for one we
would do what virtually every entity with the means to do so
would do:
We would invest considerable resources in market research, in
focus groups, in power mapping and In understanding the
competition’s strengths and weaknesses in the greatest of
detail. To do all this we would hire the brightest most
experienced and most relevantly influential people on the
planet including those who specialize in particular countries
or institutional sectors.
Only then would we determine what our strategy would be to
introduce the product - Do we start in one country, do we
start with one demographic do we promote the product by
denigrating the competition and or by pointing out the
superiority of our product or do we simply decide to invest a
considerable amount of our resources in a kind of brute force
campaign to persuade every potential buyer.
This process - done with the ultimate professionalism - is
exactly what is necessary in my view to “sell” cooling as the
first order of business for a brand new NGO committed to
cooling the planet in the context of a restored climate.
I probably have written too long an answer.
But my point is that none of us have anywhere near the
information needed to determine the most effective way to
change the prevailing ERA paradigm of emission reductions
alone- which *generates tens of millions of promotional
messages every single day throughout the planet versus
essentially none for cooling the planet - *to a paradigm that
humanity can restore a safer climate and a healthier Ecosystem
through the urgent deployment of direct cooling along with
continued emission reductions, large scale carbon removal and
a reduction in unnecessary consumption.
My comments should not be interpreted to mean that we
shouldn’t be reaching out to people like Sabine as you suggest
Clive and others who have potentially large influence as many
of us have been doing for the past couple of years.
But if we don’t do it in a way where we know exactly what we
want Sabine and others to do and how we can assist them then
it may be of limited value.
What I would suggest be done first would be to prepare the
most powerful and compelling presentation imaginable to
present to people and institutions with the means or with
access to others with the means to establish and generously
endow such an NGO.
And then systematically identify all those contacts that we
individually and collectively have with people who may be able
to provide access to those with the means and influence to
create such an NGO.
Any significant actions that are not intended to directly or
indirectly lead to that result seem like little more than
rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic as it goes closer
and closer to colliding with the largely unseen (and now
dramatically shrinking) iceberg that will make all of our
efforts moot.
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 Mar 18, 2024, at 1:07 PM, Clive Elsworth
<[email protected]> wrote:
I agree with both of you (Alan and Robbin)
Perhaps a trusted messenger might be Sabine Hossenfelder?
In this video Sabine says climate scientists are probably
guilty of confirmation bias on equilibrium climate
sensitivity: https://youtu.be/uEZ9HFlqzms
In this one she says climate engineering is a bad idea,
but it’s probably going to happen anyway because it’s the
cheapest solution: https://youtu.be/MZiEcx0F_CM However
she only mentions SAI, and a method of removing water
vapour from the stratosphere, which would make almost no
difference.
She appears unaware of MCB, and the many other proposals
listed on the NOAC website.
Does anyone have access to Sabine?
Clive
*From:*[email protected]
<[email protected]>
*On Behalf Of *Robin Collins
*Sent:* Monday, March 18, 2024 3:40 PM
*To:* Alan Kerstein <[email protected]>
*Cc:* H simmens <[email protected]>; Michael MacCracken
<[email protected]>; Planetary Restoration
<[email protected]>; geoengineering
<[email protected]>;
healthy-planet-action-coalition
<[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [HPAC] Harvard has halted its long-planned
atmospheric geoengineering experiment | MIT Technology Review
If we are still asking the question we need to talk to
them directly, frankly, to understand. So far everything
I’ve read suggests 1. they don’t think human geo-measures
will work (even if they are unwilling to test to see)
and/or because the human track record is abysmal; 2. they
think these measures will divert from decarbonization; 3.
They think decarbonization is sufficient.
All these lead to the same point: #3.
That’s the one to focus on.
Robin
On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 11:26 AM Alan Kerstein
<[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Herb,
Is it plausible that the opponents of DCC are
cognizant of the present danger and the urgency of
action? Personally I don’t think so. Would opposition
soften if they better understood the situation. I
think it’s at least possible, perhaps likely.
Before a doctor advises a patient to go through
chemotherapy that will almost kill them, the doctor
confronts the patient with the prognosis. (Of course,
DCC will not do anything like ‘almost kill’ the
planet, but that seems to be the mentality out there.)
Sorry for repeating myself, but the circumstances call
for hammering away at the prognosis until opposition
to DCC softens, setting aside advocacy of DCC until
then. This must be done by trusted messengers, who are
few and far between these days. The needed steps go
from scientific luminaries like James Hansen to
trusted messengers to the general public and other
stakeholders.
That said, I agree about the need for the NGO that you
suggest, but it needs to be cagey regarding its public
pronouncements.
Regards,
Alan
On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 7:29 AM Michael MacCracken
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Herb--And yet Elon Musk et al. shoot big
rockets through the stratosphere with an
increasing pace, not to mention the sort of
ballistic missiles that North Korea and Houtis are
firing, etc. This fear of the slippery slope hangs
on and on while the lowering cost of renewable
energy continues to reverse the original argument.
Mike
On 3/18/24 9:56 AM, H simmens wrote:
Harvard announced this morning the termination
of the SCoPEx atmosphere geoengineering
experiment that was first proposed a decade ago.
It was originally planned for Arizona around
2018 and was then moved to Sweden in 2021
As many of you know due to local opposition in
Sweden by the Sami people that experiment was
canceled several years ago.
The project itself has now been officially
canceled.
The explanation given was quite generic as the
article details.
There a link to a lengthy final report by the
Harvard SCoPEx advisory committee.
Whether this decade long utter fiasco is a
clear signal that even micro-scale DCC /direct
climate cooling /atmospheric research remains
a non-starter or whether future endeavors - if
there are any - will be more successful
remains to be seen.
The cancellation of SCoPEx along with the
announcement of the release of reflective
particles into the atmosphere by Make Sunsets
leading immediately to the prohibition of such
releases in Mexico and Mexican advocacy
against such experimentation at the UNEA in
Nairobi earlier this month demonstrates the
risk of attracting immense backlash even to
the most microscopic of baby steps.
Which leads me to once again share my
perspective that unless and until an extremely
well funded international NGO with a clear
mission and a superb staff focused on the
deployment of DCC in the context of climate
restoration is established the prospects for
effective cooling in time to make a difference
will remain negligible.
That’s what the advocacy efforts of any group
supportive of the essential need for DCC must
focus on IMHO.
Herb
https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/03/18/1089879/harvard-halts-its-long-planned-atmospheric-geoengineering-experiment/
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/8FDD77AD-3CC3-4350-83B4-5DB7261FEC67%40gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/8FDD77AD-3CC3-4350-83B4-5DB7261FEC67%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/382552ea-1bf4-4d54-a13a-be657abd1436%40comcast.net
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/382552ea-1bf4-4d54-a13a-be657abd1436%40comcast.net?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/CAH-gPYHrJJCfX49VWMuyhD3Zg4QWfkfC-9U5JZ-F%2B30aS-0FOg%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAH-gPYHrJJCfX49VWMuyhD3Zg4QWfkfC-9U5JZ-F%2B30aS-0FOg%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/CAKes%3DnGTddjAtiH-Cm3VZ13kqo1RH92YpPgsFVBZp_xm3%2Bi6Lg%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAKes%3DnGTddjAtiH-Cm3VZ13kqo1RH92YpPgsFVBZp_xm3%2Bi6Lg%40mail.gmail.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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/98BA1786-5ED0-4170-82F2-267B150DE85C%40gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/98BA1786-5ED0-4170-82F2-267B150DE85C%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/CAKes%3DnEr%3D8Yi7qO8fhq0V5n22vg%3DMvLFKkqZBn%2B_orjxvMkLwA%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAKes%3DnEr%3D8Yi7qO8fhq0V5n22vg%3DMvLFKkqZBn%2B_orjxvMkLwA%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/000601da7b99%247c86e940%247594bbc0%24%40hispeed.ch
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/000601da7b99%247c86e940%247594bbc0%24%40hispeed.ch?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/05cf01da7ba7%247a24fc10%246e6ef430%24%40btinternet.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/05cf01da7ba7%247a24fc10%246e6ef430%24%40btinternet.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/002d01da7bb1%244396b8f0%24cac42ad0%24%40hispeed.ch
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/002d01da7bb1%244396b8f0%24cac42ad0%24%40hispeed.ch?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
