Oswald The group description now states solar geoengineering - but this hasn't been raised as an issue before, as I believe members are generally clear on the group's purpose.
Methane (arctic or otherwise) is greenhouse gas removal, normally grouped with CDR. Just like cirrus cloud thinning is normally grouped with SRM. As I explained before, in certain circumstances it may be relevant to post specific CDR content to the (solar) geoengineering group - for example, if people have questions about drone delivery of aerosols for ISA. In general, posts should be kept strictly on topic and not cross posted from other fora. Andrew Lockley Moderator Geoengineering Google group On Fri, 22 Mar 2024, 10:27 Oswald Petersen, <oswald.peter...@hispeed.ch> wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > > > there is no need to get cross with me, I willingly oblige, that’s easy. > > > > My recommendation remains the same: Call your group something that > reflects its content, then you will get a better targeting automatically. > If the content is solar geoengineering, name it that way. If that was the > case, AMR has no interest in that group, and we can easily forfeit the > venue. > > > > BTW methane removal is neither SRM nor CDR… but that’s just a sidekick… > > > > Regards > > > > Oswald Petersen > > Atmospheric Methane Removal AG > > Lärchenstr. 5 > > CH-8280 Kreuzlingen > > Tel: +41-71-6887514 > > Mob: +49-177-2734245 > > https://amr.earth > > https://georestoration.earth > > > > > > > > *Von:* Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> > *Gesendet:* Freitag, 22. März 2024 09:29 > *An:* Oswald Petersen <oswald.peter...@hispeed.ch> > *Cc:* geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; Michael > MacCracken <mmacc...@comcast.net>; healthy-planet-action-coalition < > healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com> > *Betreff:* Re: AW: [prag] [HPAC] Harvard has halted its long-planned > atmospheric geoengineering experiment | MIT Technology Review > > > > The Geoengineering Google Group covers SRM only (including CCT, etc). This > has been true since Greg Rau forked off the CDR Google group. > > > > I - and doubtless many other list members - are heartily sick of HPAC > cross posting. I've asked politely already. If you continue to break the > rules you will just be banned. > > > > Andrew Lockley > > > > On Fri, 22 Mar 2024, 08:19 Oswald Petersen, <oswald.peter...@hispeed.ch> > wrote: > > Dear Andrew, > > > > Re. Geoengineering > > > > *Geoengineering*, the large-scale manipulation of a specific process > central to controlling Earth’s <https://www.britannica.com/place/Earth> > climate <https://www.britannica.com/science/climate-meteorology> for the > purpose of obtaining a specific benefit. > > Geoengineering | Definitions, Examples, & Technologies | Britannica > <https://www.britannica.com/science/geoengineering> > > > > Our subject here is clearly a GeoEngineering subject. If you want to make > the GeoEngineering group solely a Solar GeoEngineering group, please call > it Solar GeoEngineering. > > > > Re. Dispersion > > > > The process we use for dispersion is called sublimation. We use the > jet-engine for the purpose. The result is ultra-fine particles under 100 > nm. No drone can do this. > > > > Regards > > > > Oswald Petersen > > Atmospheric Methane Removal AG > > Lärchenstr. 5 > > CH-8280 Kreuzlingen > > Tel: +41-71-6887514 > > Mob: +49-177-2734245 > > https://amr.earth > > https://georestoration.earth > > > > > > > > *Von:* Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> > *Gesendet:* Freitag, 22. März 2024 08:25 > *An:* Oswald Petersen <oswald.peter...@hispeed.ch> > *Cc:* Michael MacCracken <mmacc...@comcast.net>; > healthy-planet-action-coalition < > healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com> > *Betreff:* Re: AW: [prag] [HPAC] Harvard has halted its long-planned > atmospheric geoengineering experiment | MIT Technology Review > > > > Chaps, this is seemingly nothing to do with the geoengineering Google > group. Please stop cc us. > > > > The ISA aerosol can be dispersed with small drones for a lot less than > 20m. A test project with existing equipment would be around 100k (I've been > in supplier discussions for an MCB project) Pls see my recent paper on > drones, noting this considers solids. > https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2515-7620/ad2f71 > > > > Your biggest issue is aerosol size. You can't assume high levels of > surface reactivity in large aerosols; most of your material is isolated in > the centre of the particle. So you need to concentrate on dispersing > extraordinarily fine powders or sprays. > > > > I'm also unclear what altitude you need. Surely stratospheric dispersal > would avoid particle rain out? There's a lot of methane in the atmosphere - > 2000 ppb, ie 6Gt - so you have to inject a great deal of ISA to > meaningfully clean it out, even with the high leverage you offer below > (roughly 1 Mt for a one off, or 50ktpa for continuous). You'll have much > longer aerosol lifetimes in the stratosphere. However, you also need to > consider optical effects on SW / LW radiation. Alternatively, you can apply > surface coatings to bare rock faces. If water isn't required then the > Atacama desert or Antarctic dry valleys would be an option. > > > > Andrew > > > > On Fri, 22 Mar 2024, 06:34 'Oswald Petersen' via Healthy Planet Action > Coalition (HPAC), <healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com> > wrote: > > Dear Mike, > > > > Thanks! > > > > I completely agree with all you say. We treat benefits from OIF and MCB > (the particles are also CCN) as freebies, benefits unknown in their > efficiency. Bringing down methane levels alone would actually be sufficient > to avert GW spiralling into the nevernever. > > > > So let us concentrate on CH4. As you say, there are a number of variables > which influence the efficiency, and all our efforts in the last two years > did indeed concentrate on that efficiency. The most important parameters > are: > > > > - Height of dispersal point. > - Location of dispersal point > - Time of dispersal e.g. windspeed, weather conditions. > - Size of particles > - Dispersion method > > > > We have recently changed our dispersion technology from high, ocean-based > steel-towers to planes. Those planes have jet-engines which we use for the > dispersal of FeCl3 particles. Because of their speed and power jets are the > best dispersion tool imaginable. Moving the dispersion point guarantees a > large air room to be filled, plus, of course, planes are able to adapt > their flight altitude to current weather conditions, which makes the model > completely scalable. Today I wonder why it took us so long to understand > this, but… there you go… > > > > With this dispersion technology we can basically decide ourselves what > concentration of ISA we want on the ground. From our expert in toxicology > we know that all concentrations below 1 ppm are harmless. Actually FeCl3 is > quite harmless, non-toxic, so there is nothing to fear from that side. We > work with much higher concentrations in our lab on a daily basis. The only > small problem it poses is the fact that in its fluid state it is corrosive, > but I am quite rusty anyway 😊 > > > > Back to the point: We think that we can keep the particles afloat for 14 > days and more, which would give us the needed time to oxidise around 10.000 > CH4 molecules per FeCL3 molecule. So that’s fine in theory. > > > > What we really need is modelling. We are desperately looking for some > university which can do the modelling. We have great experts here in > Switzerland (e.g. Ulrike Lohmann at ETH), but they declined / ignored our > letters up to now. Can you help ? Or anybody? > > > > We would love to do a field test but still have to find 20 Million USD > somewhere to buy and modify a plane for our needs. However I think this > will be doable… > > > > This is, in a nutshell, where we stand today. > > > > Thanks again > > > > Oswald Petersen > > Atmospheric Methane Removal AG > > Lärchenstr. 5 > > CH-8280 Kreuzlingen > > Tel: +41-71-6887514 > > Mob: +49-177-2734245 > > https://amr.earth > > https://georestoration.earth > > > > > > > > *Von:* healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com < > healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com> *Im Auftrag von *Michael > MacCracken > *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 21. März 2024 21:51 > *An:* Oswald Petersen <oswald.peter...@hispeed.ch>; 'Chris Vivian' < > chris.vivi...@btinternet.com>; 'Robin Collins' <robin.w.coll...@gmail.com>; > 'Sev Clarke' <sevcla...@icloud.com> > *Cc:* 'Alan Kerstein' <alan.kerst...@gmail.com>; 'Clive Elsworth' < > cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk>; 'Herb Simmens' <hsimm...@gmail.com>; > 'Planetary Restoration' <planetary-restorat...@googlegroups.com>; > 'geoengineering' <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; > 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' < > healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com> > *Betreff:* Re: AW: [prag] [HPAC] Harvard has halted its long-planned > atmospheric geoengineering experiment | MIT Technology Review > > > > Dear Oswald--For the benefit of others in the discussion, what my > follow-ups with you suggested was that the real key to quickly getting the > temperature reductions that you are talking about would be iron aerosol > injection to bring the methane concentration down to its preindustrial > level. As I indicated, I'm not an expert on such chemistry, but the key > seems to be having the iron aerosol be the catalyst for this happening and > happening quite rapidly for each bit of iron salt aerosol injected (so a > thousand or more methane molecules destroyed before the iron aerosol > molecule falls or is rained out). That the iron falling out into the ocean > might promote some additional CO2 uptake was nice, but not really the key > to the short-term drop in temperature. And for longest life of the iron > salt aerosol, injecting it into the free troposphere above the boundary > layer was the place to put it. > > The other aspects of the plan focused on long-term efforts to bring the > CO2 down by, for example, ocean fertilization, which is a bit more > speculative and, if done with nutrients from land, might well deplete land > fertility by sinking a lot of nutrients into the ocean, something that > could be avoided if one brought nutrients up from deeper in the ocean by > wave pumping of similar renewable approach. > > Focusing on the iron salt aerosol component of the effort that you > describe, so there would be the initial efforts to bring down the CH4 > concentration to of order 700 ppb, and then the need for an ongoing effort > to offset the methane emissions that are coming off each year and > sustaining the present methane concentration that is nearing 2000 ppb. With > the new methane detecting satellite, the expectation is that there will be > a lot of learning about the sources and the potential for addressing the > issue through emissions reductions versus the need for deploying iron salt > aerosols. > > Have there been global atmospheric chemistry simulations of the iron > aerosol injection proposal that you have made, indicating whether there > might be other consequences from the methane reductions? Presumably, > location of the injections does not make much difference as atmospheric > mixing will tend to pretty quickly fill any hole that is created--is this > correct? What sort of testing has been done of iron aerosol injections? > > Mike MacCracken > > > > On 3/21/24 1:00 PM, 'Oswald Petersen' via Planetary Restoration wrote: > > 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://cool-planet.earth > > > > > > *Von:* 'Chris Vivian' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) > <healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com> > <healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com> > *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 21. März 2024 16:50 > *An:* 'Oswald Petersen' <oswald.peter...@hispeed.ch> > <oswald.peter...@hispeed.ch>; 'Robin Collins' <robin.w.coll...@gmail.com> > <robin.w.coll...@gmail.com>; 'Sev Clarke' <sevcla...@icloud.com> > <sevcla...@icloud.com> > *Cc:* 'Alan Kerstein' <alan.kerst...@gmail.com> <alan.kerst...@gmail.com>; > 'Clive Elsworth' <cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk> > <cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk>; 'Herb Simmens' <hsimm...@gmail.com> > <hsimm...@gmail.com>; 'Mike MacCracken' <mmacc...@comcast.net> > <mmacc...@comcast.net>; 'Planetary Restoration' > <planetary-restorat...@googlegroups.com> > <planetary-restorat...@googlegroups.com>; 'geoengineering' > <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; > 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' > <healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com> > <healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com> > *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) < > healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com> > *Sent:* Thursday, March 21, 2024 2:10 PM > *To:* 'Robin Collins' <robin.w.coll...@gmail.com>; 'Sev Clarke' < > sevcla...@icloud.com> > *Cc:* 'Alan Kerstein' <alan.kerst...@gmail.com>; 'Clive Elsworth' < > cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk>; 'Herb Simmens' <hsimm...@gmail.com>; > 'Mike MacCracken' <mmacc...@comcast.net>; 'Planetary Restoration' < > planetary-restorat...@googlegroups.com>; 'geoengineering' < > geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' < > healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com> > *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://cool-planet.earth > > > > > > *Von:* healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com < > healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com> *Im Auftrag von *Robin > Collins > *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 21. März 2024 14:01 > *An:* Sev Clarke <sevcla...@icloud.com> > *Cc:* Alan Kerstein <alan.kerst...@gmail.com>; Clive Elsworth < > cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk>; Herb Simmens <hsimm...@gmail.com>; Mike > MacCracken <mmacc...@comcast.net>; Planetary Restoration < > planetary-restorat...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering < > geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition < > healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com> > *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 <sevcla...@icloud.com> 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 <hsimm...@gmail.com> 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 <cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk> > 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:* healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com < > healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com> *On Behalf Of *Robin > Collins > *Sent:* Monday, March 18, 2024 3:40 PM > *To:* Alan Kerstein <alan.kerst...@gmail.com> > *Cc:* H simmens <hsimm...@gmail.com>; Michael MacCracken < > mmacc...@comcast.net>; Planetary Restoration < > planetary-restorat...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering < > geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition < > healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com> > *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 <alan.kerst...@gmail.com> > 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 <mmacc...@comcast.net> > 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 healthy-planet-action-coalition+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > 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 healthy-planet-action-coalition+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > 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 healthy-planet-action-coalition+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > 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 healthy-planet-action-coalition+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > 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 planetary-restoration+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > 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 healthy-planet-action-coalition+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > 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 healthy-planet-action-coalition+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > 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 healthy-planet-action-coalition+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > 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 planetary-restoration+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > 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> > . > > -- > 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 healthy-planet-action-coalition+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/df0aa402-79a9-45fa-b13e-a80e45724c02%40comcast.net > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/df0aa402-79a9-45fa-b13e-a80e45724c02%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 healthy-planet-action-coalition+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/003301da7c22%24f53e15f0%24dfba41d0%24%40hispeed.ch > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/003301da7c22%24f53e15f0%24dfba41d0%24%40hispeed.ch?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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-04rcDYmufbNvKbC%3DW%2BV%3Dct1wyE41bcdtO%3DPK6kU6jiaUQ%40mail.gmail.com.
