[geo] pre-print of forth-coming paper: Svoboda, T and Irvine, PJ, Ethical and Technical Challenges in Compensating for Harm Due to Solar RadiationManagement Geoengineering
Toby Svoboda and I have produced a piece on some of the difficulties that would face a compensation scheme for SRM geoengineering. The link below is for a pre-print version of the article which is forthcoming in the journal Ethics, Policy and Environment. This will not make it into print until late 2013 or early 2014 but we thought it would be nice to get it seen before then. The version at the end of this link is not the final version of the paper but the differences are minor. http://www.academia.edu/2198791/Ethical_and_Technical_Challenges_in_Compensating_for_Harm_Due_to_Solar_Radiation_Management_Geoengineering -- 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 post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] Re: magnetic elevator for transport to the stratosphere
Magnetic levitation is a small distance phenomenon. Talking about magnetically levitating large masses large distances is on par with evoking a sky hook. Magnets are not magic, and their size to strength ratio is important to understand. The science is fairly constraining. Think motors. The stator rotor gap is as tiny as possible for good coupling. Best regards, --Daniel On Tuesday, February 19, 2013 11:06:28 AM UTC-5, andrewjlockley wrote: I suspect the design of the vehicle would take that into account. I'm generally uninterested in the feasibility of the star tram - but the magnetic levitation component of the design is of particular interest A On Feb 19, 2013 3:50 PM, Russell Seitz russel...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: Andrew, things leaving a long, gently-sloping evacuated tube at orbital velocity will interact with the stratosphere in much the same way as the object that entered it over Chelyabinsk last week. On Tuesday, February 19, 2013 10:13:10 AM UTC-5, andrewjlockley wrote: Hi I came across the 'Star Tram' concept some time ago http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**StarTramhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarTram The proposal is for a long, gently-sloping evacuated tube. This is magnetically-levitated at one end, and anchored at the other. It's for launching payloads to space. If it is indeed possible to use magnetic levitation to lift something so massive, then surely creating some kind of magnetic elevator to carry sulphur to the stratosphere wouldn't be too tricky? I am unable to assess the credibility of the startram idea, or understand its purported working principles. Can anyone shed light on this? A -- 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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] Re: magnetic elevator for transport to the stratosphere
The startram design envisages very large superconductive coils. From recollection these are many miles in diameter, like the CERN ring. Is such a concept feasible? A On Feb 20, 2013 4:06 PM, Daniel Rosenberg daniel.b.rosenb...@gmail.com wrote: Magnetic levitation is a small distance phenomenon. Talking about magnetically levitating large masses large distances is on par with evoking a sky hook. Magnets are not magic, and their size to strength ratio is important to understand. The science is fairly constraining. Think motors. The stator rotor gap is as tiny as possible for good coupling. Best regards, --Daniel On Tuesday, February 19, 2013 11:06:28 AM UTC-5, andrewjlockley wrote: I suspect the design of the vehicle would take that into account. I'm generally uninterested in the feasibility of the star tram - but the magnetic levitation component of the design is of particular interest A On Feb 19, 2013 3:50 PM, Russell Seitz russel...@gmail.com wrote: Andrew, things leaving a long, gently-sloping evacuated tube at orbital velocity will interact with the stratosphere in much the same way as the object that entered it over Chelyabinsk last week. On Tuesday, February 19, 2013 10:13:10 AM UTC-5, andrewjlockley wrote: Hi I came across the 'Star Tram' concept some time ago http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**S**tarTramhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarTram The proposal is for a long, gently-sloping evacuated tube. This is magnetically-levitated at one end, and anchored at the other. It's for launching payloads to space. If it is indeed possible to use magnetic levitation to lift something so massive, then surely creating some kind of magnetic elevator to carry sulphur to the stratosphere wouldn't be too tricky? I am unable to assess the credibility of the startram idea, or understand its purported working principles. Can anyone shed light on this? A -- 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 geoengineerin...@**googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.**com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** group/geoengineering?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_outhttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out . -- 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 post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] Brief Summary Marine Geoengineering Techniques
Andrew see below - Original Message - From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com To: rongretlar...@comcast.net Cc: Chris Vivian chris.viv...@cefas.co.uk, geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 12:27:46 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Brief Summary Marine Geoengineering Techniques Hi One issue which concerns me about biochar is washout. When soil mixed with biochar is eroded, the biochar will end up in the water. RWL1: Andrew - First off, we should be making huge efforts to avoid the soil eroding, much less the char. World average erosion rates are staggering, and it is generally felt that biochar helps avoid that through changes in soil structure. But it is true that some char can/will/does float to the top in a heavy rain. But if initially placed sub-surface, floating can be a minimum problem. After some time, much of the char will have been attached to roots and/or become part of humus. So yes, this is a problem one should worry about and do something about. It's low density and very dark in colour. It's worrying from an albedo point of view. RWL2: Yes, agreed this is a drawback - but I think not too serious. First, most char (maybe all) should/can be subsurface. Second, with desired perennial growth , little sun should get to the surface. Third, one can simultaneously apply light colored rock dusts (possibly also a sequestering type). We don't want to end up with loads of floating dark charcoal covering up the world's oceans. RWL3: Agreed we don't want this. I believe a lot of climate historical information is obtained from char at the ocean/lake bottom - valuable because of the char's long life. I believe that new char generally floats but weathered char not so. See dialog from 2008 at: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/message/3747 The sequestration value of the cha r may be enhanced if at the bottom of the ocean. Has anyone looked at this? RWL4 : The biochar literature is definitely concerned on all three of your issues. I would say a bigger issue is that it is very difficult to specify char lifetimes. Definitely not infinite. There is a tradeoff in getting some fertilizer value from the labile portion of low-temperatuer char, vs the more sure longer lifetime of high-temperature char. We are bginning to be able to predict lifetime - and carbon credits can be modified to account for differences. Users may not care too muchabout lifetime, if soil productivity gain is large at first. Thanks for the questions. Ron A On 19 February 2013 18:33, rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote: Chris cc list a. Thanks for the answers. Very helpful. Obviously, I didn't get far enough into the citations and so your recommendation on the eight references in the Sequestration section were very helpful. b.. In order to save others time (especially for the biochar community to which I will also send this), I have expanded what you said on each of the cites. Obviously there a lot to work with. I insert my comments in bold into your section on this topic. It doesn't seem that any of your explicitly refer to biochar, but that s an easy additon. Use of Marine Macroalgae for Carbon Sequestration – Proposals for sequestering carbon through growing marine macroalgae date back to the early 1990’s – see Ritschard (1992). [RWL1: http://rd.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-011-2793-6_16 This is a book summarizing an important early sequestration conference of which I was unaware. I have the book ordered on interlibrary loan. More recently a few papers and reports have looked at the approach anew. Chung et al. (2011) critically appraised the approach, finding that it could play a significant role in carbon sequestration and amelioration of greenhouse gas emissions. RWL2: see http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10811-010-9604-9 Journal of Applied Phycology October 2011, Volume 23, Issue 5, pp 877-886 Using marine macroalgae for carbon sequestration: a critical appraisal N’Yeurt et al. (2012) proposed that ‘Ocean Macroalgal Afforestation’ has the potential to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels. RWL3: See: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957582012001206 This from a special issue of Process Safety and Environmental Protection that does also include bochar. These approaches are all at a very early stage of development with much more research needed to explore the possibilities, practicalities and potential problems. There has also been some investigation of the use of marine macroalgae as a fuel e.g. see Roberts and Upham (2012), RWL4: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X12000449 Marine Policy, Volume 36, Issue 5, September 2012, Pages 1047–1053, Prospects for the use of
RE: [geo] pre-print of forth-coming paper: Svoboda, T and Irvine, PJ, Ethical and Technical Challenges in Compensating for Harm Due to Solar RadiationManagement Geoengineering
Hello All, Just to add a little to Steve's excellent points:- Jones et al (2009) reported that their computations re MCB - in which they seeded 3 large regions of stratocumulus clouds - produced a significant rainfall reduction in the Amazonian region. In their (2011) paper they report that if seeding of one of the 3 regions (Namibia) is switched off there is no significant Amazonian rainfall reduction. Studies by Bala,Caldeira et al (2010) and Rasch et al (2009), in which MCB seeding occurs over much larger oceanic areas do not indicate significant rainfall loss in this region. It follows that it is not justifiable, in the light of these studies, to state that significant rainfall reduction in this area WOULD occur. COULD is of course still acceptable. As the work of Steve colleagues shows, the geographical distribution of MCB seeding is critical in determining the impacts. It behoves us therefore to become more enlightened re seeding patterns. Cheers,John. John Latham Address: P.O. Box 3000,MMM,NCAR,Boulder,CO 80307-3000 Email: lat...@ucar.edu or john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk Tel: (US-Work) 303-497-8182 or (US-Home) 303-444-2429 or (US-Cell) 303-882-0724 or (UK) 01928-730-002 http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/people/latham From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Stephen Salter [s.sal...@ed.ac.uk] Sent: 20 February 2013 15:48 To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [geo] pre-print of forth-coming paper: Svoboda, T and Irvine, PJ, Ethical and Technical Challenges in Compensating for Harm Due to Solar RadiationManagement Geoengineering Hi All There are so many papers on the ethics of geo-engineering (two today already) that the guys trying to do the practical bits cannot read all of them even though they are mostly the same. But I hope that there may be time for some minor corrections in the one by Tony and Peter. They quote Jones et al 2009 saying that marine cloud brightening would cause a large reduction in Amazon rainfall when this it is only 300 mm a year out for a typical 2300 mm a year and then only for spray off Namibia. Figure 3 from the attached paper based on results from Ben Parkes shows that spray in many other places, including amazingly south of the Aleutian islands, can increase precipitation in the Amazon. So far no modellers have thought of varying the spray rate or position with respect to monsoons or the phase of the el Nino oscillation. It would be very odd if these had no effect. Tony and Peter quote Bala et al. 2010 in Climate Dynamics saying that SRM decreases annual precipitation in some regions. In fact the final line of Climate Dynamics 36 (5-6), pp 1-17 reads Climate Dynamics 37(5-6), pp. 1-1 '. . . . our study indicates that reflecting sunlight to space by reducing cloud droplet size over the oceans could lead, on average, to a moistening of the continents.' I will be very grateful to anyone who can save me wasting my time working on something which has bad effects but so far it really seems that keeping sea surface temperatures close to where they used to be is good and that by choosing the time and place for cloud albedo control we can vary precipitation in either direction. The only people who have benefited from the droughts in America and Russia are grain speculators. Nobody benefited from the floods in Queensland and Pakistan. Droughts and floods are we we must expect, more and worse. They are what geo-engineering is trying to stop. Tony and Peter write that SRM does nothing for ocean acidity. They might have added that it does not turn base metals into gold or cure AIDS. It is also true that fixing ocean acidity does nothing for melting ice caps. We are allowed more than one tool in the box and we should use all possible tools to do what they are good at. If Tony and Peter could read the attached short note they might be persuaded to write two more papers. One would be the 'Rewards to people who managed to get practical hardware for friendly geo-engineering developed just in time despite having no money'. The second paper would be 'Punishments to people who delayed the development of essential geo-engineering hardware by use of dodgy references'. Stephen Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering University of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland s.sal...@ed.ac.ukmailto:s.sal...@ed.ac.uk Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704 Cell 07795 203 195 WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shshttp://WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs On 20/02/2013 13:59, p.j.irvine wrote: Toby Svoboda and I have produced a piece on some of the difficulties that would face a compensation scheme for SRM geoengineering. The link below is for a pre-print version of the article which is forthcoming in the journal Ethics, Policy and Environment. This will not make it into print until late 2013 or early 2014 but we thought it would be
Re: [geo] Re: Strategic incentives for climate geoengineering coalitions to exclude broad participation (new paper)
Hi Ken--My question on the definition being used would be if ³impacts² is the right word as that usually refers to the consequences of changes in climate, so what is covered in IPCC WG 2 rather than WG 1. I would suggest that SRM is interested in limiting ³the amount of anthropogenic climate change² or ³the effects on climate of increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases² or ³the effects on climate of anthropogenically caused changes in radiative forcing² or something similar. Now, I do agree that the intent of doing these actions is to limit the impacts of climate change on society and the environment, but global SRM directly is focused on counter-balancing the response of the climate system to the rising concentrations of greenhouse gases, and not, for example, trying to directly limit the shifts in ranges of ecosystems, etc. I would actually suggest that some of what might be regionally focused efforts to alter the energy balance, such as use microbubbles to limit absorption of solar radiation in Hudson Bay and thereby lead to a greater presence of sea ice (with goal of limiting the effects of an open Hudson Bay on North American weather and on polar bear habitat, for example) would be closer to the definition of SRM intending to limit impacts‹though still not as direct as might be pursued in other ways of dealing with impacts (like resettling polar bear populations, etc.). Mike On 2/20/13 2:01 AM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu wrote: Russell, I am prone to side with Humpty Dumpty when it comes to words that do not yet have a narrow agreed-upon definition. When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to mean‹neither more nor less. -- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass, 1872. We are defining solar geoengineering in the context of our study. Other definitions may be appropriate in other contexts. Best, Ken On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Russell Seitz russellse...@gmail.com wrote: Ken's ERL abstract commences : Solar geoengineering is the deliberate reduction in the absorption of incoming solar radiation by the Earth's climate system with the aim of reducing impacts of anthropogenic climate change. It is worth noting the unsuble distinction between this global paradigm and aiming to reduce the uptake of solar energy to limit warming locally for purposes quite unrelated to the aim of reducing impacts of anthropogenic climate change. such as water conservation or mitigating urban heat island effects. -- 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 post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[geo] Re: Strategic incentives for climate geoengineering coalitions to exclude broad participation (new paper)
Hello All, It seems to me that it is vital to develop much better understandings between those people in geoengineering whose principal focus is on engineering/scientific aspects, and those largely concerned with legal/ethical issues. A crucial problem is that most important words are only approximations. [That can be their beauty, also]. So, I think, we need to learn how to communicate much more fully and precisely, which is perhaps best achieved by more fraternization, which must even so leave ample time for the pursuance of our primary goals. Until recently I lived, when in England, about 50 yards from where Lewis Carroll was born. A large placard welcomes people to the Lewis Carroll birthplace and museum. But there is nothing there except an empty field, across which the Mad Hatter occasionally galumphs, at twilight. We need to learn each other’s languages. All Best, John. John Latham Address: P.O. Box 3000,MMM,NCAR,Boulder,CO 80307-3000 Email: lat...@ucar.edu or john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk Tel: (US-Work) 303-497-8182 or (US-Home) 303-444-2429 or (US-Cell) 303-882-0724 or (UK) 01928-730-002 http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/people/latham From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Russell Seitz [russellse...@gmail.com] Sent: 20 February 2013 07:44 To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Cc: russellse...@gmail.com; Kate Ricke; Juan Moreno-Cruz; kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Strategic incentives for climate geoengineering coalitions to exclude broad participation (new paper) Ken should recall that Humpty Dumpt 's assertion did not go unchallenged : The question is, said Alice, whether you can make words mean so many different things. The question is, said Humpty Dumpty, which is to be master— that's all. On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 2:01:39 AM UTC-5, Ken Caldeira wrote: Russell, I am prone to side with Humpty Dumpty when it comes to words that do not yet have a narrow agreed-upon definition. When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less. -- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass, 1872. We are defining solar geoengineering in the context of our study. Other definitions may be appropriate in other contexts. Best, Ken On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Russell Seitz russel...@gmail.com wrote: Ken's ERL abstract commences : Solar geoengineering is the deliberate reduction in the absorption of incoming solar radiation by the Earth's climate system with the aim of reducing impacts of anthropogenic climate change. It is worth noting the unsuble distinction between this global paradigm and aiming to reduce the uptake of solar energy to limit warming locally for purposes quite unrelated to the aim of reducing impacts of anthropogenic climate change. such as water conservation or mitigating urban heat island effects. -- 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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[geo] Weathering CO2
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rog.20004/abstract 1. Enhanced Chemical Weathering as a Geoengineering Strategy to Reduce Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, a Nutrient Source and to Mitigate Ocean Acidification†http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rog.20004/abstract#rog20004-note-0001 2. Jens Hartmann1,*, 3. Josh West2, 4. Phil Renforth3, 5. Peter Köhler4, 6. Christina L. De La Rocha5, 7. Dieter A. Wolf-Gladrow4, 8. Hans Dürr6, 9. Jürgen Scheffran7 DOI: 10.1002/rog.20004 [1] Chemical weathering is an integral part of both the rock and carbon cycles and is being affected by changes in land use, particularly as a result of agricultural practices such as tilling, mineral fertilization, or liming to adjust soil pH. These human activities have already altered the chemical terrestrial cycles and land-ocean flux of major elements, although the extent remains difficult to quantify. When deployed on a grand scale, Enhanced Weathering (a form of mineral fertilization), the application of finely ground minerals over the land surface, could be used to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. The release of cations during the dissolution of such silicate minerals would convert dissolved CO2 to bicarbonate, increasing the alkalinity and pH of natural waters. Some products of mineral dissolution would precipitate in soils or taken up by ecosystems, but a significant portion would be transported to the coastal zone and the open ocean, where the increase in alkalinity would partially counteract “ocean acidification” associated with the current marked increase in atmospheric CO2. Other elements released during this mineral dissolution, like Si, P or K, could stimulate biological productivity, further helping to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. On land, the terrestrial carbon-pool would likely increase in response to Enhanced Weathering in areas where ecosystem growth rates are currently limited by one of the nutrients that would be released during mineral dissolution.In the ocean, the biological carbon pumps (which export organic matter and CaCO3 to the deep ocean) may be altered by the resulting influx of nutrients and alkalinity to the ocean. [2] This review merges current interdisciplinary knowledge about Enhanced Weathering, the processes involved, and the applicability as well as some of the consequences and risks of applying the method. -- 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 post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: [geo] pre-print of forth-coming paper: Svoboda, T and Irvine, PJ, Ethical and Technical Challenges in Compensating for Harm Due to Solar RadiationManagement Geoengineering
Agree that we all need to work together. Two quick comments: 1. Just want to reiterate to the non-physical-scientists that while it is quite plausible that some would be harmed by SRM (a trivial example being those who want to ship through the Arctic) it is premature to assume any specific harms from SRM, as it depends on the method, the amount, and how it is implemented (e.g. our Nature Climate Change paper indicating that some harms could be reduced by tailoring the distribution, along the lines of John Stephen's observations that precip changes depend on where you do MCB.) And even if you specify everything, I would at least wait for GeoMIP analysis to understand a bit of model robustness. I only skimmed through, but I think Peter and Toby were reasonably careful to say could most of the time rather than would 2. This is a serious question, not a joke: is there an ethical framework to ask about compensation to those who would be harmed by blocking the use of SRM? I.e., in some hypothetical future scenario in which there was great confidence that many people could benefit from SRM, should those who don't want SRM compensate those who would likely be harmed by that decision? If not, why not? doug From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Philip M. Macnaghten Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 8:44 AM To: s.sal...@ed.ac.uk Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [geo] pre-print of forth-coming paper: Svoboda, T and Irvine, PJ, Ethical and Technical Challenges in Compensating for Harm Due to Solar RadiationManagement Geoengineering Hi Stephen, All, The problem is that at least solar geoengineering offers such a symbolic and material leap into the unknown that it is best to try to understand the stakes (political, ethical, social, legal as well as technical) before contemplating such steps. This means, like it or not, you guys are going to have to work with us guys - and visa versa (including getting the figures correct). -- 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 post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
