[geo] Re: TERRA FUTURA 2013: INTERVIEW WITH VANDANA SHIVA ABOUT GEOENGINEERING | NoGeoingegneria
Having seen my name dropped here I thought I might make a small comment. My thoughts are that it would be strategically ill-advised for the geoengineering community to denigrate Dr. Shiva or challenge her to debate. I have read her writings extensively and agree with some of the comments about weak on the science. She is a scientist only at the margins, but she is a public policy advocate of the greatest talent and acuity. Because I admire her I have attempted to better inform her about soil and carbon cycles. Given time I feel she may warm up to recalcitrant carbon and afforestation strategies, although she will never admit to favoring geoengineering, for the reasons she gives in the interview. I agree with Ron that it is unfortunate that biochar, remineralization and reforestation/afforestation have been associated with geoengineering. These are natural processes that have been going on since the dawn of life, and although they are susceptible to human intervention (what isn't?), likely will continue long after we are gone (unless we screw the pooch even worse). Lines are being drawn and sides are being taken in this debate over natural versus engineered remedies and while we can lament the polarization and call it anti-science or pro-science, chances are none of that will change the direction or acceleration of the debate. I lean more towards nature-driven processes as inherently safer, having the benefit of billion-year trials, but cannot exclude the possibility they may not be fast enough to preserve our species, to say nothing of our civilization. We have the examples of post-Colombian encounter reforestation, and post-Mongolian incursion reforestation, lowering atmospheric PgC dramatically on multi-century time scales. Clearly those are sequestration techniques having relative cost and risk advantages over many others and I think even Naomi Klein and Vandana Shiva might buy in to those strategies eventually. The limitation is the multi-century part. Vandana Shiva seems to think that going back to organic farming practices can entirely solve the climate crisis. She has pounded a stake in the ground and tied herself to that. If she is to be countered, it will be on the issues of urgency and degrees of effectiveness, IMHO. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] TERRA FUTURA 2013: INTERVIEW WITH VANDANA SHIVA ABOUT GEOENGINEERING | NoGeoingegneria
Dear Tom: I agree 350ppm(V) is likely an impossible mark, but stopping at a concentration equivalent to a two degree limit this century is not. See, for example, the Global Environmental Assessment (GEA) published last year by IIASA. It defines some 41 pathways that would work to stay below 2 degrees. Further, these pathways are compatible with achieving three other goals:achieving global energy security, assuring universal access to clean cooking fuels and electricity for the poor, and avoiding pollution and other environmental damage from the use of energy. The Global Energy Assessment is available for free at GlobalEnvironmentalAssessment.org. It is in hard copy from Cambridge University Press. The best, Bill Fulkerson 1-865-680-0937 wf...@utk.edu Institute for a Secure and Sustainable Environment The University of Tennessee On 10/30/13 3:19 AM, Tom Wigley wig...@ucar.edu wrote: Dear all, Dropping CO2 concentrations to 350 ppm in 50 years is impossible unless we can find a cheap way to suck a whole lot of CO2 out of the atmosphere. Some simple calculations are attached. Tom. = On 10/29/2013 2:18 PM, Ronal W. Larson wrote: List and Brian: I just noted a mis-statement. See below. On Oct 29, 2013, at 1:28 PM, Ronal W. Larson rongretlar...@comcast.net mailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote: Brian (cc list) This to respond to your three inserts in my yesterday¹s response to you BC1: */But that's not very good. Warming-induced feedback loops like methane deposits are already very scary. I don't say CO2 levels are irreversible; my point is about warming from all causes, and you need methods of cooling that are much quicker than 50 years. /* *[RWL1: Brian¹s ³that² refers to my just previous statement (see below) that we could drop to 350 ppm in 50 years. Brian is NOT arguing for SRM here, although it may seem so. He is arguing for increased latent heat transfer - an approach that seems questionable at best - given the strong warming potential of increased atmospheric carbon.* RWL: The last word was supposed to be ³moisture² - NOT ³carbon². Apologies. I am too used to following ³atmospheric² with ³carbon². Ron snip remainder -- 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. 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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] TERRA FUTURA 2013: INTERVIEW WITH VANDANA SHIVA ABOUT GEOENGINEERING | NoGeoingegneria
Dear Tom: I agree that returning to 350 ppm(v) would be very difficult, but what is not out of reach is stopping anthropogenic warming at less than 2 degrees Kelvin. The 2012 Global Environmental Assessment managed by IIASA found 41 energy pathways for the world that met this goal. All 41 also met the goals of energy security, of universal access to clean cooking fuels and electricity for the poor, and of controlling environmental damage from energy use. GEA is available for free, all 1865 pages are on the web at GlobalEnergyAssessment.org It was published by Cambridge University Press. I think this enormous, data rich and comprehensive analysis could provide a roadmap for each nation and for the world. Only politics stand in the way. The best, Bill 1-865-680-0937 wf...@utk.edu On 10/30/13 3:19 AM, Tom Wigley wig...@ucar.edu wrote: Dear all, Dropping CO2 concentrations to 350 ppm in 50 years is impossible unless we can find a cheap way to suck a whole lot of CO2 out of the atmosphere. Some simple calculations are attached. Tom. = On 10/29/2013 2:18 PM, Ronal W. Larson wrote: List and Brian: I just noted a mis-statement. See below. On Oct 29, 2013, at 1:28 PM, Ronal W. Larson rongretlar...@comcast.net mailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote: Brian (cc list) This to respond to your three inserts in my yesterday¹s response to you BC1: */But that's not very good. Warming-induced feedback loops like methane deposits are already very scary. I don't say CO2 levels are irreversible; my point is about warming from all causes, and you need methods of cooling that are much quicker than 50 years. /* *[RWL1: Brian¹s ³that² refers to my just previous statement (see below) that we could drop to 350 ppm in 50 years. Brian is NOT arguing for SRM here, although it may seem so. He is arguing for increased latent heat transfer - an approach that seems questionable at best - given the strong warming potential of increased atmospheric carbon.* RWL: The last word was supposed to be ³moisture² - NOT ³carbon². Apologies. I am too used to following ³atmospheric² with ³carbon². Ron snip remainder -- 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. 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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[geo] Rethinking climate engineering categorization in the context of climate change mitigation and adaptation
Dear members of the geoengineering newsgroup, you may find our latest article published in WIREs climate change of interest to you. It can be found at http://wires.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WiresArticle/wisId-WCC261.html Title: Rethinking climate engineering categorization in the context of climate change mitigation and adaptation Here is the abstract: The portfolio of approaches to respond to the challenges posed by anthropogenic climate change has broadened beyond mitigation and adaptation with the recent discussion of potential *climate engineering* options. How to define and categorize climate engineering options has been a recurring issue in both public and specialist discussions. We assert here that current definitions of mitigation, adaptation, and climate engineering are ambiguous, overlap with each other and thus contribute to confusing the discourse on how to tackle anthropogenic climate change. We propose a new and more inclusive categorization into five different classes: anthropogenic emissions reductions (AER), territorial or domestic removal of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases (D‐GGR), trans‐territorial removal of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases (T‐GGR), regional to planetary targeted climate modification (TCM), and climate change adaptation measures (including local targeted climate and environmental modification, abbreviated CCAM). Thus, we suggest that techniques for domestic greenhouse gas removal might better be thought of as forming a separate category alongside more traditional mitigation techniques that consist of emissions reductions. Local targeted climate modification can be seen as an adaptation measure as long as there are no detectable remote environmental effects. In both cases, the scale and intensity of action are essential attributes from the technological, climatic, and political viewpoints. While some of the boundaries in this revised classification depend on policy and judgement, it offers a foundation for debating on how to define and categorize climate engineering options and differentiate them from both mitigation and adaptation measures to climate change. regards, Olivier Boucher -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] TERRA FUTURA 2013: INTERVIEW WITH VANDANA SHIVA ABOUT GEOENGINEERING | NoGeoingegneria
Tom and list: 1. I have no disagreement with any of your computations. The question of “irreversibility” in the absence of CDR is well established.This note is to add CDR to your analysis, and address your helpful unless”. In addition to your program, I have tried the following 50 year 100 ppm total in a simple program at David Archer’s website. A paper by Boucher etal given in AR5, chapter 12 talks of a very similar scenario. (Apologies for lack of citations - I am in a rush today). 2. I hope we all agree that there is a Technical (not necessarily Economic ) potential for CDR to achieve the (roughly) 400 Gt C removal (half coming out of the ocean). Over 50 years this requires an average of 8 Gt C/yr - very close to an annual 1% per year. We all know 8 Gt C/yr is huge, but few would say that 1% change per year is huge. 3. Of course we have to also drop fossil resources and land use changes by an even larger annual percentage, but renewables have been growing by a much larger percentage annually. There is also a huge untapped potential for energy efficiency (that can pay for the needed CDR). We also should consider (but I haven’t) the externality costs of the fossil resources. I feel we will save money by going to CDR. This is NOT a financially burdensome scenario I propose. 4. In my view of the needed 8Gt C/yr, I assign 2 to afforestation. so (over 50 years) we add 100 Gt C to the roughly 500 Gt C of standing biomass. I believe this number is assumed by Jim Hansen. I don’t believe he attributes any thing new to the roughly 1500 Gt C of soil carbon (roots, microbes, fungi, etc). I would add 100 Gt C there as well - now having gotten half way to the needed 400 Gt C transfer of atmospheric and ocean carbon to the biosphere. 5. The 4 Gt C/yr remainder must come from 8 to 10 other CDR approaches. My knowledge base is only in the biochar area, which I believe (hope I am wrong - that there is a better) is the cheapest, so I will give only the biochar argument. I make a similar (not the same) assumption as for afforestation - that a tonne of C in char placed in soil will provide an additional tonne C of out-yr sequestration benefits. Unlike the above argument for afforestation, which only assumed new soil carbon, here I am assuming that but also a new additional out-year above ground biomass C. So this is perhaps 1 Gt C added above and below ground with an assumption of 2 Gt C/yr of directly-applied biochar (by chance the same number as for afforestation). 6. The standard reference for biochar’s maximum future contribution is an article by Wolff, Amonette, etal - with (at about 1 Gt C/yr) half of my needed 2 Gt C/yr total. They assumed there was no increase in out-year carbon capture. They also stated that they had made only conservative assumptions; they mostly used ag “wastes”. The contributions of woody biomass and “plantations” were minimal. They assumed no perennial woody species productivity improvement seen for the last century in ag species. Later calculations by others of land use attributed land use for both ag and char purposes to the char column alone. The most promising source of biomass and land I have seen since their paper is agave and similar plants that capture CO2 mainly at night (and much higher water use efficiency) in the “CAM” (not C3 or C4) form of photosynthesis. 7. I recognize this is not proof of anything, but doubling a conservative analysis leading to 1 Gt C/yr does not seem extreme. Authors such as Tim Lenton and Johannes Lehmann have given annual sequestration biochar numbers many times larger than my assumed placement of 2 Gt C/yr. 8. So now to address Tom W’s question of “cheap”.This is not the place for a full dialog on that, but I think biochar purchase (or local production) can be made for about $100/t char ($120/t C or $35/t CO2). If twice that, I believe it would still be cheap enough. The reason for this optimism is that biochar provides energy and soil improvement benefits that allow the char production costs to be spread 3 ways - not only for sequestration. One can buy char (produced badly and probably illegally) for as little as $100/t today in some places. 9. Is there enough land? I say plenty given the land (2 Gha?) we have ruined over the last several hundred years and arid land (3 Gha?) which the “CAM” photosynthesis approach can hopefully turn productive. To get 2 Gt C/yr from just 1 Gha of land requires only 2 t C/ha-yr (same as 200 gms C/sqm-yr). Roughly half the carbon in biomass can be turned to char (much of the remainder being available as carbon neutral energy to back up solar and wind). So we need an NPP of only 0.4 kg C/sqm-yr (or 4 t C/ha-yr) - just about what we are now doing in a global average sense (using 60 Gt C/yr/13 Gha). In many places we do ten times better today. 10. I am not
[geo] Day of Restitution of the Workshop Reflection Prospective REACT to Paris December 17, 2013 from 9:30 to 17:00 L'Atelier forward thinking on geo-environmental engineering
Poster's note : This is a Google translate of the text at the bottom, which for some inexplicable reason was sent in an obsolete European dialect. L'Atelier forward thinking on geo-environmental engineering REACT launched its work at the end of 2012. After a year of work that saw the contribution of many experts, the day of December 17 will enable a broad exchange of research results around. A final report incorporating all contributions, including the day of 17 December, will be published in February 2014. We invite you to participate in this day of restitution including the provisional program is as follows: Opening morning of the day the vision of actors on geoengineering The definition of geo-engineering techniques geoengineering Afternoon Global Geo-engineering / local Geoengineering Nature and Technical Risks Political Aspects final Roundtable build expertise in geo-engineering The full program of the day will be available on the website http://arp-reagir.fr in mid-November. For more information, please contact one of the two coordinators: Olivier.boucher @ @ lmd.jussieu.fr or benoit.deguillebon apesa.fr -- Forwarded message -- From: Bénédicte Fisset bfis...@ipsl.jussieu.fr Date: Oct 30, 2013 4:27 PM Subject: ARP REAGIR sur la géo-ingénierie de l'environnement: Journée de restitution le 17 décembre To: bfis...@ipsl.jussieu.fr Cc: *Journée de restitution des travaux de l'Atelier de Réflexion Prospective REAGIR* *à Paris* *le 17 décembre 2013 de 9h30 à 17h00* L’Atelier de réflexion prospective sur la géo-ingénierie de l’environnement REAGIR a lancé ses travaux à la fin de l'année 2012. Après un an de travail qui a vu la contribution de nombreux spécialistes, la journée du 17 décembre va permettre un échange large autour des résultats des travaux. Un rapport final intégrant l’ensemble des contributions, y compris celles de la journée du 17 décembre, sera ensuite publié en février 2014. Nous vous invitons à participer à cette journée de restitution dont le programme prévisionnel est le suivant : *Matinée * Ouverture de la journée La vision des acteurs sur la géo-ingénierie La définition de la géo-ingénierie Les techniques de la géo-ingénierie *Après-midi* Géo-ingénierie globale / Géo-ingénierie locale Nature et technique Aspects politiques Risques Table ronde finale « construire une expertise sur la géo-ingénierie » Le programme complet de la journée sera disponible sur le site http://arp-reagir.fr à la mi-novembre. Pour en savoir plus, n’hésitez pas à contacter l’un des deux coordinateurs: olivier.bouc...@lmd.jussieu.fr ou benoit.deguille...@apesa.fr -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[geo] Re: TERRA FUTURA 2013: INTERVIEW WITH VANDANA SHIVA ABOUT GEOENGINEERING | NoGeoingegneria
Albert et. al., The degree of negative generalization which Dr. Shiva applies to GE and its supporters is troubling. Attacking the supporters, as opposed to the science, is simply unprofessional and highly counter productive. Such rantings would not be tolerated coming from a freshman in school. She devalues her training and maturity through such acts. It would be interesting to get her views on the use of large scale offshore mariculture operations as both a means for climate change mitigation and meeting the accelerating need for commodities like food, biofuel, organic fertilizer and fresh water. A deep water version of the NASA OMEGAhttp://blog.marinexplore.com/nasa-omega-project-the-ocean-as-a-platform-for-biofuel/ Project, which uses nutricline water as the nutrient input, has significant potential to address many concerns in this field, as well as, the global need for jobs, taxes and living space. Yet, to be offhandedly condemned as an evil empire sociopathic plot to rule the world, by the highly vocal yet scientifically challenged, would be simply childish and distracting. We need long term solution, not school yard ad hominem attacks. She needs to focus on the prior. Best, Michael On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 7:38:10 AM UTC-7, Albert Bates wrote: Having seen my name dropped here I thought I might make a small comment. My thoughts are that it would be strategically ill-advised for the geoengineering community to denigrate Dr. Shiva or challenge her to debate. I have read her writings extensively and agree with some of the comments about weak on the science. She is a scientist only at the margins, but she is a public policy advocate of the greatest talent and acuity. Because I admire her I have attempted to better inform her about soil and carbon cycles. Given time I feel she may warm up to recalcitrant carbon and afforestation strategies, although she will never admit to favoring geoengineering, for the reasons she gives in the interview. I agree with Ron that it is unfortunate that biochar, remineralization and reforestation/afforestation have been associated with geoengineering. These are natural processes that have been going on since the dawn of life, and although they are susceptible to human intervention (what isn't?), likely will continue long after we are gone (unless we screw the pooch even worse). Lines are being drawn and sides are being taken in this debate over natural versus engineered remedies and while we can lament the polarization and call it anti-science or pro-science, chances are none of that will change the direction or acceleration of the debate. I lean more towards nature-driven processes as inherently safer, having the benefit of billion-year trials, but cannot exclude the possibility they may not be fast enough to preserve our species, to say nothing of our civilization. We have the examples of post-Colombian encounter reforestation, and post-Mongolian incursion reforestation, lowering atmospheric PgC dramatically on multi-century time scales. Clearly those are sequestration techniques having relative cost and risk advantages over many others and I think even Naomi Klein and Vandana Shiva might buy in to those strategies eventually. The limitation is the multi-century part. Vandana Shiva seems to think that going back to organic farming practices can entirely solve the climate crisis. She has pounded a stake in the ground and tied herself to that. If she is to be countered, it will be on the issues of urgency and degrees of effectiveness, IMHO. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] TERRA FUTURA 2013: INTERVIEW WITH VANDANA SHIVA ABOUT GEOENGINEERING | NoGeoingegneria
Greg, Thanks for this addition. My carbon cycle model has a convolution model for the ocean. This does have a long tail, but it is not as large as in the papers you cite. So, if these studies are correct, and I do believe they are, then my results are indeed optimistic. The main point is that we cannot get back to 350 ppm by mitigation alone. There are still many who think we can, and my simple sums were presented as a reality check for those people. As your papers and the others you cite, and papers cited in these, show, this is not new news. Tom. + On 10/30/2013 4:02 PM, Greg Rau wrote: Tom, Your CO2 trajectory would seem overly optimistic unless I'm misreading Archer's treatment: http://www.annualreviews.org/eprint/TXVr5xrStR8vCEuTmECx/full/10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100206 Indeed, we can't get to 350 ppm any time soon with anthro emissions reduction alone. That's why it's worth considering more proactive measures, e.g., attached and argued here: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6140/1522.2.full not to mention broached in AR5 and elsewhere. A daunting task to be sure, but trying would seem better than the alternative. One piece of encouragement - atmospheric CO2 does intra-annually decline at most latitudes by as much as 16 ppm via natural air capture, and this uptake is increasing*. So we are not starting with zero CDR - how tough would it be to safely enhance/accelerate this uptake? Nor as I argue, do we need to necessarily enhance air capture. We can achieve the same effect by reducing the leakiness of Nature's carbon storage, the largest emitter on the planet by far. * http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6150/1085.full?sid=4adfc7d3-e42f-46e4-9f5b-3507b927672e Greg *From:* Tom Wigley wig...@ucar.edu *To:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com *Sent:* Wednesday, October 30, 2013 12:19 AM *Subject:* Re: [geo] TERRA FUTURA 2013: INTERVIEW WITH VANDANA SHIVA ABOUT GEOENGINEERING | NoGeoingegneria Dear all, Dropping CO2 concentrations to 350 ppm in 50 years is impossible unless we can find a cheap way to suck a whole lot of CO2 out of the atmosphere. Some simple calculations are attached. Tom. = On 10/29/2013 2:18 PM, Ronal W. Larson wrote: List and Brian: I just noted a mis-statement. See below. On Oct 29, 2013, at 1:28 PM, Ronal W. Larson rongretlar...@comcast.net mailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net mailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net mailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote: Brian (cc list) This to respond to your three inserts in my yesterday’s response to you BC1: */But that's not very good. Warming-induced feedback loops like methane deposits are already very scary. I don't say CO2 levels are irreversible; my point is about warming from all causes, and you need methods of cooling that are much quicker than 50 years. /* *[RWL1: Brian’s “that” refers to my just previous statement (see below) that we could drop to 350 ppm in 50 years. Brian is NOT arguing for SRM here, although it may seem so. He is arguing for increased latent heat transfer - an approach that seems questionable at best - given the strong warming potential of increased atmospheric carbon.* RWL: The last word was supposed to be “moisture” - NOT “carbon”. Apologies. I am too used to following “atmospheric” with “carbon”. Ron snip remainder -- 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 mailto:unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. 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 mailto:unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. 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
