[geo] CSER Research Associate in Environmental Risk

[Gideon Futerman]

The Centre for the Study of Existential Risk at the University of Cambridge 
is hiring for two positions focused on Environmental Risk and its 
interaction with Global Catastrophic and Existential Risk: A Research 
Associate and Senior Research Associate position. 
The Centre has historically had interest in SRM 
(eg https://www.cser.ac.uk/events/managing-contribution-gcr-climate-srm/) 
and I believe that these environmental risk positions could include/be 
focused on SRM if you wished (although I may be wrong; I'm nopt affiliated 
with CSER)
https://www.cser.ac.uk/about-us/careers/research-associate-environmental-risk-fixed-term/
https://www.cser.ac.uk/about-us/careers/senior-research-associate-environmental-risk-fixed/

-- 
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/c968de98-e6ae-4afd-83a3-a0c895d4186bn%40googlegroups.com.

[geo] Existential Risk Alliance Summer Research Fellowship

[Gideon Futerman]

Hi All,
The Existential Risk Alliance has opened its application for its summer 
research fellowship, mostly aimed at students and junior researchers. The 
Climate Change Summer Research Fellows will research areas of climate 
change relevant to existential risk, and in the past fellows have 
researched SRM in particular, hence why I share it here. 
The SRF is a paid fellowship, and accomodation in Cambridge and travel 
expenses are also included. You can see more on the job application page:
 
https://careers.rethinkpriorities.org/postings/c1e8aa4f-3b7c-4577-a8e1-8e8cf420fde4?token=Tu1HuFea68cx9Z8USGeEAR38
 

Please feel free to apply, or to share with your networks/students if this 
is something you think they would be interested in applying to
Best Wishes
Gideon

-- 
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/cd362462-d145-4fed-8c20-7aec08095df5n%40googlegroups.com.

[geo] Stratospheric Aerosols in FAIR model

[Gideon Futerman]

Hi All,
Has anyone tried incorporating stratospheric aerosols into FAIR models 
(beyond just adding a pre-decided forcing from SRM into the forcing box?) ?
Kind Regards
Gideon

-- 
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/86132242-e314-49e4-af02-f520c0c9fedcn%40googlegroups.com.

[geo] Introduction to the social situation of SRM research

[Gideon Futerman]

The second blog in my "Road to a Remade Sky" series, and the first one on 
the social organisation of SRM research, was released on Friday. I hope you 
enjoy, and feel free to give me any comments (particularly critical ones!). 
One of the advantages of a blog is feedback whilst developing my ideas, so 
feel free to put feedback here, on the blog, or email me directly
https://gideonfuterman.substack.com/p/an-introduction-to-the-social-situation

-- 
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/bccae13c-fc29-4ee3-a971-9a4bdda9a277n%40googlegroups.com.

[geo] RESILIENCER Workshop on SRM and Global Catastrophic Risk Report

[Gideon Futerman]

Dear All,
In September 2022, I convened the at the Centre for Complex System Studies 
in Utrecht the first workshop on SRM and Global Catastrophic Risk. We had 
scholars from 13 different institutions across Europe in attendance to 
discuss this issue, and the workshop report 
,
 
with relatively in depth records of many of the issues discussed, has just 
been released. I recommend you take a look.
Discussion 1 was titled "What are we doing?" and discussed definitions of 
SRM research, the implication of this for governance, and involved the 
presentation, and subsequent discussion (well, I'll be honest, mostly 
criticism!) of a framework I had developed to map the relationship between 
research and downstream actions.
Discussion 2 was titled "What would convince me that I am wrong?" and 
involved the presentation of a variety of ideas from the attendees (who 
covered the whole spectrum of beliefs around SRM) about their attitudes 
towards SRM research, deployment and its relationship to Global 
Catastrophic Risk. This was followed by a discussion of what would convince 
them they were wrong,  the attendees coming up with  counterarguments 
against their own ideas, and the identification of cruxes of disagreement.
Discussion 3 involved the generation of numerous, most qualitative,  
scenario ideas for SRM and its relationship to SRM. We hope these ideas 
will be fruitful for other researchers to build upon
Discussion 4 involved discussion around next steps and conclusions of the 
workshop, involving interesting normative discussions around the role of 
researchers, and methods of interest between scholars with very different 
normative or practical concerns.
Overall, I felt it was a very useful workshop, and would like to thank 
everyone involved, particularly Goodwin Gibbins, SJ Beard and Claudia 
Wieners for helping with the organisation.
The workshop report link can be found 
here 
https://www.resiliencer.org/_files/ugd/a07867_5605a6e494a74d9fad9fabdf4c384cae.pdf

-- 
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/c3723e26-f1f9-4566-b9b8-1424a10e5623n%40googlegroups.com.

[geo] Road to a Remade Sky Substack

[Gideon Futerman]

Dear All,
I have started a substack (Road to a Remade Sky) laying out my personal 
process of constructing a "road map" for how SRM research relates to 
downstream actions. The blog is a pretty important, albeit quite strange, 
academic project for me, and I hope to show the reader my thought 
processes, ideas around SRM and how the ecosystem functions, and construct 
a model of how near term actions may effect downstream consequences.
My first blog of the substack is an introduction to me, my intellectual 
influences, as well as an in depth exploration of my views on SRM. I hope 
you enjoy!
https://gideonfuterman.substack.com/p/introduction-to-road-to-a-remade
Kind Regards
Gideon

-- 
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/ee7525cb-1f7b-4d9a-a8a9-3df32061e845n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [geo] Updated Compilation of comments on US climate interventions study

[Gideon Futerman]

https://www.cser.ac.uk/resources/submission-evidence-white-house-office-science-and-technologys-request-input-five-year-plan-research-climate-intervention/
The copy of the comment from me and SJ Beard

On Tue, 13 Sept 2022, 18:09 Suzanne Reed,  wrote:

> The Compilation of Comments from HPAC and affiliated organizations and
> individuals has new additions.
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1v2eoFQUtXc7J3vX37jJ2dBAJUiBPRNMu/edit
>
>  If you or your organization submitted comments not represented in the
> compilation, please email them to me (either copied into an email or as a
> word doc) and I will include them. (csuzanneree...@gmail.com)
>
> Best wishes,
>
> --
> *Suzanne*
>
> *Suzanne Reed*
> *Healthy Planet Action Coalition*
> *healthyplanetaction.org *
>
> --
> 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/CAE0%3DaUBsa8vpZSWykH-yxYg9jbDbpPz84ia3gxs%2B03cmuy_GAg%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
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/CAK73TMJ-C6%2BA3OTqnZJufK0dEnjnZzkuZ9LJS5280aieGV8e9Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [geo] Key impacts of climate engineering on biodiversity and ecosystems, with priorities for future research

[Gideon Futerman]

Your article was published 5 years after the article Andrew posted which is
probably why! 

On Sat, 29 Oct 2022, 12:13 Alan Robock ☮,  wrote:

> I'm amazed that they did not even reference our recent article on the same
> topic:
>
> Zarnetske, Phoebe L., Jessica Gurevitch, Janet Franklin, Peter Groffman,
> Cheryl Harrison, Jessica Hellmann, Forrest M. Hoffman, Shan Kothari, Alan
> Robock, Simone Tilmes, Daniele Visioni, Jin Wu, Lili Xia, and Cheng-En
> Yang, 2021: Potential ecological impacts of climate intervention by
> reflecting sunlight to cool the Earth. *Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.*, *118* (15),
> e1921854118, doi:10.1073/pnas.1921854118.
> https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/118/15/e1921854118.full.pdf
>
> The abstract says, "A literature review was carried out to identify
> details of the potential ecological effects of climate engineering
> techniques." but it was clearly incomplete.
>
> Alan Robock
>
> Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
> Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751
> Rutgers UniversityE-mail:
> rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
> 14 College Farm Roadhttp://people.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock
> New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 ☮ https://twitter.com/AlanRobock
>
> [image: Signature]
>
>
> On 10/29/2022 3:55 AM, Andrew Lockley wrote:
>
>
> Abstract
> Climate change has significant implications for biodiversity and
> ecosystems. With slow
> progress towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions, climate engineering
> (or
> ‘geoengineering’) is receiving increasing attention for its potential to
> limit anthropogenic
> climate change and its damaging effects. Proposed techniques, such as
> ocean fertilization for
> carbon dioxide removal or stratospheric sulfate injections to reduce
> incoming solar radiation,
> would significantly alter atmospheric, terrestrial and marine
> environments, yet potential sideeffects of their implementation for
> ecosystems and biodiversity have received little attention.
> A literature review was carried out to identify details of the potential
> ecological effects of
> climate engineering techniques. A group of biodiversity and environmental
> change
> researchers then employed a modified Delphi expert consultation technique
> to evaluate this
> evidence and prioritize the effects based on the relative importance of,
> and scientific
> understanding about, their biodiversity and ecosystem consequences. The
> key issues and
> knowledge gaps are used to shape a discussion of the biodiversity and
> ecosystem implications
> of climate engineering, including novel climatic conditions, alterations
> to marine systems and
> substantial terrestrial habitat change. This review highlights several
> current research priorities
> in which the climate engineering context is crucial to consider, as well
> as identifying some
> novel topics for ecological investigation.
>
>
> Keywords
> biodiversity, carbon dioxide removal, climate engineering, ecosystems,
> geoengineering, solar
> radiation managemen
>
> https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1943815X.2016.1159578
> --
> 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-07gFqi3ATMb%2BZ00NjcS2EoBuvxnKGd%2BvJiaNCxAAStCng%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>
>
> --
> 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/f905ae9f-37b2-4bf8-29cc-c45e3ea51d36%40envsci.rutgers.edu
> 
> .
>

-- 
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/CAK73TMJO_bvY6_8xSK0yYyCUND1w_0h284RrN186ge3_S97TzQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Stratospheric warming, SRM and aerosol injection events

[Gideon Futerman]

Hi all,
Do people know of the impact of stratospheric warming that SRM causes on 
the injection of other aerosols into the stratosphere, say from wildfire 
events or volcanic eruptions? Like, how does a warm stratosphere effect how 
these aerosols rise into the stratosphere and the dynamics of them within 
the stratosphere
Best Wishes
Gideon

-- 
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/6ce09b65-0946-4cc7-a41e-0d7a246439e7n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [geo] Nuclear Winter and SRM (including termination shock)

[Gideon Futerman]

It would be good to know if something about my calculations here are 
fundamentally wrong. I am no aerosol expert by any margins, and as seen, my 
model is pretty much the most simple possible thing that I could make on 
this, but it does seem to give an indication against the "double 
catastrophe" thesis. Please let me know if I am wrong on this

On Monday, 15 August 2022 at 16:15:09 UTC+1 Gideon Futerman wrote:

> I've just tried running some really simple equations to look at forcing, 
> so I thought I would share my back of the envelope calculations and see 
> what you all think.
> So I tried to calculate what would happen to forcing in a 5Tg of soot 
> released (likely due to a regional nuclear war) combined with a termination 
> shock, possibly due to cascading impacts of the nuclear war on the global 
> economy, for example. I used a value of -15Wm^-2 for the maximum forcing 
> from the soot, and a e-folding time of 4.6 years [Robock  et al 2007]. I 
> then used a solar geoengineering forcing of -4Wm^-2 (the maximum forcing 
> from Pinatubo) and an e-folding time of 1 year.
> I treated the forcing relative to the nongeoengineered world prior to the 
> nuclear winter, so treated that as 0Wm^-2 and the forcing of the 
> geoengineered world before the nuclear winter at 4Wm^-2. The soot was 
> injected at the end of year 1. Immediately after soot injection at the end 
> of year 1, the forcing(geo) is -19Wm^-2 and the forcing(nongeo) is 
> -15Wm^-2. At the end of year 2, so 1 year after the soot injection, the 
> forcing (geo) is 14Wm^-2 and the forcing(nongeo) is 12Wm^-2, so the delta 
> for the forcing(geo) relative to their initial values is 16.7% less than 
> the delta forcing (nongeo).
> The two equations I used  for year 1 were as follows:
> y=0 (nongeo)
> y=-4 (geo)
> The two equations I used for the end of year 1 onwards were
> y=-15e ^(-1/4.6 * (t-1)) [nongeo]
> y=-15e^(-1/4.6 * (t-1)) -3e^(-(t-1)) [geo]
>
> The graph I got is here (https://www.desmos.com/calculator/duz3tlpkky)
> It seems to me for a relatively small scale nuclear winter and  a 
> moderately large SRM forcing that the forcing impacts of termination shock 
> are not negligable. This obviously doesn't necessarily translate to climate 
> respone
>
> I did a few others for other SRM and nuclear war scenarios, which I can 
> send through if people were interested.
> Obviously these calculations are massively simplified, back of the 
> envelope calculations, but I would nonetheless be interested in peoples 
> thoughts on it. Apologies if I have messed up somewhere
> Kind Regards
> Gideon
>
> On Sunday, 7 August 2022 at 01:36:17 UTC+1 Russell Seitz wrote:
>
>> I'm  surprised Alan should neglect to cite studies other than his own, as 
>>  climate responses to carbon aerosols in the atmosphere vary greatly. The 
>> recent literature is illustrative- a growing  concern is the impact of 
>> black carbon from satellite and spacecraft launches, which may warm the 
>> upper atmosphere rather than cool it:
>>
>> Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 
>> <https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/21698996>  1June2022
>>
>> The Climate and Ozone Impacts of Black Carbon Emissions From Global 
>> Rocket Launches
>> Christopher M Maloney 
>> <https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/doSearch?ContribAuthorRaw=Maloney%2C+Christopher+M>
>> , Robert W Portmann 
>> <https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/doSearch?ContribAuthorRaw=Portmann%2C+Robert+W>
>> , Martin N Ross 
>> <https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/doSearch?ContribAuthorRaw=Ross%2C+Martin+N>
>> , Karen H Rosenlof 
>> <https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/doSearch?ContribAuthorRaw=Rosenlof%2C+Karen+H>
>>  
>> https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JD036373
>>
>> Aerosol emissions from spaceflight activities play a small but increasing 
>> role in the background stratospheric aerosol population. Rockets used by 
>> the global launch industry emit black carbon (BC) particles directly into 
>> the stratosphere where they accumulate, absorb solar radiation, and warm 
>> the surrounding air. We model the chemical and dynamical response of the 
>> atmosphere to northern mid-latitude rocket BC emissions. We initially 
>> examine emissions at a rate of 10 Gg per year, which is an order of 
>> magnitude larger than current emissions, but consistent with extrapolations 
>> of space traffic growth several decades into the future. We also perform 
>> runs at 30 and 100 Gg per year in order to better delineate the 
>> atmosphere's response to rocket BC emissions. We show that a 10 Gg/yr 
>> rocket BC

Re: [geo] resiliencer workshop

[Gideon Futerman]

Hi Jonathan
The workshop is discussion based, carried out under Chatham House rules and
focused on production of knowledge by attendees, and thus unfortunatly
there will not be a zoom. We may be running an online workshop at some
point, as well as likely streaming some talks on SRM and GCRs at a later
date, so I am happy to keep you updated about this
Kind Regards
Gideon
www.resiliencer.org

On Thu, 1 Sept 2022 at 01:12, Jonathan Marshall <
jonathan.marsh...@uts.edu.au> wrote:

>
> i gather there is no zoom for anyone from a distance to watch?
>
> jon
>
> 
> From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
> on behalf of Andrew Lockley 
> Sent: Thursday, 1 September 2022 9:04 AM
> To: geoengineering
> Subject: [geo] resiliencer workshop
>
>
> https://www.resiliencer.org/workshop
> Workshop
> Utrecht 12/09/22
> The RESILIENCER (Ramifications of Experimentation into SRM In Light of its
> Impacts on Existential, Negative-state and Civilisational Endangering
> Risks) workshop will provide a forum for a wide range of SRM scholars to
> explore the impacts of SRM research and deployment on global catastrophic
> risks.
>
>
>
> The workshop will attempt to explore a whole host of questions about how
> SRM research and/or deployment could act to increase and decrease certain
> extreme risks, particularly focused on heavy tailed risks which are
> commonly neglected in the discussion. The aim will to be to provide an
> environment for scholars who are both in favour and sceptical of research
> and/or deployment to engage in knowledge generation, generating key
> questions for enquiry and and attempting to challenge points of preexisting
> wisdom. We hope to create an environment where researchers are encouraged
> to provide unique perspectives, including the strongest steelmanning of
> viewpoints opposed to theirs that they can. There will also be the
> generation and evaluation of scenarios.
>
>
>
> The questions of the relation of SRM to GCRs has been heavily neglected in
> the literature thus far, and so this workshop hopes to engage researchers
> from across the field to get as wide a range of views as possible. Having
> such a wide range is particularly important, as it helps to buttress
> against the dangers of locking in or unfairly privileging certain
> assumptions, viewpoints and modes of enquiry. We really hope that as many
> people as possible can attend. The main focus will be on discussions rather
> than presentations, maximising input from each of the participants.
>
>
>
> The workshop will be taking place all day on the 12th September 2022 at in
> the Minnaert Building at Utrecht University. More information about the
> location, agenda and other relevant detailswill be sent to you once your
> attendance is confirmed. Lunch will be provided.
>
> --
> 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-04%2B6wB-%2BuUgHUaoKYbHum%3DxE1cwxBJUPC8wDxmQHs%2BeJA%40mail.gmail.com
> <
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-04%2B6wB-%2BuUgHUaoKYbHum%3DxE1cwxBJUPC8wDxmQHs%2BeJA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer
> >>.
>
>
> UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F DISCLAIMER: This email message and any
> accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are
> not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or
> copy this message or attachments. If you have received this message in
> error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any
> views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except
> where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views
> of the University of Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments,
> please check them for viruses and defects. Think. Green. Do. Please
> consider the environment before printing this email.
>
> --
> 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/SYBPR01MB8043160EBAEC3A1039A923CDDB7B9%40SYBPR01MB8043.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
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 

Re: [geo] Nuclear Winter and SRM (including termination shock)

[Gideon Futerman]

 show that the 
> stratosphere is sensitive to relatively modest BC injections.
>
> On Tuesday, July 26, 2022 at 10:20:44 AM UTC-4 Alan Robock wrote:
>
>> Dear Gideon,
>>
>> A nuclear war would be orders of magnitude worse than any impacts of SAI 
>> or termination.  Soot from fires ignited by nuclear attacks on cities and 
>> industrial areas would last for many years, and would overwhelm any impacts 
>> from shorter lived sulfate aerosols.  Of course the impacts depend on how 
>> much soot, but a war between the US and Russia could produce a nuclear 
>> winter.  For more  information on our work and the consequences of nuclear 
>> war, please visit http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/nuclear/
>>
>> Alan Robock
>>
>> Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
>> Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751 
>> <(848)%20932-5751>
>> Rutgers University    E-mail: 
>> rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
>> 14 College Farm Roadhttp://people.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock
>> New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 ☮ https://twitter.com/AlanRobock
>>
>> [image: Signature] 
>>
>>
>> On 7/26/2022 10:03 AM, Gideon Futerman wrote:
>>
>> As part of the RESILIENCER Project, we are looking at low probability 
>> high impact events and their relation to SRM. One important worry in this 
>> regards becomes termination shock, most importantly what Baum (2013) calls 
>> a "Double Catastrophe" where a global societal collapse caused by one 
>> catastrophe then causes termination shock, another catastrophe, which may 
>> convert the civilisational collapse into a risk of extinction. 
>>
>> One such initial catastrophe may be nuclear war. Thus, the combination of 
>> SRM and nuclear war may be a significant worry. As such, I am posing the 
>> question to the google group: what would happen if SRM (either 
>> stratospheric or tropospheric- or space based if you want to go there) was 
>> terminated due to a nuclear war? What sort of effects would you expect to 
>> see? Would the combination worsen the effects of nuclear war or help 
>> ameliorate them? How would this differ between SRM types?
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/8d0d8c0a-0f0d-440c-9bb5-f8641560e4a0n%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/8d0d8c0a-0f0d-440c-9bb5-f8641560e4a0n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_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/7d80ff05-60b6-495b-8883-a897bda72da3n%40googlegroups.com.

[geo] Re: Agenda for RESILIENCER Workshop on SRM and Global Catastrophic Risk

[Gideon Futerman]

Hi all,
We have now released the agenda for this workshop which is attached. If you 
still want to come, there is still time left to apply, although the 
application deadline is the 1st September.
If you want to apply please see www.resiliencer.org/workshop .
Kind Regards
Gideon

On Friday, 15 July 2022 at 12:20:12 UTC+1 Gideon Futerman wrote:

> I am writing to invite you to apply <https://www.resiliencer.org/workshop>to 
> the RESILIENCER Workshop on the 12th September at Utrecht University. The 
> RESILIENCER (Ramifications of Experimentation into SRM In Light of its 
> Impacts on Existential, Negative-state and Civilisational Endangering 
> Risks) workshop will provide a forum for a wide range of SRM scholars to 
> explore the impacts of SRM research and deployment on global catastrophic 
> risks. 
>
> The workshop will attempt to explore a whole host of questions about how 
> SRM research and/or deployment could act to increase and decrease certain 
> extreme risks, particularly focused on heavy tailed risks which are 
> commonly neglected in the discussion. The aim will to be to provide an 
> environment for scholars who are both in favour and sceptical of research 
> and/or deployment to engage in knowledge generation, generating key 
> questions for enquiry and and attempting to challenge points of preexisting 
> wisdom. We hope to create an environment where researchers are encouraged 
> to provide unique perspectives, including blue teaming viewpoints opposed 
> to their own. There will also be the generation and evaluation of 
> scenarios, and evaluation of the applicability of certain positions on SRM 
> in different scenarios.
>
> The RESILIENCER Workshop has been established as part of the RESILIENCER 
> Project, so an opportunity to critique aspects of the research already done 
> in that project will also be discussed. This project has been funded by FTX 
> Future Fund, although they have no sway over the methods or the results of 
> the project nor workshop.
>
> The questions of the relation of SRM to GCRs has been heavily neglected in 
> the literature thus far, and so this workshop hopes to engage researchers 
> from across the field to get as wide a range of views as possible. Having 
> such a wide range is particularly important, as it helps to buttress 
> against the dangers of locking in or unfairly privileging certain 
> assumptions, viewpoints and modes of enquiry. We really hope that as many 
> people as possible can attend with as many viewpoints as possible. 
>
> The workshop will hope to generate useful output which can be used in 
> workshop proceedings and the resulting RESILIENCER Project. There will be 
> opportunities for collaborative discussion and working across groups with 
> various expertise and ideas, as well as a hope for identification of key 
> points of disagreement as well. We are still in the process of formulating 
> the agenda, although the preliminary agenda will be sent out shortly.  The 
> workshop will mainly be discussion based rather than presentation based.
>
> The workshop will be taking place on the 12th September 2022 at Utrecht 
> University. Unfortunately, we will have to be selective about which people 
> we allow to come to the workshop, as the space in the venue is limited, and 
> we will tell you if you have got into the workshop or not. We are looking 
> for a balance of expertises, viewpoints and backgrounds, so not getting a 
> place isn’t because you “weren’t good enough”. Even if you don’t get a 
> place, we would love your input either way. 
>

-- 
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/3d874bdb-2aa7-4844-8d28-196ea94edf2bn%40googlegroups.com.


RESILIENCER Workshop Agenda (5).pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

Re: [geo] Nuclear Winter and SRM (including termination shock)

[Gideon Futerman]

Thanks for the useful feedback and responses to this question everyone. Its
not an area I have expertise in, so the feedback has been exceptionally
useful,
Kind Regards
Gideon

On Thu, 28 Jul 2022 at 15:09, Douglas MacMartin  wrote:

> I agree that the sign of the effect is unclear in addition to the
> magnitude, that is, nuclear winter + termination is “better” at first than
> nuclear winter alone, but “worse” afterwards if it is impossible to
> restart; that of course is all contingent on how bad the nuclear winter is,
> how much cooling is being offset, and your beliefs about how the use of SRM
> does or doesn’t affect mitigation (that is, the circumstances in which
> termination materially affects outcomes are those in which SRM is being
> used to offset significant warming – so from a risk perspective, if the
> counterfactual is that much warmer world, or the counterfactual a world
> that had more mitigation, is essential).
>
>
>
> I agree that as researchers we should try to inform decisions, and hence
> risks, and be responsive to stakeholder concerns.  In this case, I think
> the **much** bigger influence of SRM on nuclear winter comes from whether
> it increases or decreases the risks of nuclear war, and what we can do in
> terms of governance to affect that…
>
>
>
> *From:* Gideon Futerman 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 27, 2022 6:10 PM
> *To:* Douglas MacMartin 
> *Cc:* gdebrou...@gmail.com; Daniele Visioni ;
> geoengineering 
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] Nuclear Winter and SRM (including termination shock)
>
>
>
> I think this is going to get into more general philosophy/ethics around
> Existential Risks, Longtermism and Global Catastrophic Risks, which whilst
> interesting and useful, probably a bit orthogonal to what people are
> turning to the geoengineering google group for. But basically, a difference
> between 6 billion and say 6.1 billion or 6.5 billion is firstly important
> from the perspective of deaths: that's still 100 million people. Secondly,
> climatic effects, excess deaths on top of the nuclear winter (or reduced
> severity!)  etc are potentially relevant for whether it will "only" kill 6
> billion and whether it will lead to irrecoverable (not merely awful)
> societal collapse, which from various longtermist perspectives is very bad.
> Given how hard it would be to recover anyway, a "double catastrophe" could
> make recovery much harder distinguish between a  Global Catastrophic Risk
> and an existential risk, which from various philosophical viewpoints is
> very important.
>
> Thus, such a question ie whether SRM might increase/decrease the
> likelihood of a global catastrophic risk being converted to an existential
> risk (due to this Latent Risk of termination shock we have been discussing)
> is of serious interest to many people, including potentially major funders
> who are potentially interested in investing in SRM research. In that sense,
> this impacts some potentially very important decisions for the future of
> our field, and the distinction between 6 billion and say 6.5 billion, or
> even if it just makes societal recovery 10% less likely to happen, it may
> be absolutely vital. I am happy to explain this in more depth if people
> need, although what I was really wanting to ask the list for was
> fundamentally a question of physical science to try and answer this
> application.
>
> Even if none of this has convinced you of the moral importance of it, the
> question I was asking was fundamentally a physical one, responding to a
> scientific assumption in Baum et al 2013 that I thought seemed potentially
> unsound (that under nuclear war termination shock would lead to a double
> catastrophe and not a slight softening of the first catastrophe). Given
> that paper is one of only a handful papers published in this intersection
> between SRM and Global Catastrophic Risk studies, such a claim is, even
> from a physical/empirical rather than moral viewpoint, important to test.
> Hence why I have posed this question.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2022 at 19:59, Douglas MacMartin 
> wrote:
>
> All of the above, with qualifiers… yes the climatic response would be
> different, but personally I think 6B dead is so bad that whether it’s 6.01
> or 6.1 or 6.5 isn’t something that I feel matters particularly (nor do I
> think it is particularly answerable).  What decisions would depend on the
> answer to that question?
>
>
>
> *From:* Gideon Futerman 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 27, 2022 1:31 PM
> *To:* Douglas MacMartin 
> *Cc:* gdebrou...@gmail.com; Daniele Visioni ;
> geoengineering 
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] Nuclear Winter and SRM (including termination shock)
>
>
>
> Hi Doug,
>
> Apolog

[geo] A Fate Worse Than Warming? Stratospheric Aerosol Injection and Global Catastrophic Risk

[Gideon Futerman]

Just realised this paper from last year never got posted on the list:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fclim.2021.720312/full#:~:text=Stratospheric%20Aerosol%20Injection%20and%20Global%20Catastrophic%20Risk,-Aaron%20Tang1=Injecting%20particles%20into%20atmosphere%20to,the%20threat%20of%20climate%20change.
Good paper on SRM and Global Catastrophic Risk

-- 
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/48ccd557-2734-4817-afe9-11e135054adfn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [geo] Nuclear Winter and SRM (including termination shock)

[Gideon Futerman]

I think this is going to get into more general philosophy/ethics around
Existential Risks, Longtermism and Global Catastrophic Risks, which whilst
interesting and useful, probably a bit orthogonal to what people are
turning to the geoengineering google group for. But basically, a difference
between 6 billion and say 6.1 billion or 6.5 billion is firstly important
from the perspective of deaths: that's still 100 million people. Secondly,
climatic effects, excess deaths on top of the nuclear winter (or reduced
severity!)  etc are potentially relevant for whether it will "only" kill 6
billion and whether it will lead to irrecoverable (not merely awful)
societal collapse, which from various longtermist perspectives is very bad.
Given how hard it would be to recover anyway, a "double catastrophe" could
make recovery much harder distinguish between a  Global Catastrophic Risk
and an existential risk, which from various philosophical viewpoints is
very important.
Thus, such a question ie whether SRM might increase/decrease the likelihood
of a global catastrophic risk being converted to an existential risk (due
to this Latent Risk of termination shock we have been discussing) is of
serious interest to many people, including potentially major funders who
are potentially interested in investing in SRM research. In that sense,
this impacts some potentially very important decisions for the future of
our field, and the distinction between 6 billion and say 6.5 billion, or
even if it just makes societal recovery 10% less likely to happen, it may
be absolutely vital. I am happy to explain this in more depth if people
need, although what I was really wanting to ask the list for was
fundamentally a question of physical science to try and answer this
application.
Even if none of this has convinced you of the moral importance of it, the
question I was asking was fundamentally a physical one, responding to a
scientific assumption in Baum et al 2013 that I thought seemed potentially
unsound (that under nuclear war termination shock would lead to a double
catastrophe and not a slight softening of the first catastrophe). Given
that paper is one of only a handful papers published in this intersection
between SRM and Global Catastrophic Risk studies, such a claim is, even
from a physical/empirical rather than moral viewpoint, important to test.
Hence why I have posed this question.


On Wed, 27 Jul 2022 at 19:59, Douglas MacMartin  wrote:

> All of the above, with qualifiers… yes the climatic response would be
> different, but personally I think 6B dead is so bad that whether it’s 6.01
> or 6.1 or 6.5 isn’t something that I feel matters particularly (nor do I
> think it is particularly answerable).  What decisions would depend on the
> answer to that question?
>
>
>
> *From:* Gideon Futerman 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 27, 2022 1:31 PM
> *To:* Douglas MacMartin 
> *Cc:* gdebrou...@gmail.com; Daniele Visioni ;
> geoengineering 
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] Nuclear Winter and SRM (including termination shock)
>
>
>
> Hi Doug,
>
> Apologies for misinterpreting. Its a statement like this that I have been
> looking for.
>
> When you suggest it isn't appreciably worse, is that a suggestion that
> either:
>
> - The death toll/ the ability for society to recover would be no different
> given the double catastrophe than the single catastrophe
>
> - The climatic response to the double catastrophe is no different than the
> single catastrophe
>
> - The difference in death toll may be, say (and these are made up numbers)
> 6 billion vs 6.01 billion
>
> Thank you so much for the clarification
>
> Best
>
> Gideon
>
>
>
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2022 at 17:58, Douglas MacMartin 
> wrote:
>
> Of course there are more minor conflicts possible with less severe
> outcomes… though if it’s a regional war that doesn’t itself end
> civilization, I don’t see why one couldn’t restart SRM in a year or two if
> desired.
>
>
>
> Gideon, you write: “I understand why there is aversion to me exploring
> such risks;” I think you misunderstand everyone’s response here.  It
> isn’t an aversion to exploring them, nor a belief that we don’t need to
> look at extreme but less likely scenarios, but rather, that this specific
> risk doesn’t seem to many of us like there’s anything that needs to be
> explored.  That is, my view, and I think others, is that any nuclear war
> severe enough to result in losing the ability to even restart SRM is so
> severe that the nuclear war + termination isn’t appreciably worse than the
> nuclear war itself.
>
>
>
> I 100% agree with the need to think through low probability but high
> impact possibilities.
>
>
>
> d
>
>
>
> *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com  *On
> Behalf Of *Gilles de Brouwer
> *Sen

Re: [geo] Nuclear Winter and SRM (including termination shock)

[Gideon Futerman]

Hi Doug,
Apologies for misinterpreting. Its a statement like this that I have been
looking for.
When you suggest it isn't appreciably worse, is that a suggestion that
either:
- The death toll/ the ability for society to recover would be no different
given the double catastrophe than the single catastrophe
- The climatic response to the double catastrophe is no different than the
single catastrophe
- The difference in death toll may be, say (and these are made up numbers)
6 billion vs 6.01 billion
Thank you so much for the clarification
Best
Gideon

On Wed, 27 Jul 2022 at 17:58, Douglas MacMartin  wrote:

> Of course there are more minor conflicts possible with less severe
> outcomes… though if it’s a regional war that doesn’t itself end
> civilization, I don’t see why one couldn’t restart SRM in a year or two if
> desired.
>
>
>
> Gideon, you write: “I understand why there is aversion to me exploring
> such risks;” I think you misunderstand everyone’s response here.  It
> isn’t an aversion to exploring them, nor a belief that we don’t need to
> look at extreme but less likely scenarios, but rather, that this specific
> risk doesn’t seem to many of us like there’s anything that needs to be
> explored.  That is, my view, and I think others, is that any nuclear war
> severe enough to result in losing the ability to even restart SRM is so
> severe that the nuclear war + termination isn’t appreciably worse than the
> nuclear war itself.
>
>
>
> I 100% agree with the need to think through low probability but high
> impact possibilities.
>
>
>
> d
>
>
>
> *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com  *On
> Behalf Of *Gilles de Brouwer
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 26, 2022 11:11 PM
> *To:* ggfuter...@gmail.com
> *Cc:* Daniele Visioni ; geoengineering <
> geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] Nuclear Winter and SRM (including termination shock)
>
>
>
> FYI   Updated nuclear winter analysis is so much worse than SAI that it's
> pointless to consider.
>
>
>
> *Nuclear winter revisited with a modern climate model and current nuclear
> arsenals: Still catastrophic consequences*
> Alan Robock,1 Luke Oman,1,2 and Georgiy L. Stenchikov1
> Received 8 November 2006; revised 2 April 2007; accepted 27 April 2007;
> published 6 July 2007
>
> https://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/RobockNW2006JD008235.pdf
>
>
> Gilles de Brouwer
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 5:50 PM Gideon Futerman 
> wrote:
>
> Apologies, you are correct, I was using the ECS values from AR5 and forgot
> it had reduced with AR6. I was also getting my range vs values mixed up.
>
> Nonetheless, a similar point still broadly stands- the ipcc suggests with
> only medium confidence that it is "very likely" that ECS is between 2K and
> 5K (not 6K as I had previously stated), putting a warming of anything above
> 5K therefore at between 0-5% probability with medium confidence.
>
> Whilst I appreciate the desire to focus on the median ECS, I think it is
> nonetheless important to consider the more extreme, fat tailed risks. Not
> because these will happen or are likely to happen, but because in general
> such worse case scenario, low probability high impact scenarios are
> neglected.
>
> This is the same reason I care about SRM in concert with a nuclear war.
> Not because I want to overplay how important SRM is under such a scenario,
> but merely want to explore the worse case scenarios. I don’t think
> (certainly hope not) that any of the scenarios the RESILIENCER Project
> explores are likely, certainly none are the median scenarios. Rather, they
> are those scenarios in the fat tails of the possible risks.
>
> I understand why there is aversion to me exploring such risks; I would
> hate people to think that I am claiming the research community at large
> should start focusing on such risks (which would be foolish). Nonetheless,
> it seems odd to not at least some degree look at these more extreme, much
> less likely, scenarios.
>
>
>
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2022, 22:33 Daniele Visioni, 
> wrote:
>
> Dear Gideon,
> not to pile on but I feel like this should be corrected: none of the most
> current IPCC projections say that 550ppm have a 10% chance of leaving us
> with 6K of warming.
>
> Even the most high sensitivity models in CMIP6 only show a ECS of, at
> most, 5 per doubling of CO₂ (so 560), but the best estimate is still around
> 3K given a whole range of approaches to estimate it.
>
> For more relevant IPCC scenarios during this century, given transient
> sensitivity and more, scenarios that lead to 550ppm (considering also other
> GHG, LUC, aerosols) like SSP2-4.5 have a median warming of a bit less than
> 3K.
>
> 

Re: [geo] Nuclear Winter and SRM (including termination shock)

[Gideon Futerman]

, if anything, the former seems on first 
assumptions to be slightly better. However, given the importance of such a 
question (if it occurred it may lead to an increased probability of human 
extinction) and the neglectedness of such low probability high impact 
risks, it seems to me wrong to reject the question out of hand.

In the field of Global Catastrophic Risk studies, we are dealing with low 
probability high impact events. I am not saying that this scenario will 
happen, or is even likely to happen. But we plug ourselves in when we go in 
our car, despite a car crash on any given journey being unlikely, because 
the consequences are so severe. So what I want to try and work out is if 
there is any valid concerns here, even if we think those concerns only have 
a <10% or even <5% probability of occurring. 
I hope I have better clarified what I am trying to ask, and I do apologise 
for any confusion. I am really thankful for your responses so far, and 
apologies if I have misinterpreted what you have been saying thus far. I am 
happy to answer any concerns, and please do say if you think I am simply 
speaking nonsense
Kind Regards
Gideon Futerman
On Wednesday, 27 July 2022 at 06:58:31 UTC+1 gdebr...@gmail.com wrote:

> FYI   Updated nuclear winter analysis is so much worse than SAI that it's 
> pointless to consider.
>
> *Nuclear winter revisited with a modern climate model and current nuclear 
> arsenals: Still catastrophic consequences*
> Alan Robock,1 Luke Oman,1,2 and Georgiy L. Stenchikov1
> Received 8 November 2006; revised 2 April 2007; accepted 27 April 2007; 
> published 6 July 2007
> https://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/RobockNW2006JD008235.pdf
>
> Gilles de Brouwer  
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 5:50 PM Gideon Futerman  
> wrote:
>
>> Apologies, you are correct, I was using the ECS values from AR5 and 
>> forgot it had reduced with AR6. I was also getting my range vs values mixed 
>> up. 
>> Nonetheless, a similar point still broadly stands- the ipcc suggests with 
>> only medium confidence that it is "very likely" that ECS is between 2K and 
>> 5K (not 6K as I had previously stated), putting a warming of anything above 
>> 5K therefore at between 0-5% probability with medium confidence. 
>> Whilst I appreciate the desire to focus on the median ECS, I think it is 
>> nonetheless important to consider the more extreme, fat tailed risks. Not 
>> because these will happen or are likely to happen, but because in general 
>> such worse case scenario, low probability high impact scenarios are 
>> neglected.
>> This is the same reason I care about SRM in concert with a nuclear war. 
>> Not because I want to overplay how important SRM is under such a scenario, 
>> but merely want to explore the worse case scenarios. I don’t think 
>> (certainly hope not) that any of the scenarios the RESILIENCER Project 
>> explores are likely, certainly none are the median scenarios. Rather, they 
>> are those scenarios in the fat tails of the possible risks. 
>> I understand why there is aversion to me exploring such risks; I would 
>> hate people to think that I am claiming the research community at large 
>> should start focusing on such risks (which would be foolish). Nonetheless, 
>> it seems odd to not at least some degree look at these more extreme, much 
>> less likely, scenarios. 
>>
>> On Tue, 26 Jul 2022, 22:33 Daniele Visioni,  wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Gideon,
>>> not to pile on but I feel like this should be corrected: none of the 
>>> most current IPCC projections say that 550ppm have a 10% chance of leaving 
>>> us with 6K of warming.
>>> Even the most high sensitivity models in CMIP6 only show a ECS of, at 
>>> most, 5 per doubling of CO₂ (so 560), but the best estimate is still around 
>>> 3K given a whole range of approaches to estimate it.
>>> For more relevant IPCC scenarios during this century, given transient 
>>> sensitivity and more, scenarios that lead to 550ppm (considering also other 
>>> GHG, LUC, aerosols) like SSP2-4.5 have a median warming of a bit less than 
>>> 3K.
>>> How can surely say the IPCC is wrong and climate models are wrong, of 
>>> course.
>>>
>>> (Ça vas sans dire, I’m not trying to downplay climate change! But being 
>>> precise helps having better discussions :) )
>>>
>>>
>>> On 26 Jul 2022, at 17:20, Gideon Futerman  wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Dr Robock,
>>> Whilst I would admit that 3K of cooling by SRM is unlikely, it is 
>>> certainly not out of the range of possibility. Given CO2 concentrations of 
>>> 550PPM have a 10% chance of leaving us with 

Re: [geo] Nuclear Winter and SRM (including termination shock)

[Gideon Futerman]

Apologies, you are correct, I was using the ECS values from AR5 and forgot
it had reduced with AR6. I was also getting my range vs values mixed up.
Nonetheless, a similar point still broadly stands- the ipcc suggests with
only medium confidence that it is "very likely" that ECS is between 2K and
5K (not 6K as I had previously stated), putting a warming of anything above
5K therefore at between 0-5% probability with medium confidence.
Whilst I appreciate the desire to focus on the median ECS, I think it is
nonetheless important to consider the more extreme, fat tailed risks. Not
because these will happen or are likely to happen, but because in general
such worse case scenario, low probability high impact scenarios are
neglected.
This is the same reason I care about SRM in concert with a nuclear war. Not
because I want to overplay how important SRM is under such a scenario, but
merely want to explore the worse case scenarios. I don’t think (certainly
hope not) that any of the scenarios the RESILIENCER Project explores are
likely, certainly none are the median scenarios. Rather, they are those
scenarios in the fat tails of the possible risks.
I understand why there is aversion to me exploring such risks; I would hate
people to think that I am claiming the research community at large should
start focusing on such risks (which would be foolish). Nonetheless, it
seems odd to not at least some degree look at these more extreme, much less
likely, scenarios.

On Tue, 26 Jul 2022, 22:33 Daniele Visioni, 
wrote:

> Dear Gideon,
> not to pile on but I feel like this should be corrected: none of the most
> current IPCC projections say that 550ppm have a 10% chance of leaving us
> with 6K of warming.
> Even the most high sensitivity models in CMIP6 only show a ECS of, at
> most, 5 per doubling of CO₂ (so 560), but the best estimate is still around
> 3K given a whole range of approaches to estimate it.
> For more relevant IPCC scenarios during this century, given transient
> sensitivity and more, scenarios that lead to 550ppm (considering also other
> GHG, LUC, aerosols) like SSP2-4.5 have a median warming of a bit less than
> 3K.
> How can surely say the IPCC is wrong and climate models are wrong, of
> course.
>
> (Ça vas sans dire, I’m not trying to downplay climate change! But being
> precise helps having better discussions :) )
>
>
> On 26 Jul 2022, at 17:20, Gideon Futerman  wrote:
>
> Dear Dr Robock,
> Whilst I would admit that 3K of cooling by SRM is unlikely, it is
> certainly not out of the range of possibility. Given CO2 concentrations of
> 550PPM have a 10% chance of leaving us with 6K of warming (and that
> certainly doesn't seem to be an unreasonable amount of emissions given
> mitigation trajectories), it certainly doesn't seem like there is a less
> than 10% probability of a given deployment scheme being 3K of forcing.
> Secondly, why care about this if there is a nuclear war. Maybe you are
> correct, and there is no worry. But if you care about post-nuclear war
> societal recovery, it may be important to know whether SRM-driven
> termination shock makes that more or less likely, or is entirely
> negligible. Of course, the primary worry here is avoid the initial
> catastrophe (nuclear war). Nonetheless, the question of whether SRM
> termination shock under nuclear war has any effect (even if only 10% of the
> magnitude of the effects of the nuclear war) is significant.
> I am trying to look at low probability, heavy tailed risks of SRM,
> including how it interacts with other risks. This is why I want to look at
> the (relatively unlikely) scenario which I have laid out.
> And apologies for the spelling mistake, spelling is certainly not my
> strong suit!
> Kind Regards
> Gideon Futerman
> He/Him
> www.resiliencer.org
> On Tuesday, 26 July 2022 at 16:05:48 UTC+1 Alan Robock wrote:
>
>> Dear Gideon,
>>
>> It is spelled "negligible."  And nobody is suggesting enough SAI to
>> produce 3K cooling, because that means there has been no mitigation.
>>
>> A nuclear war could kill billions of people from starvation, and would
>> collapse civilization, surely reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  Why would
>> you even worry about global warming and geoengineering then?  That's why I
>> say your are comparing two things that are of completely different scales.
>>
>>
>> Alan Robock
>>
>> Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
>> Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751
>> <(848)%20932-5751>
>> Rutgers University    E-mail:
>> rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
>> 14 College Farm Roadhttp://people.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock
>> New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 ☮ https://twitter.com/AlanR

Re: [geo] Nuclear Winter and SRM (including termination shock)

[Gideon Futerman]

Dear Dr Robock,
Whilst I would admit that 3K of cooling by SRM is unlikely, it is certainly 
not out of the range of possibility. Given CO2 concentrations of 550PPM 
have a 10% chance of leaving us with 6K of warming (and that certainly 
doesn't seem to be an unreasonable amount of emissions given mitigation 
trajectories), it certainly doesn't seem like there is a less than 10% 
probability of a given deployment scheme being 3K of forcing. 
Secondly, why care about this if there is a nuclear war. Maybe you are 
correct, and there is no worry. But if you care about post-nuclear war 
societal recovery, it may be important to know whether SRM-driven 
termination shock makes that more or less likely, or is entirely 
negligible. Of course, the primary worry here is avoid the initial 
catastrophe (nuclear war). Nonetheless, the question of whether SRM 
termination shock under nuclear war has any effect (even if only 10% of the 
magnitude of the effects of the nuclear war) is significant.
I am trying to look at low probability, heavy tailed risks of SRM, 
including how it interacts with other risks. This is why I want to look at 
the (relatively unlikely) scenario which I have laid out. 
And apologies for the spelling mistake, spelling is certainly not my strong 
suit!
Kind Regards
Gideon Futerman
He/Him
www.resiliencer.org
On Tuesday, 26 July 2022 at 16:05:48 UTC+1 Alan Robock wrote:

> Dear Gideon,
>
> It is spelled "negligible."  And nobody is suggesting enough SAI to 
> produce 3K cooling, because that means there has been no mitigation.  
>
> A nuclear war could kill billions of people from starvation, and would 
> collapse civilization, surely reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  Why would 
> you even worry about global warming and geoengineering then?  That's why I 
> say your are comparing two things that are of completely different scales.
>
>
> Alan Robock
>
> Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
> Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751 
> <(848)%20932-5751>
> Rutgers UniversityE-mail: 
> rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
> 14 College Farm Roadhttp://people.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock
> New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 ☮ https://twitter.com/AlanRobock
>
> [image: Signature] 
>
>
> On 7/26/2022 10:59 AM, Gideon Futerman wrote:
>
> Dear Alan Robock, 
> When you say overwhelm, is the suggestion here that the increase in 
> radiative forcing from the termination of aerosol injection would be 
> entirely negligable compared to the nuclear winter scenario?
> If SAI were masking 3K of warming, and you got a nuclear winter driven 
> cooling of say 7K, surely the impact of the termination of SAI would not be 
> negligable, even if it would be significantly less than the cooling of 
> nuclear winter (ie you still get a nuclear winter)? I am trying to work out 
> if the "double catastrophe" as Baum calls it actually applies in the 
> nuclear winter scenario. So the question of whether the removal of the 
> contribution of SAI to radiative forcing (by termination) makes the nuclear 
> winter (and the resulting warming afterwards) worse, less bad or is 
> entirely negligable is important. 
> Moreover might sunlight removal effects be important in the short term, 
> particularly if it were a relatively high SAI radiative forcing and 
> (relatively) minor nuclear winter (say about 6K of cooling)? Given up to 
> 50% of sulfate aerosols remain in the stratosphere up to 8 months after 
> termination, would the added impact of the sulfate aerosols on top of the 
> significantly more soot aerosols have an effect of sunlight available for 
> photosynthesis, so increase impact on food production in the early days of 
> the nuclear winter? Or would this simply be negligable in the face of the 
> radiation reduction from even a relatively minor nuclear winter?
> Kind Regards
> Gideon
>
>
> On Tuesday, 26 July 2022 at 15:20:44 UTC+1 Alan Robock wrote:
>
>> Dear Gideon,
>>
>> A nuclear war would be orders of magnitude worse than any impacts of SAI 
>> or termination.  Soot from fires ignited by nuclear attacks on cities and 
>> industrial areas would last for many years, and would overwhelm any impacts 
>> from shorter lived sulfate aerosols.  Of course the impacts depend on how 
>> much soot, but a war between the US and Russia could produce a nuclear 
>> winter.  For more  information on our work and the consequences of nuclear 
>> war, please visit http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/nuclear/
>>
>> Alan Robock
>>
>> Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
>> Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751 
>> <(848)%20932-5751>
>> Rutgers University  

Re: [geo] Nuclear Winter and SRM (including termination shock)

[Gideon Futerman]

Dear Alan Robock,
When you say overwhelm, is the suggestion here that the increase in 
radiative forcing from the termination of aerosol injection would be 
entirely negligable compared to the nuclear winter scenario?
If SAI were masking 3K of warming, and you got a nuclear winter driven 
cooling of say 7K, surely the impact of the termination of SAI would not be 
negligable, even if it would be significantly less than the cooling of 
nuclear winter (ie you still get a nuclear winter)? I am trying to work out 
if the "double catastrophe" as Baum calls it actually applies in the 
nuclear winter scenario. So the question of whether the removal of the 
contribution of SAI to radiative forcing (by termination) makes the nuclear 
winter (and the resulting warming afterwards) worse, less bad or is 
entirely negligable is important. 
Moreover might sunlight removal effects be important in the short term, 
particularly if it were a relatively high SAI radiative forcing and 
(relatively) minor nuclear winter (say about 6K of cooling)? Given up to 
50% of sulfate aerosols remain in the stratosphere up to 8 months after 
termination, would the added impact of the sulfate aerosols on top of the 
significantly more soot aerosols have an effect of sunlight available for 
photosynthesis, so increase impact on food production in the early days of 
the nuclear winter? Or would this simply be negligable in the face of the 
radiation reduction from even a relatively minor nuclear winter?
Kind Regards
Gideon


On Tuesday, 26 July 2022 at 15:20:44 UTC+1 Alan Robock wrote:

> Dear Gideon,
>
> A nuclear war would be orders of magnitude worse than any impacts of SAI 
> or termination.  Soot from fires ignited by nuclear attacks on cities and 
> industrial areas would last for many years, and would overwhelm any impacts 
> from shorter lived sulfate aerosols.  Of course the impacts depend on how 
> much soot, but a war between the US and Russia could produce a nuclear 
> winter.  For more  information on our work and the consequences of nuclear 
> war, please visit http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/nuclear/
>
> Alan Robock
>
> Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
> Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751 
> <(848)%20932-5751>
> Rutgers UniversityE-mail: 
> rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
> 14 College Farm Roadhttp://people.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock
> New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 ☮ https://twitter.com/AlanRobock
>
> [image: Signature] 
>
>
> On 7/26/2022 10:03 AM, Gideon Futerman wrote:
>
> As part of the RESILIENCER Project, we are looking at low probability high 
> impact events and their relation to SRM. One important worry in this 
> regards becomes termination shock, most importantly what Baum (2013) calls 
> a "Double Catastrophe" where a global societal collapse caused by one 
> catastrophe then causes termination shock, another catastrophe, which may 
> convert the civilisational collapse into a risk of extinction. 
>
> One such initial catastrophe may be nuclear war. Thus, the combination of 
> SRM and nuclear war may be a significant worry. As such, I am posing the 
> question to the google group: what would happen if SRM (either 
> stratospheric or tropospheric- or space based if you want to go there) was 
> terminated due to a nuclear war? What sort of effects would you expect to 
> see? Would the combination worsen the effects of nuclear war or help 
> ameliorate them? How would this differ between SRM types?
>
>
> -- 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/8d0d8c0a-0f0d-440c-9bb5-f8641560e4a0n%40googlegroups.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/8d0d8c0a-0f0d-440c-9bb5-f8641560e4a0n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_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/b541017e-b87b-4492-b840-91e39d0b0601n%40googlegroups.com.

[geo] Nuclear Winter and SRM (including termination shock)

[Gideon Futerman]

As part of the RESILIENCER Project, we are looking at low probability high 
impact events and their relation to SRM. One important worry in this 
regards becomes termination shock, most importantly what Baum (2013) calls 
a "Double Catastrophe" where a global societal collapse caused by one 
catastrophe then causes termination shock, another catastrophe, which may 
convert the civilisational collapse into a risk of extinction.

One such initial catastrophe may be nuclear war. Thus, the combination of 
SRM and nuclear war may be a significant worry. As such, I am posing the 
question to the google group: what would happen if SRM (either 
stratospheric or tropospheric- or space based if you want to go there) was 
terminated due to a nuclear war? What sort of effects would you expect to 
see? Would the combination worsen the effects of nuclear war or help 
ameliorate them? How would this differ between SRM types?


-- 
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/8d0d8c0a-0f0d-440c-9bb5-f8641560e4a0n%40googlegroups.com.

[geo] Invitation to Apply: RESILIENCER Workshop on SRM and Global Catastrophic Risk

[Gideon Futerman]

I am writing to invite you to apply to 
the RESILIENCER Workshop on the 12th September at Utrecht University. The 
RESILIENCER (Ramifications of Experimentation into SRM In Light of its 
Impacts on Existential, Negative-state and Civilisational Endangering 
Risks) workshop will provide a forum for a wide range of SRM scholars to 
explore the impacts of SRM research and deployment on global catastrophic 
risks. 

The workshop will attempt to explore a whole host of questions about how 
SRM research and/or deployment could act to increase and decrease certain 
extreme risks, particularly focused on heavy tailed risks which are 
commonly neglected in the discussion. The aim will to be to provide an 
environment for scholars who are both in favour and sceptical of research 
and/or deployment to engage in knowledge generation, generating key 
questions for enquiry and and attempting to challenge points of preexisting 
wisdom. We hope to create an environment where researchers are encouraged 
to provide unique perspectives, including blue teaming viewpoints opposed 
to their own. There will also be the generation and evaluation of 
scenarios, and evaluation of the applicability of certain positions on SRM 
in different scenarios.

The RESILIENCER Workshop has been established as part of the RESILIENCER 
Project, so an opportunity to critique aspects of the research already done 
in that project will also be discussed. This project has been funded by FTX 
Future Fund, although they have no sway over the methods or the results of 
the project nor workshop.

The questions of the relation of SRM to GCRs has been heavily neglected in 
the literature thus far, and so this workshop hopes to engage researchers 
from across the field to get as wide a range of views as possible. Having 
such a wide range is particularly important, as it helps to buttress 
against the dangers of locking in or unfairly privileging certain 
assumptions, viewpoints and modes of enquiry. We really hope that as many 
people as possible can attend with as many viewpoints as possible. 

The workshop will hope to generate useful output which can be used in 
workshop proceedings and the resulting RESILIENCER Project. There will be 
opportunities for collaborative discussion and working across groups with 
various expertise and ideas, as well as a hope for identification of key 
points of disagreement as well. We are still in the process of formulating 
the agenda, although the preliminary agenda will be sent out shortly.  The 
workshop will mainly be discussion based rather than presentation based.

The workshop will be taking place on the 12th September 2022 at Utrecht 
University. Unfortunately, we will have to be selective about which people 
we allow to come to the workshop, as the space in the venue is limited, and 
we will tell you if you have got into the workshop or not. We are looking 
for a balance of expertises, viewpoints and backgrounds, so not getting a 
place isn’t because you “weren’t good enough”. Even if you don’t get a 
place, we would love your input either way. 

-- 
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/d338f272-6ffd-4de9-8ccb-26baec3e2dddn%40googlegroups.com.

[geo] Total Funding for SRM research

[Gideon Futerman]

Hi All
Does anyone have the updated figures for total funding for SRM research
Best
Gideon

-- 
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/2eddb0a1-5058-4b5e-a776-892ddd113155n%40googlegroups.com.

[geo] Papers on Acceptance of SRM Research

[Gideon Futerman]

Hi all
Just wondering if there are any papers or other bits of media as to 
possible steps forwards that would need to be taken to increase acceptance 
of low environmental impact SRM research. Alternatively, those which pose 
the opposite question- why have people so far failed to get a large amount 
of low environmental impact research done?. 
Kind Regards 
Gideon Futerman

-- 
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/8cdc5445-2a44-44b8-81b6-b11d13795999n%40googlegroups.com.

[geo] Rolling Stone Solar Geoengineering Debate

[Gideon Futerman]

(10) How Dangerous Is Solar Geoengineering? | The Climate Debates - YouTube

-- 
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/607ad514.1c69fb81.cc48a.0c54SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com.

[geo] News coverage of SCoPEx- The Times

[Gideon Futerman]

Bill Gates backs bid to cool Earth with chalk dust | News | The Times
It is behind a paywall, but nonetheless a discussion of solar geoengineering in 
popular media

-- 
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/605a00de.1c69fb81.dec9a.2420SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com.

[geo] The Potential for Solar Geoengineering to Help Counter Climate Change by Prof David Keith".

[Gideon Futerman]

Online Event 14/03/2021 at 1600 GMT
The Potential for Solar Geoengineering to Help Counter Climate Change Tickets, 
Wed 17 Mar 2021 at 16:00 | Eventbrite

-- 
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/604e6185.1c69fb81.3ce45.a0d4SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com.

[geo] Webinar-Restoration, Technology and Stumbling Blocks

[Gideon Futerman]

Dear All
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L85_bN_BvTg=13s
This is the link to the latest Worldward introductory webinar, really being 
an introduction to the science and technology of carbon removal. Please 
feel free to criticise  it, but bear in mind it is introductory, so I hope 
a good example of public communication of CDR

-- 
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/a272c5be-01a5-4505-9b36-cbd4f2c8e240%40googlegroups.com.

[geo] New Worldward Blog- Why we have a moral duty to carry out climate clean up

[Gideon Futerman]

 

Dear all

Attached is the newest Worldward blog, on why we have a moral duty to carry 
out carbon dioxide removal so we can 'clean up the climate,' and how that 
links to climate justice

https://www.worldward.org/post/why-clean-up-is-our-moral-duty

-- 
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/79fea887-eb5e-4d8d-b167-f43bf9de52f8%40googlegroups.com.

[geo] Climate Restoration and Climate Justice

[Gideon Futerman]

Attached is Worldward's latest blog, on climate restoration and how it is 
essential for climate justice.
Climate restoration is the idea that we must at least aim to try and remove 
as much CO2 as possible from the atmosphere to try and reverse as much 
warming as possible, so is only relevant to those interested in CDR.
Climate justice is explained briefly in the article, but is particularly 
important because it is arguably the guiding principle of the new wave of 
climate activism.
Hope you enjoy the blog.
https://www.worldward.org/post/climate-restoration-is-climate-justice

-- 
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/96b7bb23-9dfd-4754-bf46-c974da05016d%40googlegroups.com.

[geo] Ecosia Blog geoengineering

[Gideon Futerman]

>From the ecosia blog. Ecosia is a search engine that plants trees, and thus 
is getting increasingly popular. As I use ecosia, this just popped up, so I 
assume it would just pop up on others computers as well.
https://blog.ecosia.org/tech-geoengineering-carbon-capture/

-- 
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/6c04ef7c-5d38-48bd-b17e-04cf96e8879b%40googlegroups.com.

[geo] Greenhouse Gas Removal and Civil Society

[Gideon Futerman]

Dear all,
I am helping to organise an international virtual (over zoom) conference about 
civil society and greenhouse gas removal, hearing the voices of civil society, 
informing them and creating discussion. If anyone wants to attend. The sign up 
link is Sign up is at https://forms.gle/n8jyK3WB9P3HwPGj6 and the programme is 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xdFrCXgdKeH_siJLSKFBFNJaG0MpuA69qItnUaTendc/edit?usp=sharing

-- 
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/a6418e0a-213d-42fa-87bc-4561c3313fd7%40googlegroups.com.

[geo] Global Youth Climate Action Declaration

[Gideon Futerman]

Dear All,
Attached is the link to the Global Youth Climate Action Declaration 
released today. Particularly of note for this group are the following 
points:
"Demand the establishment of robust and equitable governance of research and
deployment of solar radiation management;"
Also of note is the entire "Nature Based Solutions" section of the 
document, and the fact that no other carbon removal techniques are 
mentioned in the document except for nature based solutions.
Of course, this document is neither prolific nor binding, however, is an 
indication of how the global youth are feeling about climate action, 
including geoengineering,
The link is 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10oswHod5-fuNskWINBZYyTmsAeJ_wj05/view
Gideon Futerman

-- 
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/d4d21ea2-28de-4b7f-a9e5-6ef656296949%40googlegroups.com.

[geo] Guide for Journalists on SRM

[Gideon Futerman]

Dear All, 
I have just begun creating a ‘guide to SRM’ to send out journalist, with easily 
accessible information from a variety of different viewpoints about the 
science, ethics and governance of SRM. If any of you who are experts would like 
to contribute a section on your specialism, that would be wonderful. This 
section should be anywhere between half a page and a page, in easy, accessible 
English, and of course you will be credited if you desire. 
Also in this guide  I am creating a list of between 15 and 20 ‘certified 
contacts’ each presenting a diverse array of voices on SRM, for journalists to 
contact, so if you would like to be one of those contacts, also please contact 
me. This guide should be finished by mid October, so make sure you contact me 
asap if you want to be involved
Best Wishes,
Gideon Futerman


-- 
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/5d7cccd1.1c69fb81.3b664.8a32SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com.

[geo] Support for Global Youth Climate Strike

[Gideon Futerman]

Just realised I forgot to put the link. Sorry. 
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSf4b6hMPpLf5wiKkmmLCffUpJ0pYFBl0Q7YbvYEM24agJqDjg/viewform?usp=sf_link

-- 
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/90f0c948-157e-4344-b017-9b3e80da5ed4%40googlegroups.com.

[geo] Support for Global Youth Climate Strike

[Gideon Futerman]

Disclaimer: This is not strictly geoengineering related, but I believe this 
is important to send out nonetheless
Dear All,
On the 20th and 27th September, the Fridays for Future Movement(youth 
climate strikers, lead by Greta Thunberg) , alongside many other 
organisations, will be taking part in a global strike for climate. I have 
been asked by the UK Student Climate Network, the organisers of the UK 
climate strikes, to send out this link for scientists and academics working 
on climate related fields (like CDR and SRM) to sign in support of the 
global strike.  The document is for scientists and academics of any 
nationality to sign, and I really hope you can all get behind this 
fantastic cause. The more people they can get to sign this declaration of 
support the better, and it would only take two minutes for any of you to 
fill in the form and sign it, and it would be so helpful to the movement.
Kind Regards,
Gideon Futerman

-- 
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/c4e81ff7-c6a8-418a-9379-71401815c820%40googlegroups.com.

RE: [geo] youth-infographic.pdf

[Gideon Futerman]

Alan, the assertion that ;’if your first message is that mitigation is not 
enough, of course your conclusion is that we need SRM.’ is not necessarily 
true. For example, the CCC in the UK concluded mitigation was not enough for us 
to reach net zero by 2050, and concluded massive carbon removal, and no SRM. 
(the amount of carbon removal they concluded was, of course, questionable, but 
they never concluded SRM) Similarly, almost every scenario in the IPCC 1.5 
report required some degree of carbon rewmoval, be it through ‘nature based 
solutions’ or BECCS. 
‘Enough’ in common discourse since the 1.5 report generally refers to reaching 
no more than 1.5 degrees, and to do that, mitigation alone is not enough. Bear 
in mind the C2G works on both increasing governance and discussions of GGR as 
well as SRM, and in this context, it is more likely this betrays a genuine 
belief we need some sort of GGR than any belief we need SRM.

From: Alan Robock
Sent: 12 September 2019 19:39
To: andrew.lock...@gmail.com; geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] youth-infographic.pdf

But this is all based on a false premise.  It says:

To stop global warming,
we must stop burning
fossil fuels,
as soon as possible.
But scientists tell us
that’s not enough.

This is very misleading.  Enough for what?  Certainly if we stop burning fossil 
fuels, global warming will not stop immediately, but it will stop soon.  And 
Mark Jacobson has plans for shifting the whole world to Sun and wind now, which 
will be enough to avoid the worst impacts of global warming.  So some 
scientists say this, particularly those who are positively biased to SRM 
implementation, and others do not.

If your first message is that mitigation is not enough, of course your 
conclusion is that we need SRM.

Alan

Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
  Associate Editor, Reviews of Geophysics
Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751
Rutgers UniversityE-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
14 College Farm Road   http://people.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock/
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551  USA   ☮ http://twitter.com/AlanRobock  
On Thu, 9/12/19 2:28 PM, Andrew Lockley wrote:
This is potentially a very good resource for people to use in education for 
pre-university children
-- 
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-07Oxr3TcKFHo6WGbcRuo8eK-u9f3HcRjreH5Ki30zVp8A%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
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/d4b42852-c645-4d0c-ea7c-59804fccbc1f%40envsci.rutgers.edu.

-- 
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/5d7a9a0c.1c69fb81.d4b6d.d944SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com.

[geo] Re: Green New Deal For Europe and Geoengineering

[Gideon Futerman]

The email for any suggestions to the report/ critiscms of what it says is  
pawel.war...@gndforeurope.com  and david.ad...@gndforeurope.com . If you 
want to voice your critiscms of what I think is a misrepresentation of 
geoengineering and carbon removal, please contact them, as if enough people 
contact them with suggestions, I am sure they will take some on board

On Monday, 2 September 2019 09:42:53 UTC+1, Gideon Futerman wrote:
>
> Today Green New deal for Europe released their draft report for public 
> consultation, where they speak extensively in Appendix A about 
> geoengineering, both CDR and SRM, essentially rejecting them as part of a 
> possible solution. Interestingly, they have very few citations when 
> discussing SRM, as compared to CDR. This is open for public consultation, 
> and so, if anyone has any critiscms, it may be an idea to submit them to 
> the GND for Europe movement.
>
> https://report.gndforeurope.com/cms/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/GNDE-A-Blueprint-for-Europes-Just-Transition.pdf
>  
> The geoengineering section is on page 64
>

-- 
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/9bb118bc-d763-402a-9f90-719f4786f161%40googlegroups.com.

[geo] Re: Green New Deal For Europe and Geoengineering

[Gideon Futerman]

 tubes in order to reflect sunlight back 
into space. Potential dangers (additional to those common to SRM) include 
ozone depletion.
CLOUD MODIFICATION: BRIGHTENING, THINNING, INCREASING COVER
Scientists have found ways to alter clouds to deflect or absorb sunlight. 
One way is to brighten the white, billowy marine clouds by increasing cloud 
condensation nuclei by shooting or spraying salt or salty seawater into the 
clouds. Another is to thin out cirrus clouds, which absorb more sunlight 
than they reflect. But the consequences are unpredictable and could produce 
drought or floods, or even the opposite effect (heating).
SURFACE ALBEDO MODIFICATION
Proposals include genetically engineering crops with reflective leaves and 
“whiting out” the earth’s surface by covering the deserts with white 
polyethylene sheets, painting roofs, pavements and mountaintops white, 
covering Arctic ice with a thin film, and clearing boreal forests to 
increase reflectivity. All entail significant risks for the environment and 
biodiversity.
SPACE SUNSHADES
Involves the launching of trillions of tiny spacecraft over the planet to 
create an artificial cloud. Could in theory divert 10% of sunlight back 
into space. The technology involved is daunting.
SPACE MIRRORS
Space mirrors positioned in exactly the right place could reflect 1-2% of 
sunlight back into space. But computer models suggest mixed results215 the 
technology is prohibitively expensive and, so far, also impossible.
64 GND for Europe
DRAWBACKS
Each of these options has its own specific problems, but all share the 
following drawbacks and implications:216
• All are end-of-pipe approaches, aiming to reduce GHG levels in the 
atmosphere without reducing GHG emissions. Their promoters maintain they do 
not preclude urgent climate action. In reality they create a false sense of 
security, providing a convenient escape for climate deniers and governments 
seeking to avoid the political costs of actual emissions reduction. Stepped 
up research and development on geoengineering is diverting resources and 
funding away from real solutions. It is delaying the transition to a carbon 
free economy and being used to justify eased restrictions on high polluting 
industries. Further entrenchment of polluting industries combined with the 
new techno-fixes could have us permanently locked into a geoengineered 
world with continuing GHG emissions. This unrealistic attempt to “buy time” 
has been described as intergenerational injustice217 because future 
generations will have to deal with the consequences, as captives of 
geoengineering and victims of an even harsher climate. • Each of these 
techniques would have to be deployed on a massive scale to have an impact 
on global climate. Other unintended impacts could also be massive and will 
necessarily transcend national boundaries. • Geoengineering plays with 
poorly understood and complex nonlinear dynamical systems. There are 
countless risks and uncertainties due to incomplete knowledge and data, 
mechanical failure, human error, changes in political and financial 
circumstances, and increase in unpredictable natural phenomena (volcanic 
activity, earthquakes, tsunamis etc.). • All climate engineering options 
have many potential negative environmental impacts ranging from depletion 
of biodiversity, soil and 
water to disturbing the entire planet’s ecological balance by blocking 
sunlight. • Because of the scale required and the nature of geoengineering 
technologies, their application and its impacts on ecosystems and people 
are likely to be irreversible. • The powerful countries and corporations 
primarily responsible for current and historical GHG emissions are the main 
investors in geoengineering and related intellectual property. While these 
powers dominate international climate politics, the majority of impacts of 
geoengineering will be experienced in the Global South. When the creators 
of the problem are managing the solution, the interests of the less 
powerful are likely to be ignored. • Geoengineers are applying for and 
being awarded patents for the technology, and some are pushing to include 
geoengineering options in carbon trading schemes - leading to the 
horrifying prospect of private monopoly rights on modifying the climate. • 
Geoengineering technology evolved from weather manipulation techniques like 
cloud seeding operations in the Vietnam war, which led to the ENMOD treaty 
prohibiting the hostile use of weather manipulation - but this has remained 
on the defence agenda of the US and other countries for decades.218 • 
Deployment of geoengineering violates UN treaties and rulings like ENMOD, 
the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the London 
Convention/Protocol.


On Monday, 2 September 2019 09:42:53 UTC+1, Gideon Futerman wrote:
>
> Today Green New deal for Europe released their draft report for public 
> consultation, where they speak extensively in Appendix A about 
> geoengin

[geo] Green New Deal For Europe and Geoengineering

[Gideon Futerman]

Today Green New deal for Europe released their draft report for public 
consultation, where they speak extensively in Appendix A about 
geoengineering, both CDR and SRM, essentially rejecting them as part of a 
possible solution. Interestingly, they have very few citations when 
discussing SRM, as compared to CDR. This is open for public consultation, 
and so, if anyone has any critiscms, it may be an idea to submit them to 
the GND for Europe movement.
https://report.gndforeurope.com/cms/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/GNDE-A-Blueprint-for-Europes-Just-Transition.pdf
 
The geoengineering section is on page 64

-- 
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/3aad5e70-3b0b-4138-a03c-8be306181daa%40googlegroups.com.

[geo] Re: Academics statements on SRM

[Gideon Futerman]

This is for a project I am doing for my organisation (worldward) mapping 
out the positions of different prominent academics on SRM, as well as the 
positions of political parties, politicians, journalists, media outlets and 
more on SRM, so I can use it as a blueprint for action

On Saturday, 31 August 2019 11:56:58 UTC+1, Gideon Futerman wrote:
>
> Anyone know of statements by prominent and/or famous scientists and other 
> academics about SRM? This can include statements in speeches, official 
> statements, twitter and social media posts, things they have said on the 
> news, or anything they have said in conversation with you.
>

-- 
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/31ffbe28-2553-46ea-9c58-3c3775d97c16%40googlegroups.com.

[geo] Academics statements on SRM

[Gideon Futerman]

Anyone know of statements by prominent and/or famous scientists and other 
academics about SRM? This can include statements in speeches, official 
statements, twitter and social media posts, things they have said on the 
news, or anything they have said in conversation with you.

-- 
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/3c5907a6-51ac-4812-a1a8-8087406b46b7%40googlegroups.com.

[geo] Intergovernmental conferences

[Gideon Futerman]

Thoughts on which intergovernmental conference it may be best for a 
government to bring up SRM research and governance and CDR research, 
governance, cooperation and incentivisation. I am looking to put together a 
letter to Claire Perry (UK minister for energy and clean growth) so I was 
just wondering. Would COP this year be appropriate, or should this wait 
until UNEA 5 for example?

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/63bb10b6-5474-4d95-a767-f1d96706dd8e%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Royal Institution Event tonight

[Gideon Futerman]

FYI
https://www.rigb.org/whats-on/events-2019/july/public-can-we-repair-our-climate

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/bc324a8c-915b-43ad-85d9-313be47b1d89%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Overview of the state of play of SRM

[Gideon Futerman]

Hi All,
I am about to undertake a project to essentially create an overview of the 
state of play of SRM, particularly, although not exclusively, in the UK. 
This is not an overview of the science of SRM, but of the policies of major 
organisations. If any of you could be of any help in giving the information 
below, that would be wonderful, and if anyone wants to be part of this 
project and helping to research specific areas, please feel free to contact 
us. I will post the overview as we are building it on this group. we are 
looking for:

   - The policies or positions of major political parties, particularly on 
   a UK or European Level
   - Any political actor with moderate interest in SRM
   - The policies of major environmental NGOs 
   - The policies of other important civil society groups
   - the position of influential scientists 
   - The position of important scientific institutions on SRM research
   - Any examples of public education tools e.g. TV or museums, presenting 
   SRM, and the policy of these organisations towards discussing SRM
   - Positions of specific journalists on SRM
   - Positions of energy companies on SRM
   - Any military position, statement, research or interest in SRM
   - Position of major professional organisations that may be stakeholders 
   in research and deployment of SRM e.g. engineering bodies, climatology 
   bodies etc.
   - All major governance initiatives or ideas and their successes, 
   failures and difficulties thus far e.g. the Oxford Principles
   - Information about UNEA in Nairobi this year, and the people important 
   in those specific discussions
   - The individuals that drive the conversation around SRM
   - Organisations specifically or substantially concerned with SRM, their 
   positions, funding levels, and amount of influenc

Thanks anyone who wants to contribute by giving any information they 
(especially if anyone can point me towards this being done before) or would 
like to help us research,
Best Wishes,
Gideon

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/c0c651d5-7096-49f0-abfa-56d5cbc3de70%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] UK Political Party Positions on SRM

[Gideon Futerman]

Dear All,
Does anyone have informatiopn on the positions of the major UK political 
parties (Conservative, Labour, LibDems, Greens, DUP, SNP, Plaid, ChangeUK, 
Brexit Party)- I already have Conservatives and Greens- on SRM, as I am 
struggling to find them. Moreover, does anyone have the names of any MPs or 
Lords who have taken an interest in SRM at any point in the past?
Thanks,
Gideon Futerman

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/8499a1a2-e24c-4619-826e-078e1e3504d6%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Re: Geoengineering Research and Governance 'Manifesto'

[Gideon Futerman]

Dear All,
I have recieved a number of ideas related to this first draft of an SRM 
manifesto, and I thank you all very much. During the week of the 27th May I 
will be organising a Zoom call with anyone who wants to join to discuss and 
finalise this manifesto. If anyone at all would be interested in being part 
of this, please email me, and we will organise the time to suit as many 
participants as possible. Participating doesn't mean that you have to sign 
the manifesto, but allows you to influence what is in it,
Best Wishes,
Gideon Futerman

On Tuesday, 23 April 2019 20:39:43 UTC+1, Gideon Futerman wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> I have formulated a first draft on this manifesto, and was wondering if 
> anyone had any thoughts and suggestions. I am trying to keep the process of 
> forming the manifesto as open as possible to allow for as many diverse 
> contributions as possible, and hopefully as many people signing as 
> possible. A suggestion does not mean an endorsement, and it doesn't mean 
> you will be mentioned as supporting the manifesto in the finished document.
> This is a way of us presenting a moderate and research driven approach to 
> SRM in a public way, and allow the message of many, which is support of 
> research and governance of SRM, to clearly go public, to counter the voices 
> already in the public sphere either calling for all SRM research to be 
> banned or the perception that there are many calling for its immediate 
> implementation. It is in a word document to allow for ease of access and 
> comment.
> Kind Regards,
> Gideon 
>
> On Saturday, 16 March 2019 17:17:38 UTC, gfut...@worldward.org wrote:
>>
>> Hi All,
>> My name is Gideon Futerman, President of Worldward, and organisation 
>> trying to promote research and governance with the possibility of 
>> deployment of CDR and SRM technologies,
>> For those who are supportive of increasing research and governance into 
>> geoengineering, as well as keeping the possibility open for deployment, 
>> would any of you be supportive of us forming a collective manifesto of 
>> broadly held beliefs and potential policies, so we can speak with more of a 
>> coherent and united voice. Something to essentially counter the Hands Off 
>> Mother Earth Manifesto that  the ETC group support, which is attached,
>> Kind Regards,
>> Gideon
>>
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/6db58ee0-badc-4c75-8547-99a9f73f13ca%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Re: Parliamentary Questions and Answers

[Gideon Futerman]

Hi Andrew, 
Could you link me to the research that suggests that? (I know it exists, 
but I don't know which papers to cite in a question)

On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 11:28:28 UTC+1, Andrew Lockley wrote:
>
> The winners and losers argument does not fit with the available evidence. 
> There are plenty of papers now, which either show a net benefit for all or 
> almost all regions , or propose regimes which are sufficiently modest that 
> they have no net loss of utility for any region
>
> As far as I understand, the UK Beccs demonstrator projects do not actually 
> complete the CCS stage . it would be good to see this all linked up
>
> On Wed, 1 May 2019, 00:04 , > wrote:
>
>> Here are the questions and the given answers. If anyone would like to 
>> help me formulate some more questions to challenge the UK government's 
>> policy on SRM or GGR, that would be appreciated (Thanks Stephen for your 
>> suggestion)
>> Q)To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have, if any, to 
>> promote improved global cooperation and governance of research and use of 
>> greenhouse gas removal and solar radiation management technologies. 
>> A)
>>
>> The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change provides a mechanism for 
>> global cooperation to assess research into Greenhouse Gas Removal 
>> technologies (GGRs) and Solar Radiation Management (SRM). These 
>> technologies are included in the scope of the upcoming 6th Assessment 
>> Report, due for publication in 2021.
>>
>> The UK is a leading member of a number of multi-lateral initiatives 
>> focused on accelerating progress, and improving global cooperation, of 
>> Carbon Capture, Use and Storage (CCUS) which is an important enabler of 
>> some GGRs. This includes the UK co-leading the Carbon Capture Challenge 
>> under Mission Innovation and the CCUS Initiative under the Clean Energy 
>> Ministerial. The UK also co-hosted, with the International Energy Agency, a 
>> Global CCUS Summit in Edinburgh last November bringing together senior 
>> energy leaders from governments and industry on how to accelerate global 
>> progress on CCUS.
>>
>> As a leading provider of International Climate Finance, the UK supports 
>> developing countries to restore degraded forest landscapes to support local 
>> livelihoods and restore carbon stocks as part of their contributions under 
>> the Paris Agreement.
>>
>> We have no plans to increase global cooperation and governance of 
>> research on and use of SRM technologies. A resolution on SRM governance 
>> was recently put before the UN Environment Assembly by Switzerland, but did 
>> not gather enough support from other countries, and the resolution was 
>> withdrawn.
>>
>>
>> Q)To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made, if 
>> any, of the risks and benefits of solar radiation management technology; 
>> and what plans they have, if any, to increase funding of research into that 
>> technology. 
>>
>> A)
>>
>> The Government is continually monitoring the evidence base relating to 
>> Solar Radiation Management technologies (SRM). As set out in our public 
>> position statement on geo-engineering, our view is that SRM would 
>> produce changes in rainfall patterns and amounts. This would be likely to 
>> lead to winners and losers, with some regions suffering detrimental impacts.
>>
>> The Government is not commissioning further research into SRM, but the 
>> World Climate Research Programme’s (WCRP’s) Geoengineering Model 
>> Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP), is investigating the effects which SRM 
>> would have on the climate.
>>
>>
>> Q) To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made, if 
>> any, of the recommendation in the report by the Royal Society and Royal 
>> Academy of Engineering Greenhouse gas removal, published in September 2018, 
>> to incentivise demonstrators and early stage deployment to enable 
>> development of greenhouse gas removal methods. 
>>
>> A)
>>
>> We agree with the need for further research, development and 
>> demonstration of early-stage greenhouse gas removal methods, as well as the 
>> need to look how best to incentivise responsible deployment. The Department 
>> is addressing these recommendations by conducting a more detailed study of 
>> different policy options for incentivising removals, and through 
>> constructive discussions with the UK Research & Innovation (UKRI) about the 
>> possibility of new research funding for demonstrators in the near future.
>>
>> BEIS is co-funding an £8.6 million GGR research programme with UK 
>> Research & Innovation (UKRI) which will continue until 2021. In addition, 
>> projects for some GGR approaches are in scope for both our £20 million 
>> Carbon Capture and Utilisation Demonstration (CCUD) Programme and £24 
>> million Call for Carbon Capture, Usage and Storage (CCUS) Innovation. The 
>> details of these successful CCUS and CCUD projects will be announced in due 
>> course.
>>
>>
>> Q)To ask Her Majesty's Government