Poster's comment: The Freakonomics GE chapter was one of the more
influential pop sci essays on GE in recent years. Personally, I think that
geoengineering researchers should stay well away from any perceived
alliance with the freakonomics brand, as it represents the worst excesses
of the
Matt,
My concern is not chiefly for what was said in the piece, but for what
was not said, and for its context. Geoengineering has been associated
with a right-wing edge, particularly in the US, who consider it as an
alternative to mitigation. Freakonomics focussed on economic
tradeoffs, and
Andrew - I thought the piece was quite balanced.I don't think anyone could
suggest I've not been clear about mitigation being the right thing to do. I
guess I'd be keen to know which bits you really didn't like and why? A very
close draft has been on my blog for a week without objection - is it
Is it possible that someone might be doing geoengineering, and we would not
even know it?
In Alan Robock's paper *Will Geoengineering [with SRM] Ever Be Used*,
posted to the list yesterday, he says rather dramatically:
*Even suggestions of temporary geoengineering to relieve the most
dangerous
As for the potential size of the tweaked fluxes, that would of course benefit
from further RD. But speaking for enhanced mineral weathering angles,
potentially all of anthro CO2 could be mitigated this way because if we do
nothing this is the mechanism that will do the job over geologic
Greg:
Thanks for the additional information. On the AMEG and Biochar-policy lists
there has been quite a bit of discussion on combining olivine dust with
biochar. The economics of olivine seem quite competitive if the transportation
distance is not too large - but this is not my area .
I
