Dear Ken [and list],
Although I generally support your position regarding testing, and although I
consider a policy linkage between SRM and emissions abatement to be wise in the
abstract, I find the linkage to be problematic in reality.
First, the intent (in your words, to 'limit deployment of
Ken
As always (I am a stuck record on this, for those old enough to remember
stuck records) surely it depends on the weasel word we
Imagine a world in which
*Bad Stuff, maybe Very Bad Stuff, is happening
*Research, including some field research, strongly suggests that sunshine
geoengineering
On Thursday, September 12, 2013 1:21:47 AM UTC-4, Greg Rau wrote:
*snip*
If we are indeed incapable of rationally controlling CO2 emissions, then,
very sadly, looking for viable alternative strategies also appears to be
too much to expect. We're indeed doomed.
*Greg, I don't accept
Coupling SRM policies with emissions abatement policies is probably the
only way SRM would be politically feasible anyway. This came up a few
times at the Harvard summer school as well.
From a US standpoint, different hard-to-tackle issues are often linked in
politics, as we get reminded every
We're talking about coupling SRM deployment to an extreme level of
emissions mitigation achieved very rapidly--like some others here I think
that is laudable in principle but effectively impossible to accomplish in
practice. But we're also overlooking the much discussed possibility of
linking
Well, here's a counter argument. Demolish this:
1. SRM is safer than no SRM, with any fixed, near-BAU emissions trajectory.
2a. There is no proven causal link between SRM and emissions trajectory.
or
2b. There is no evidence of any emissions trajectory, other than BAU
Therefore SRM should be
Andrew, comments in bold:
1. SRM is safer than no SRM, with any fixed, near-BAU emissions trajectory.An
unproven pure assertion about a technology which is still effectively
imaginary. In addition to minimization of first-order physical risks, safety
claim does not include misguided or
To quote the image caption:
Capturing and storing carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases deep
underground is one of the most promising options for reducing the effects of
energy production on the earth. Scientists at PNNL are using electron
microscopes to understand the reaction of CO2
I thought listers who are interested in carbon capture might appreciate
this micrograph of trapped CO2. Might be useful for your slides...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pnnl/8146324880/in/photostream/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
geoengineering
I think that what Ken is proposing is less a policy than a principle around
which to organize policies. There's been much talk of metaphors and framing
and this sounds like the kernel of, well, a slogan. Which might sound
condescending, but is not; these are the building blocks to political
Dear Tom and Ken:
Why don't you two join forces. Tom, you could apply Ken's approach using
your projections to see under what circumstances it might work.
Alternatively, one could use the GEA projections for the same purpose.
The best,
Bill
On 9/11/13 10:14 PM, Tom Wigley wig...@ucar.edu wrote:
And just to add some perspective, EIA now estimates that CO2 emission in 2040
will be 45 GT CO2/yr relative to 31 GT/yr in 2010*. So assumming a mean
emissions rate during that period of 38 GT/yr and multiplying by 30 years
yields a cummulative emissions of 1100 GT CO2. The Davis/Caldeira
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/08/19/russian-meteor-explosion-atmosphere/
--
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
13 matches
Mail list logo
