Re: [geo] "UN Convention still says “No” to manipulating the climate"

Hi Doug and others, I think the original difference of opinion was over Jesse's statement in a previous e-mail that "the most significant aspect of this is an endorsement of geoengineering research. The full text is below, with the research endorsement bolded." The point was simply that it

Re: [geo] "UN Convention still says “No” to manipulating the climate"

Fred and list and ccs See more below. > On Dec 16, 2016, at 8:22 PM, Fred Zimmerman > wrote: > > Tens of thousands is a lot. Sounds like a perfect time to create a global > database. [RWL1: Agreed. > > Maybe we can get the US Department of

Re: [geo] Speculative promise as a driver in climate engineering research

Mieke,Thank you for your opinion, shared by some very powerful people indeed, that geoengineering (including CDR?) is  “undesirable, ungovernable and unattainable”.  You might be right, but under the circumstances it would seem important to prove these points in the event that the better

RE: [geo] "UN Convention still says “No” to manipulating the climate"

Agree that it isn’t a blanket endorsement, but I’m not sure what disagreement there is; the only geoengineering research that doesn’t help understand biodiversity impacts would be research into the hardware needed for deployment. Everything else that I can think of would ultimately be needed