Re: [geo] The influence of learning about (CDR) on support for mitigation policies

Hi Greg , Just for a moment of truth- free of moral hazards and climate change politics 1 Emissions reductions through capturing and storing CO2 cannot solve the climate problem alone (and cost too much ) 2 CDR can solve the problem alone -it is just more difficult without emissions reductions 3

Re: [geo] The influence of learning about (CDR) on support for mitigation policies

As written yesterday in another post by Phil Williamson (Science Coordinator: UK GGR programme), the UK recently-started a *Greenhouse Gas Removal *research programme (http://www.nerc.ac.uk/researc h/funded/programmes/ggr/). Hopefully in the *sixth IPCC report*, they will state that to stay

Re: [geo] The influence of learning about (CDR) on support for mitigation policies

Thanks, Peter.  Just to amplify, the IPCC states that to stay below 2degC warming and esp below 1.5degC warming, both emissions reduction and CDR are required, not either/or.  So how about the concept that emissions reduction presents a "moral hazard" to (required) CDR development? In any case,

[geo] Some good news? Arctic hydrates relatively insensitive to warming

Although this is not directly related, I know that release of arctic floor hydrates has been discussed before on this list. This recent Nature report might assuage your anxiety. (At least in the short-term.) https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15745 Summary:

[geo] Can Seaweed Save the World? Australian Television Program

  Can Seaweed Save the World?   Thisprogram aired on Tuesday, 22 August 2017 on the ABC Catalyst ScienceShow.  It can be viewed at http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/4722454.htm  Transcript Downloadvideo: mp4 | Watchon iview   ABC Summary: “ProfessorTim Flannery investigates how seaweed

Re: [geo] The influence of learning about (CDR) on support for mitigation policies

This line of reasoning is logically flawed and is one of the best examples of how the role of CDR is misunderstood and distorted by others who have an anti technology orientation that pervaded the original environmental movement. It is logically flawed because it is normal for people to react to

[geo] The influence of learning about (CDR) on support for mitigation policies

Poster's note: I'm working in this field, and the divide between liberals and conservatives is discussed in my paper. journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1461452916659830 Climatic Change August 2017, Volume 143, Issue 3–4

[geo] The road to achieving the long-term Paris targets: energy transition and the role of DAC

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-017-2051-8 Climatic Change pp 1–13 The road to achieving the long-term Paris targets: energy transition and the role of direct air capture - Authors

Re: [geo] It’s time to start talking about “negative” carbon dioxide emissions

Dr. Pasztor et al., I would like to recommend that the SDGs be the actual central pivot point of any global carbon negative initiative, not just a yard stick. SDG 14, as an example, calls for protection of the marine space and that same space is our easiest source for pulling gigaton levels of

[geo] Developement of a scoring system able to perform an independent and honest CE method comparison

Dear Geoengineering group, This post is to complete what Dr. Schuiling (mineral carbonation) and Dr. Salter (SRM by marine cloud brightening) said, and also to complete several previous remarks made by Dr. Rau saying that we can’t talk of CDR, ignoring ocean-based and/or abiotic negative