I strongly agree.
If we fall into the trap of a viewing this situation as a false dichotomy,
then we're making it much worse and dramatically reducing our chances of
dealing with it as optimally as is still possible, given the current carbon
content of the atmosphere, our infrastructure, etc.
I wonder if this emerging preparedness/adaptation consensus is not an
alternative to geoengineering but an incremental step toward it.
Governments are quantifying their expected costs, which they will
eventually weigh against the costs of, for example, high-latitude SRM.
Assuming (and I
[geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on
behalf of Mike MacCracken [mmacc...@comcast.net]
Sent: 17 June 2013 19:27
To: gh...@sbcglobal.net; bstah...@gmail.com; Geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Climate talk shifts from curbing CO2 to adapting
Hi Greg—I share all your concerns.
I would just note that to fit
Hi Greg‹Back some years ago, F Scott Fitzgerald wrote in The Crack-Up (
1936), The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two
opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to
function. One might think that we could be considering both mitigation and
Guess it's official: Plan A (= emissions reductions) has failed. So we're
jumping directly to Plan C ( = survival mode). Apparently the messaging about
Plan B (= SRM and CDR) never got through, or someone's decided we're not going
there(?) Best of luck to future generations. Some of us tried
Note that the President's science advisers have chosen to use the word
preparedness rather than adaptation.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_energy_and_climate_3-22-13_final.pdf
You have no choice but to adapt, but you can choose to prepare.
While you're
