An inconvenient truth on when it might make sense for intervention to begin is
that as long as other people keep digging carbon out of ground, others will be
unwilling to pay for its extraction from the air. This is what I see as the
ultimate political challenge as people wanting to do it will
Mike & List,
Going with the most well known is understandable. Yet SAI is actually, from
a Polar perspective, not any more well known than Hydroxyl Cryogenesis
Geotherapy or Global Electrical Circuit Enhancement.
Polar modeling is a separate art.
Michael Hayes
On Nov 7, 2017 6:01 PM,
Hi Peter--I'm all for DAC and hoe you can scale up and do it as you
suggest, but to limit impacts, we should not let the temperature go
above 1.5 C and should be aiming to pull it down to less than 0.5 C, and
I agree therefore that CDR is absolutely essential. I know nothing on
pricing and
Hi Michael--I am all for doing all the CDR one can do as well--and if it
can be enough to keep the temperature near constant so SRM can be
avoided, that would be fine. I am just not convinced there will be
enough of a commitment to accomplish this, and so think that need SRM,
and that we just
Hi Doug--On the issue of seeking US Govt funding for research, I've also
been concerned about pushing SRM research before the US Govt (including
Congress) has committed to real emissions cutbacks. We were at least
close to that point with Obama Admin, but not with the current
situation, so I
I believe the winner take all perspective is highly flawed and is a major
contributor why those of us who share the concern for the climate risk
are not being effective in making our case. The winner take all lanquage is
appropriate for academic and commercial efforts but not for a Manhatten
Mike,
Well said and reasonable. Yet we seem to be drawn to a winner takes all
type of strategy. If stratospheric injection presents unknowns, as all
large scale actions will, and time is of the essence, why not field as many
a plausible to filter out, and or adjust, as many as possible.
There
My personal view is that mitigation is inevitable, and driven by basic
economics. The basic R may have benefitted from political support - but
that period is largely over. I think inexorable mitigation will confound
expectations just as stubborn emissions previously have.
The question of when,
Hi Mike,
I agree that the situation is far from black and white. Ultimately it's a bit
of a judgment call, weighing the risks of what we don't know about solar geo
against what we don't know about climate change, and more importantly perhaps,
what we don't know about how people will behave
