I understand the conceptual and tactical reasons Ken cites for
dropping talk of a geoengineering research program, but Eugene is on
to something with his stinkweed analogy. Fairly or unfairly,
disaggregating geoengineering into more conventional research
categories will be viewed by many as an
This paper presents a Russian project to model permafrost decomposition and
consequential methane excursions. It concludes a small consequential change
in global temperature, in contrast to schaeffer's recent paper.
http://ifaran.ru/old/lesha/pdfs/referred/EliseevEtAl2008_FAO2.eng.pdf
It is of
Ken; List and 2 ccs
This is to concur in toto with your several messages below in this thread.
However, I think this list serves a valuable function and should continue. But,
if continued, I think it would be wise to split it into separate SRM and CDR
components. I personally would want to be
As I recall, DOE justified the genome work as creating tools that could be used
to develop new versions of Bioenergy crops.
I would think NASA would have SRM research within it's remit and USDA has
biomass carbon sequestration in its remit.
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 5, 2011, at 7:38 PM, Ken
Right, so you have to sell it to congress (presumably not this congress).
Consider whether such a push wouldn't be more successful if you bring all of
the geoeng topics together and push one package. Atmospheric remediation
(including CDR) and SRM complement each other in terms of apparent
Hi Ken,
It seems your inspiration in this is largely a defensive one. In
essence you’re suggesting that organized objection to geoengineering
will be too great an impediment, and that if there’s this pejorative
connotation that’s grown around “geoengineering,” then let’s get the
needed research
