Re: [geo] Re: Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in geoengineering

Jonathan, cc List On this list, we have pretty much stayed away from CCS - not considered to be part of geoengineering - or what Andrew wrote about. Can you expand on your own research to the “Geo” area - perhaps specifically to BECCS? I’m particularly interested in who is lying

Re: [geo] Re: Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in geoengineering

For what it is worth I've just had a paper published on CCS in Australia which pretty much agrees with Andrew's argument. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516302750​ It basically seemed to allow various governments and the coal industry to defend the status quo. This

Re: [geo] Re: Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in geoengineering

Andrew, list and ccs OK - I see where you are coming from. I agree that the Paris Agreement did not go far enough. I agree with your final sentence - mitigation is nowhere as aggressive as is deserved. But I can’t agree that too much reliance on CDR, and especially biochar, was the

Re: [geo] Re: Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in geoengineering

Ronal You need only look at the Paris Agreement for the ultimate example of prevarication. CDR is being used as "magical thinking" (not my words) to avoid near term mitigation. I think we can both agree that mitigation is limited, at best. A On 21 Sep 2016 17:17, "Ronal W. Larson"

Re: [geo] Re: Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in geoengineering

Andrew, list and ccs The word “prevaricate” is strong - and I have not observed any lie within the biochar or any other CDR community. Biochar practitioners and entrepreneurs are focussed on fixing a huge soil problem - that just happens to work, without conflict, for excess

Re: [geo] Sequestering Carbon Using Mass Quantities Of Small Scale Supertorrefaction Systems

First, a nit about terminology: there seems to be an evolving tendency to blur "torrefaction" and "pyrolysis". My original understanding of "torrefaction" was as a very mild form of pyrolysis, specific to biomass, which drove off all moisture but only just began thermal decomposition that leads to

Re: [geo] Re: Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in geoengineering

Ronal What I'm saying is that CDR is being used to prevaricate on mitigation. That's simply an observation. I'm not speculating as to the specific motivations. Without the promise of CDR, we'd either have to accept our fate (2+C), or actually DO something. A On 21 Sep 2016 09:47, "Ronal W.

Re: [geo] Re: Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in geoengineering

Andrew, cc Michael and List: (adding Professor Coffman, as a courtesy) 1. Two questions: a. Could you expand on your below phrase ”This has kicked mitigation into the long grass.”It is not clear to me whether this is a pro-CDR or con-CDR statement. For me, biochar is a

[geo] Call for Proposals: Environmental Justice in the Anthropocene Symposium

http://scorai.org/news/call-for-proposals-environmental-justice-in-the-anthropocene-symposium/ Call for Proposals: Environmental Justice in the Anthropocene Symposium Posted on September 18, 2016 Dimitris Stevis shared the following call for proposals on ourmailing list. Symposium, 24-25 April

Re: [geo] Re: Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in geoengineering

Michael The influence of CDR technology is plain. It underpins the Paris Agreement. This has kicked mitigation into the long grass. We will, pending CDR, be allowed to eat too much meat, waste too much food, use inefficient cars, and have poorly insulated buildings and homes. We will move goods

[geo] Re: Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in geoengineering

Critique: Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in geoengineering *Abstract:* In the introduction to the paper ‘Distinguishing morale hazard from moral