[geo] Snowpiercer TV Series Has a Mystery | Screen Rant

[Andrew Lockley]

Poster's note : the original film featured climate engineering, alongside
perpetual motion machines and other implausible hokum. It seemed
conceptually similar to "High Rise" - a modern classic novel, and recently
a film.

http://screenrant.com/snowpiercer-season-1-ongoing-mystery/

Snowpiercer Season 1 Will Feature An ‘Ongoing Mystery’

   - By Mansoor Mithaiwala 
   -
   - 3 hours ago
   - 2 Comments
   

[image: Snowpiercer 2013 Chris Evans Jamie Bell]

SHAREON FACEBOOK

The *Snowpiercer*  TV series will
have an ongoing mystery throughout its first season. In 2014, Bong
Joon-ho’s acclaimed movie, *Snowpiercer*, which starred Chris Evans and
Tilda Swinton, released, thus marking the South Korean director’s first
English-language movie. It’s worth noting that the movie was originally
scheduled to release in the United States in 2013, a year after The
Weinstein Company acquired the movie’s domestic distribution rights.
However, the studio’s chief wanted certain scenes edited with various other
things added into the film, which Joon-ho expressly rejected. So, it took
some time before the film managed to release domestically.

Upon its release, *Snowpiercer* received overwhelming critical acclaim
, and although it didn’t break
box office records, its global take, $86.7 million, was enough to qualify
the film as a success. The movie — which was based on the French graphic
novel *Le Transperceneige* by Jacques Lob, Benjamin Legrand, and Jean-Marc
Rochette — briefly explained why everyone was on that train, though the
main story unfolded over the course of mere hours. The upcoming TV series
will take a different approach and focus on things other than the
revolution from the movie.

TNT initially began working on a *Snowpiercer* series back in 2015
, and things
are now finally starting to come together. During TNT’s summer TCA
presentation today, network president Kevin Reilly revealed (via *IGN*
)
that the *Snowpiercer* TV series will resemble a “*space ship show*” and
will feature an “ongoing mystery” that will unfold throughout its first
season.
[image: snowpiercer tv show Snowpiercer Season 1 Will Feature An Ongoing
Mystery]

“[Snowpiercer] will have an epic feel because it is a heightened,
larger-than-life concept. But it is really an internal potboiler of
character dynamics and there will be an ongoing mystery to the first
season. Jennifer Connelly, who has really made her mark for choosing great
character roles, wouldn’t have just come here [joined the show] if it was
just a crash bang-em-up. It was because the characters are really, really
vibrant, that Josh Friedman created for the series.”

*Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles*creator Josh Friedman will serve
as showrunner throughout the show’s first season, along with Joon-ho
executive producing and *Doctor Strange*
 director Scott Derrickson both
executive producing and directing the pilot episode
. Although not
much is known about the overall direction of the series, we do know that
the show takes place seven years after the climate engineering experiment
accidentally caused the world to freeze over.

Jennifer Connelly joined the cast earlier this year as Melanie Cavill
, one of
the First Class passengers who also acts as the Voice of the Train.
Additionally, the series also stars the likes of Daveed Diggs, Alison Wright
, and
Mickey Sumner. There’s no word on when the series will premiere, though,
with the network adding multiple people to the cast and already promoting
the show at industry events, it’s not far-fetched to think that the
*Snowpiercer* pilot should premiere within the next year.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] More on Climeworks

[Hawkins, Dave]

Chris Fields' quote about liposuction is apt but it is not a critique of 
liposuction.  Rather, it is a critique of eating huge amounts of dessert with 
no commensurate effort to burn off the calories.

It is absolutely correct to argue that we must not weaken efforts to cut 
emissions based on the hope of some future systems that might remove CO2 in 
meaningful quantities.  But that is not an argument against efforts to develop 
such systems while we take stronger steps to cut emissions.

David



From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Greg Rau 
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2017 2:22 PM
To: Geoengineering
Subject: [geo] More on Climeworks

via Roger Streit:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-geoengineering-idUSKBN1AB0J3

Some interesting factoids:

"...Climeworks began to suck greenhouse gases from thin air in May with giant 
fans and filters in a $23 million project that it calls the world's first 
"commercial carbon dioxide capture plant""

"Climeworks reckons it now costs about $600 to extract a tonne of carbon 
dioxide from the air and the plant's full capacity due by the end of 2017 is 
only 900 tonnes a year. That's equivalent to the annual emissions of only 45 
Americans."

>From the Climeworks website: "The majority of the energy required to run the 
>direct air capture plant comes from low-grade/waste heat." But what source of 
>electricity is powering the fans? If grid electricity then the C footprint 
>must be subtracted from the CO2 captured.  How much?  Also the CO2 is used to 
>grow food/plants, so the storage lifetime is <1yr. So is this a CDR scheme or 
>a CO2 emissions reduction scheme (by avoiding fossil-derived CO2 use)?

900 tonnes of CO2 extracted/yr: Assuming that a growing forest consumes and 
stores  5 tonnes CO2 yr^-1ha^-1, Climeworks is consuming CO2 at a rate 
equivalent to that of 180 hectares of forest. Cost/benefit/tradeoffs?

Greg


""Relying on big future deployments of carbon removal technologies is like 
eating lots of dessert today, with great hopes for liposuction tomorrow," 
Christopher Field, a Stanford University professor of climate change, wrote in 
May."

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] More on Climeworks

[Klaus Lackner]

Look it from the other end.  A first of a kind machine collects CO2 at $600 per 
ton.  Compared to the first solar panel this is a steal.   It has a much 
smaller footprint than a forest with the same CO2 collection capacity.  And 
presumably it will get better over time. This is not a CDR scheme, this is a 
scheme to provide CO2 to a greenhouse.  Later, when the price comes down you 
can attach it to a CDR scheme.   I have seen algae growers pay more than $600 
per ton of CO2 to have it delivered in a tanker truck.

So this is a first starting point to show that you can collect CO2 from the air 
at a cost which is one-order-of magnitude higher than what makes commercial 
sense.  Most first of a kind do that.  This cost is not much different than 
what it costs the flue gas scrubbers on a first try.  Now we have a baseline 
from which to make things better.

Klaus

PS There are ways to eliminate the fans (and their energy consumption), there 
are ways of reducing the heat demand.  So let’s see how to make it better, 
rather than trying to strangle the technology in the cradle

From:  on behalf of Greg Rau 

Reply-To: Greg Rau 
Date: Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 11:23 AM
To: Geoengineering 
Subject: [geo] More on Climeworks

via Roger Streit:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-geoengineering-idUSKBN1AB0J3

Some interesting factoids:

"...Climeworks began to suck greenhouse gases from thin air in May with giant 
fans and filters in a $23 million project that it calls the world's first 
"commercial carbon dioxide capture plant""

"Climeworks reckons it now costs about $600 to extract a tonne of carbon 
dioxide from the air and the plant's full capacity due by the end of 2017 is 
only 900 tonnes a year. That's equivalent to the annual emissions of only 45 
Americans."

>From the Climeworks website: "The majority of the energy required to run the 
>direct air capture plant comes from low-grade/waste heat." But what source of 
>electricity is powering the fans? If grid electricity then the C footprint 
>must be subtracted from the CO2 captured.  How much?  Also the CO2 is used to 
>grow food/plants, so the storage lifetime is <1yr. So is this a CDR scheme or 
>a CO2 emissions reduction scheme (by avoiding fossil-derived CO2 use)?

900 tonnes of CO2 extracted/yr: Assuming that a growing forest consumes and 
stores  5 tonnes CO2 yr^-1ha^-1, Climeworks is consuming CO2 at a rate 
equivalent to that of 180 hectares of forest. Cost/benefit/tradeoffs?

Greg


""Relying on big future deployments of carbon removal technologies is like 
eating lots of dessert today, with great hopes for liposuction tomorrow," 
Christopher Field, a Stanford University professor of climate change, wrote in 
May."
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at 
https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Our editorial in Science: How to govern geoengineering?

[Greg Rau]

Thanks Janos.  Certainly agree that we need oversight in researching and 
applying these technologies. 
My comments:1) I would caution against  lumping CDR in with SRM in the same 
governance framework – they have very different risk/reward profiles, the 
reason that the NAS split their discussion into separate report volumes.  
2) As for CDR you say  “CDR would need to be implemented at very large scales 
to have the desired effect. Land requirements could be immense, affecting 
global food prices and food security. Environmental impacts would include loss 
of biodiversity, pesticide pollution, and disturbing the oceans' ecological 
balance.” All possibly true, but will be very method specific and in many cases 
highly speculative until tested at appropriate scales. In any case similar 
effects (and more) are guaranteed if emissions reduction continues to fail. So 
the important question then is what exactly are the benefits as well as the 
risks, costs and impacts of each CDR approach, can they acceptably and 
effectively counter emissions reduction failure, and therefore what type and 
level of governance is required?  

3) Such information can only be gained by research and testing, and in the case 
of many CDR techniques, at scales well within national rather than 
international jurisdictions. Still, there is a need for an appropriate level of 
governance that at the same time does not unnecessarily stifle the research 
required to inform governance and decisionmaking, rather than 
governance/decisionmaking based on assumption, speculation and guilt by 
association. So research and governance ideally depend on each other and is an 
iterative process.

4) For the preceding reasons, I ‘d like to see the term “geoengineering" 
dropped in favor of “climate Intervention” (a la NAS), but which would cover 
the 3 major intervention themes: emissions reduction (why assume this doesn’t 
have significant environmental and social risks/costs and doesn’t need 
significant governance?), CDR and SRM.  In this way governance (and politics 
and R, etc) could be separately focused and tailored to each of these three 
very different elements, avoiding the current a one-size-fits-all, guilt (or 
favor) by association approach. 
Finally you say: "Geoengineering has planet-wide consequences”. So to does not 
actively soliciting, researching and testing our intervention options to see if 
any might be useful and before they are actually needed.
Regards,Greg Rau

  From: Janos Pasztor 
 To: Geoengineering  
 Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 12:34 AM
 Subject: [geo] Our editorial in Science: How to govern geoengineering?
   
  

How to govern geoengineering?   
   - Janos Pasztor1⇑, 
   - Cynthia Scharf2⇑, 
   - Kai-Uwe Schmidt3⇑
+ See all authors and affiliations Science  21 Jul 2017:
Vol. 357, Issue 6348, pp. 231
DOI: 10.1126/science.aan6794    
   - Article
   - Figures & Data
   - Info & Metrics
   - eLetters
   -  PDF
You are currently viewing the summary.View Full Text
Summary
The Paris Agreement aims to limit the global temperature rise to 1.5° to 2°C 
above preindustrial temperature, but achieving this goal requires much higher 
levels of mitigation than currently planned. This challenge has focused greater 
attention on climate geoengineering approaches, which intentionally alter 
Earth's climate system, as part of an overall response starting with radical 
mitigation. Yet it remains unclear how to govern research on, and potential 
deployment of, geoengineering technologies.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/357/6348/231

     Janos

 

===
Janos Pasztor
Senior Fellow, Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs 
Executive Director, Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative (C2G2)
2 rue du Temple, CH-1180 Rolle, Switzerland
Mobile: +41-79-739-5503
jpasz...@c2g2.net | Tw: @jpasztor  |  Skype: jpasztor
www.c2g2.net

Founded by Andrew Carnegie in 1914, Carnegie Council for Ethics in 
International Affairs is an educational, non-profit, non-partisan organization 
that produces  lectures, publications, and multimedia materials on the ethical 
challenges of living in a globalized world.   Headquarters: 170 East 64th 
Street, New York, NY. 10065, USA.  Tel: +1-212-838-4120.
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


   

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 

[geo] Assessing ocean alkalinity for carbon sequestration

[renforthp]

Dear list,

You may be interested in the paper 'Assessing ocean alkalinity for carbon 
sequestration' that has just been published in *Reviews of Geophysics*

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016RG000533/abstract

All the best,

Phil Renforth

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re[2]: [geo] Master’s thesis comparing CDR strategies

[Franz Dietrich Oeste]

Dear Mark,
We support your plan to release a report about CO2 removal options 
because the sustained greenhouse gas removal is the only option of a 
successful fight against the climate warming problem.
Nonetheless, we want to direct your attention to the ISA method. This 
method mimics the natural process of climate cooling by removal of 
several greenhouse gases (methane, CO2, and tropospheric ozone) from the 
atmosphere and by increase of the cloud albedo. To our opinion it is the 
most efficient climate cooling method according to its simplicity and 
its outstanding economy. You will find its full description at 
https://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/8/1/2017/esd-8-1-2017.pdf

All best,
Franz D. Oeste

gM-Ingenieurbüro
Dipl.-Ing. Franz D. Oeste
Tannenweg 2
D-35274 Kirchhain
Germany
Tel +49 (0) 6422-85168
Mobil +49 (0) 171-9526068
oe...@gm-ingenieurbuero.com
www.gm-ingenieubuero.com

-- Originalnachricht --
Von: "Mark Barteau" 
An: durb...@gmail.com; "geoengineering" 


Gesendet: 27.07.2017 01:42:29
Betreff: Re: [geo] Master’s thesis comparing CDR strategies

It has been. It is student work of uneven quality.  We are actively 
editing it and plan to release as a report from the University of 
Michigan Energy Institute within the next two months. I will post it 
when we do.


Mark Barteau
Director, University of Michigan Energy Institute

On 7/26/2017 6:47 PM, Eric Durbrow wrote:



Forgive me if this has already been posted. It is a U Mich Master’s 
thesis (2017) comparing a dozen or so CDR strategies by gigatons of 
carbon captured.


https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/136610/315_CarbonDioxideRemovalOptions.pdf?sequence=1=y

Comparison table starts page 17
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.