[geo] Re: [CDR] A risk-seeking future

[Greg Rau]

"New behavioural research suggests that, if the IPCC is right, citizens and 
policymakers will support such risk-taking."
GR - Good news because at this late date, what's the less risky alternative? As 
effective emissions reduction continues to fail, will climate risks be reduced 
by chosing not to seek and research all of our intervention options and to 
deploy those that prove safe and cost-effective?
Anyway, article pay walled so don't know arguments made.

From: Andrew Lockley 
To: geoengineering ; Carbon Dioxide Removal 
 
Sent: Sunday, September 9, 2018 6:37 AM
Subject: [CDR] A risk-seeking future


https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0281-z

A risk-seeking future
Greer Gosnell 
Nature Climate Change (2018) | Download Citation


News & Views | Published: 03 txt September 2018
CLIMATE POLICY
The 2014 IPCC Assessment expresses doubt that the global surface temperature 
increase will remain within the 2 °C target without deploying risky 
carbon-capturing or solar radiation-deflecting technologies. New behavioural 
research suggests that, if the IPCC is right, citizens and policymakers will 
support such risk-taking.
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to carbondioxideremoval+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/CarbonDioxideRemoval.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAJ3C-07JufWAJV0qUs%2BUEr-iB2MdYWH0vhJ_4hXbGztDPSM%3DWA%40mail.gmail.com.
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.

[geo] Newsletter for week 37 of 2018

[i...@climate-engineering.eu]

Title: Climate Engineering Newsletter




  


 







 



Climate Engineering Newsletter
for Week 37 of 2018



 





(new) 11.09.2018, Workshop: Climate Tech Entrepreneurs Show & Tell, San Francisco / USA
13.-18.09.2018, Conference: WC Climate Change 2018, Rome / Italy
18.09.2018, Lecture: Climate change concerns us all (German), Amstetten / Austria
25.09.2018, ARD TV-Show: Can Geo-Engineering stop climate change? (German), ARD channel
11.-12.10.2018, Ingilaw Symposium Geoengineering: New environmental paradigm, new legal paradigm?, Rennes / France
14.-17.10.2018, Conference: Algae in the New Carbon Economy, The Woodlands (Greater Houston), Texas / USA
30.-31.10.2018, Conference: 2018 Negative Emissions Conference: The big picture of negative emissions, Canberra / Australia
10.-14.12.2018, Conference: AGU Fall Meeting 2018, Washington DC / USA
11.-13.03.2019, Conference: Scenarios Forum 2019, Denver, CO / USA
19.-23.03.2019, Workshop: Climate Change Impacts and Risks in the Anthropocene (C-CIA), Riederalp, Canton of Valais, Switzerland



28.09.2018, Call for Abstracts: Scenarios Forum 2019
30.09.2018, Call for Papers: The Governance of Emerging Disruptive Technologies


(no new jobs)


Bellamy, R.; et al. (2018): Geoengineering and geographers
Gosnell, G. (2018): A risk-seeking future
Iordan, C.; et al. (2018): Contribution of forest wood products to negative emissions
Wu, X.; et al. (2018): Advances in the Evaluation of Cloud Seeding
Li, Y.; et al. (2018): Climate model shows large-scale wind and solar farms in the Sahara increase rain and vegetation
Mayer, A.; et al. (2018): The potential of agricultural land management to contribute to lower global surface temperatures


(no new political papers)


Project: Bay Area Climate Restoration Initiatives



Der Standard: Ten ideas for a green turn
Times Colonist: A decade later, Alberta project aims to both capture CO2 and boost oil output
fern: Six problems with BECCS
Monthly Review: Making War on the Planet
C2G2: Hot cities & geoengineering governance
World Economic Forum: This company is sucking carbon dioxide from the air




 



To unsubscribe please send short message to i...@climate-engineering.eu or use the web interface (under "user login"). In case something is missing in the newsletter, send us an email.



 







 



 




-- 
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.

[geo] Geoengineering and geographers: Rewriting the Earth in what image?

[Andrew Lockley]

https://rgs-ibg.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10./area.12495?sharing_unavailable=mobile_device_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2F44I9iiyutj%3Famp%3D1

Geoengineering and geographers: Rewriting the Earth in what image?
Rob Bellamy



James Palmer

First published: 09 September 2018
https://doi.org/10./area.12495
About


   -
   -
   

   -
   


[image: PDF]

Access


   -
   


   

   
   -
   

   -
   






   -
   

   -
   

   -
   

   -
   






   -
   

   -
   

   -
   

   -
   

   -
   

   -
   

   -
   

   -

Abstract

Large‐scale intervention in the Earth's climate system features centrally
both in definitions of, and proposed responses to, the Anthropocene. In its
deliberate guise – as climate geoengineering – such intervention is highly
contentious, threatening to profoundly reshape the geography and politics
of environmental governance frameworks, not to mention the nature of the
environments towards which those frameworks are oriented. Yet, even as
experiments with geoengineering technologies are growing in number,
geographers continue to engage seldom with scientific, political or indeed
public debates about them. In this paper we contend that geographical ideas
about space, scale, power and geopolitics must urgently be brought to bear
on ongoing efforts to experiment with geoengineering, and to deliberate its
future role in responses to climate change. We develop this argument in two
parts. First, we suggest that ongoing debates about the acceptability of
geoengineering experimentation would benefit from recognising incumbent
spatial and scalar categorisations (e.g., small scale vs. large scale,
indoors vs. outdoors) not as fixed ontological anchors, but as relational
and provisional constructs, open to being 

[geo] Geoengineering and Capitalism's Creative Destruction of the Earth

[Andrew Lockley]

Poster's note: readers may wish to write to the journal, correcting the
various apparent factual mistakes in this article.


https://monthlyreview.org/2018/09/01/making-war-on-the-planet/

REVIEW OF THE MONTH 
Making War on the PlanetGeoengineering and Capitalism's Creative
Destruction of the Earth
*by* John Bellamy Foster

(Sep 01, 2018)

Topics: Climate Change 
 , Ecology  , Marxist Ecology


 Places: Global 
[image: Seeding clouds over the ocean]


Seeding clouds over the ocean. Photo credit: NPR, "Scientists Who Want To
Study Climate Engineering Shun Trump
"
(Pixza/Getty Images).

John Bellamy Foster is the editor of *Monthly Review* and a professor of
sociology at the University of Oregon.

This is a slightly revised version of an article published on July 24,
2018, on the website of *Science for the People* and on MR Online. It was
written for the Summer 2018 special issue on geoengineering of the new *Science
for the People*, announcing the magazine’s relaunch.

A short fuse is burning. At the present rate of global emissions, the world
is projected to reach the trillionth metric ton of cumulative carbon
emissions, breaking the global carbon budget, in less than two decades.1
 This
would usher in a period of dangerous climate change that could well prove
irreversible, affecting the climate for centuries if not millennia. Even if
the entire world economy were to cease emitting carbon dioxide at the
present moment, the extra carbon already accumulated in the atmosphere
virtually guarantees that climate change will continue with damaging
effects to the human species and life in general. However, reaching the 2°C
increase in global average temperature guardrail, associated with a level
of carbon concentration in the environment of 450 ppm, would lead to a
qualitatively different condition. At that point, climate feedbacks would
increasingly come into play threatening to catapult global average
temperatures to 3°C or 4°C above preindustrial levels within this century,
in the lifetime of many individuals alive today. The situation is only made
more serious by the emission of other greenhouse gases, including methane
and nitrous oxide.

The enormous dangers that rapid climate change present to humanity as a
whole, and the inability of the existing capitalist political-economic
structure to address them, symbolized by the presence of Donald Trump in
the White House, have engendered a desperate search for technofixes in the
form of schemes for *geoengineering*, defined as massive, deliberate human
interventions to manipulate the entire climate or the planet as a whole.

Not only is geoengineering now being enthusiastically pushed by today’s
billionaire class, as represented by figures like Bill Gates and Richard
Branson; by environmental organizations such as the Environmental Defense
Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council; by think tanks like the
Breakthrough Institute and Climate Code Red; and by fossil-fuel
corporations like Exxon Mobil and Shell—it is also being actively pursued
by the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, China, and
Russia. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has
incorporated negative emissions strategies based on geoengineering (in the
form of Bio-energy with Carbon Capture and Storage, or BECCS) into nearly
all of its climate models. Even some figures on the political left (where
“accelerationist” ideas have recently taken hold in some quarters) have
grabbed uncritically onto geoengineering as a *deus ex machina*—a way of
defending an ecomodernist economic and technological strategy—as witnessed
by a number of contributions to *Jacobin* magazine’s Summer 2017 *Earth,
Wind, and Fire* issue.2


If the Earth System is to avoid 450 ppm of carbon concentration in the
atmosphere and is to return to the Holocene average of 350 ppm, some
negative emissions by technological means, and hence geoengineering on at
least a limited scale, will be required, according to leading climatologist
James Hansen.3
 Hansen’s
strategy, however, like most others, remains based on the current system,
that is, it excludes the possibility of a full-scale ecological revolution,
involving the self-mobilization of the population around production and
consumption. What remains certain is