It's good that people with extreme views like Pierrehumbert are part of the
process. It's better than trying to lock them out. Make them engage with
others who have more nuanced positions---you can do that in the context of
studies and panels, not so much when he's writing an op-ed and gets to
I don't understand how some authors claim that forests remove carbon from
the atmosphere and so if you use the same land to produce and burn biofuels
then that zero-carbon cycle is somehow worse for the environment than the
natural cycle. Isn't it obvious that in the long run a forest has to be
, Robert H. Socolow soco...@princeton.edu
wrote:
Many second-growth forests are still increasing their carbon stocks. I
think that's the argument being made.
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 11, 2015, at 7:38 PM, David desJardins da...@desjardins.org
wrote:
forest has to be carbon
On Thu Feb 12 2015 at 3:47:05 AM Daniel Kirk-Davidoff
dkirkdavid...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, if you cut down a forest and burn the trees for electricity or home
heating, it may take 100 years to fully recover the lost carbon.
I think trees harvested for biomass are generally fast-growing
On Thu Feb 12 2015 at 9:14:07 AM Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu
wrote:
My view is that we should be managing land in ways that place extremely
high emphasis on protecting biodiversity and natural ecosystems while
meeting human needs, which probably means focusing on agricultural
On Thu Feb 12 2015 at 9:32:23 AM Fred Zimmerman geoengineerin...@gmail.com
wrote:
For an example of what John is talking about, see
http://ourworld.unu.edu/en/japanese-agricultural-heritage-systems-recognized.
Japanese traditional agricultural practices are based on maintaining
coherent local
Maybe some of this energy should be directed into an "International non-use
agreement for Fossil Fuels".
--
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
On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 12:18 AM Daniele Visioni
wrote:
> I personally don’t want to be associated even remotely with anything you
> do now or in the future, so this will be my last message on this group
> before I unsubscribe.
>
I don't want to be associated with Andrew Lockley either, but he's
On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 3:28 PM Ron Baiman wrote:
> I don't know the details of Andrew's effort, and agree that the SATAN
> moniker was unfortunate, but I tend to believe that anything that we can do
> to spur awareness, discussion, and debate over the urgent (and as I think
> most of us believe
On Sun, Mar 5, 2023 at 11:43 PM Tamas Bodai wrote:
> I totally get the idea behind gluing yourself to famous paintings. It’s
> the grotesque situation that we value paint on canvas in millions (of
> dollars, of course), while we head to extinction. Reading such articles on
> BBC again and again
On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 2:08 AM 'donn viviani' via geoengineering <
geoengineering@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> I don't think it's incorrect to say fossil fuel burning has reengineered
> the atmosphere and the oceans.So slowing, stabilizing, returning are
> all engineering as well IMO.
>
If we
On Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 4:59 AM Robert Chris wrote:
> David, no matter what the goal may be, it is always economically realistic.
>
So long as global warming is mediated through an economic lens, the
> likelihood of a happy ending is pretty remote.
>
I'm confused. Don't these two statements
On Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 10:13 AM Robert Chris wrote:
> David, the two statements are totally consistent. Your confusion is
> unsurprising, you're reflecting the current Western neoliberal neoclassical
> worldview. But it's run its course and we all need to recognise that and
> move on Not
three possible goals with respect to the
> climate crisis:
>
> Our current goal - Avoid the worst impacts by limiting temperature
> increases to well below 2° C by 2100 even if we temporarily exceed that
> goal-
>
> Avoid the activation of tipping points by limiting temper
This doesn’t seem to have anything to do with whether the goal is
economically realistic. It’s only about whether the goal is politically
realistic.
On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 11:40 PM Ron Baiman wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> Follow up to previous 1.5 C or 2.0 C post:
>
> c) Some quick calculation
I don't really understand why it's important to people to include CDR as a
form of geoengineering. What's behind this fight? I suspect that a majority
would *not* include it in that term. If we're going to have a fight about
"established nomenclature", I'd like to see some data.
>
>
--
You
16 matches
Mail list logo
