Re: [geo] Environmentalists that denounce climate eng research; what to do?

[Adam Dorr]

With respect to climate, the idea that mitigation alone is a full solution
to the carbon problem is what is "insane", "delusional", and a "serious
deadend". Our current trajectory unequivocally commits us to CDR
geoengineering at the very least, and the IPCC is (finally as of the latest
assessment) in agreement on this: 1.5 degrees is almost certainly
impossible without large-scale CDR, and 2 degrees is very likely impossible
without it. As for peak-shaving and preventing the worst effects of climate
change with SRM geoengineering, that remains an open debate. I am assuming
that Attenborough, Gore, and McKibben are thinking primarily of SRM when
they are casting aspersions on geoengineering. But lets see if they still
say it is an insane, delusional, and fascist idea when Florida, Beijing,
etc. start to disappear underwater in the 2040s...



On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Eric Durbrow  wrote:

>
>
> Attenborough referred to climate engineering as “fascist" (he meant that a
> small group of people would control the climate) and Gore has called it
> “insane…delusional". Bill McKibben called it a "serious deadend”
>
> Is it too late to reach out to environmental leaders and get them to
> change their minds for *research* in climate engineering? E.g. an
> open-letter editorial in the Times, etc.
>
> Or do celebrity leaders actually have minimal impact among grassroots
> environmentalists and activists?
>
>
> --
> 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] Slicing the pie: how big could carbon dioxide removal be? - Psarras - 2017 - Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment - Wiley Online Library

[Adam Dorr]

The timeframe of the analysis is not clear. The article cites estimates of
"upper limits" on CDR methods, but what is the nature of these limits -
economic, physical, biological? Some of these estimates refer to 2100, but
a clear timeframe does not appear to be explicitly declared, so I don't
know how directly comparable all of these estimates on "upper limits" are.

So once again, I will make my usual observation that these projections
about end-of-century CDR capacity are *absurd* if they do not include a
rigorous accounting of technological advancement in the interim. In
particular, automation via machine labor is likely to *radically* expand
CDR methods that are dependent upon any non-biological factors of
production (e.g. abiotic material inputs, energy inputs, and labor inputs).
See my publications for details.

- Adam

On Aug 24, 2017 5:28 AM, "Andrew Lockley"  wrote:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wene.253/full


Slicing the pie: how big could carbon dioxide removal be?
Authors

   - Peter Psarras,
   1.

   

   - Holly Krutka,
   - Mathilde Fajardy,
   1.

   

   - Zhiqu Zhang,
   1.

   

   - Simona Liguori,
   1.

   

   - Niall Mac Dowell,
   1.

   

   - Jennifer Wilcox
   - 
   1.
   -

  

   



   - First published:28 July 2017Full publication history
   

   - DOI:10.1002/wene.253  View/save citation
   
   - Cited by (CrossRef):0 articlesCheck for updates
   

   Citation tools
   -
   



   - Conflict of interest: The authors have declared no conflicts of
   interest for this article.

Abstract

The current global dependence on fossil fuels to meet energy needs
continues to increase. If a 2°C warming by 2100 is to be prevented, it will
become important to adopt strategies that not only avoid CO2 emissions but
also allow for the direct removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, enabling the
intervention of climate change. The primary direct removal methods
discussed in this review include land management and mineral carbonation in
addition to bioenergy and direct air capture with carbon capture and
reliable storage. These methods are discussed in detail, and their
potential for CO2 removal is assessed. The global upper bound for
annual CO2removal
was estimated to be 12, 10, 6, and 5 GtCO2/year for bioenergy with carbon
capture and reliable storage (BECCS), direct air capture with reliable
storage (DACS), land management, and mineral carbonation,
respectively—giving a cumulative value of ~35 GtCO2/year. However, in the
case of DACS, global data on the overlap of low-emission energy sources and
reliable CO2storage opportunities—set as a qualification for DAC
viability—were unavailable, and the potential upper bound estimate is thus
considered conservative. The upper bounds on the costs associated with the
direct CO2removal methods varied from approximately $100/tCO2 (land
management, BECCS, and mineral carbonation) to $1000/tCO2 for DACS (again,
these are the upper bounds for costs). In this review, these direct CO2 removal
technologies are found to be technically viable and are potentially
important options in preventing 2°C warming by 2100. *WIREs Energy
Environ* 2017,
6:e253. doi: 10.1002/wene.253

-- 
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 

Re: [geo] Re: Researchers propose 'cocktail geo-engineering' to save climate

[Adam Dorr]

In the case of black holes there are no policymaking or governance
consequences to using flippant terms, but in the case of "fracking", for
example, which was the subject of my PhD dissertation, the term exerted a
disproportionately large influence on the discourse. As it happens,
"fracking" was an industry term of art and not a pejorative created by
opponents of the practice. Some readers here may recall the complications
that arose during "Climategate" when Phil Jones wrote, "I've just completed
Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last
20 years", and the opposition seized upon the word "trick" to very
successfully discredit climate scientists and delegitimize climate science
in the eyes of the public and policymakers.

Words matter a very great deal. We need to use them with care, or there
will be consequences we will regret.

Best,

Adam

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Adam
>
> Do you refer to "black holes" as "gravitationally completely collapsed
> objects"?
>
> Snappy terms stick.
>
> A
>
> On 31 July 2017 at 18:37, Adam Dorr <adamd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I would strongly discourage researchers from using flippant terms such as
>> "cocktail" rather than more formal descriptors (e.g. "combined" or
>> "integrated" or "multiple", in this case). Careless terminology is likely
>> to invite problematic framings in the discourse, which will then present as
>> obstacles for effective public understand, policymaking, and governance. I
>> am hoping to have have a paper out later this year or next year that
>> addresses some of the challenges around CE terminology and framing.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Adam
>>
>> --
>> Adam Dorr
>> University of California Los Angeles School of Public Affairs
>> adamd...@ucla.edu
>> adamd...@gmail.com
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Christoph Voelker <
>> christoph.voel...@awi.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> this engineering approach of separately switching cocktail components on
>>> and off is probably not so simple: attribution and detection of climate
>>> change are notoriously difficult (which has been exploited a lot by climate
>>> change deniers), with the main problem that both require knowledge of the
>>> internal climate variability on the time scales considered. A good
>>> introduction to the subject is the chapter 9.1.2 in the 2007 IPCC report:
>>>
>>> https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-1-2.html
>>>
>>> Cheers, Christoph
>>>
>>> On 31.07.17 16:23, Stephen Salter wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi All
>>>
>>> Florian is worried about separating the effects of different components
>>> of a mixture of cocktails.  It should be possible to do this for techniques
>>> with a high frequency response by turning them on and off with different
>>> random sequences and correlating the results at different observing
>>> stations.
>>> Stephen
>>>
>>> On 31/07/2017 12:58, Andrew Lockley wrote:
>>>
>>> As long as the effects were largely exclusive, cocktail geoengineering
>>> could greatly reduce impacts from side effects, as they may have non-linear
>>> impacts.
>>>
>>> For example, techniques A have two different side effects, each with
>>> damages proportional to the square of the dose. Both are equally damaging.
>>> A combination of the two therefore leads to lower side effects that each
>>> alone.
>>>
>>> A
>>>
>>> On 31 Jul 2017 12:53, "Florian Rabitz" <florian.rab...@ktu.lt> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I guess a major problem with a cocktail approach would be the
>>>> amplification of uncertainties. How would we be able to attribute
>>>> the outcomes to either technique? An increase in global precipitation
>>>> might result either from the effect of CCT being larger-than-expected
>>>> or from the effect of aerosols being smaller-than-expected (vice versa
>>>> for decreasing global precipitation). Seems like this would require
>>>> a lot of fine-tuning. Also, in my view, the governance implications
>>>> don't look pretty.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Florian
>>>>
>>>> On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 1:26:58 AM UTC+3, Andrew Lockley wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>

Re: [geo] Re: Researchers propose 'cocktail geo-engineering' to save climate

[Adam Dorr]

I would strongly discourage researchers from using flippant terms such as
"cocktail" rather than more formal descriptors (e.g. "combined" or
"integrated" or "multiple", in this case). Careless terminology is likely
to invite problematic framings in the discourse, which will then present as
obstacles for effective public understand, policymaking, and governance. I
am hoping to have have a paper out later this year or next year that
addresses some of the challenges around CE terminology and framing.

Best,

Adam

--
Adam Dorr
University of California Los Angeles School of Public Affairs
adamd...@ucla.edu
adamd...@gmail.com

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Christoph Voelker <christoph.voel...@awi.de
> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> this engineering approach of separately switching cocktail components on
> and off is probably not so simple: attribution and detection of climate
> change are notoriously difficult (which has been exploited a lot by climate
> change deniers), with the main problem that both require knowledge of the
> internal climate variability on the time scales considered. A good
> introduction to the subject is the chapter 9.1.2 in the 2007 IPCC report:
>
> https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-1-2.html
>
> Cheers, Christoph
>
> On 31.07.17 16:23, Stephen Salter wrote:
>
> Hi All
>
> Florian is worried about separating the effects of different components of
> a mixture of cocktails.  It should be possible to do this for techniques
> with a high frequency response by turning them on and off with different
> random sequences and correlating the results at different observing
> stations.
> Stephen
>
> On 31/07/2017 12:58, Andrew Lockley wrote:
>
> As long as the effects were largely exclusive, cocktail geoengineering
> could greatly reduce impacts from side effects, as they may have non-linear
> impacts.
>
> For example, techniques A have two different side effects, each with
> damages proportional to the square of the dose. Both are equally damaging.
> A combination of the two therefore leads to lower side effects that each
> alone.
>
> A
>
> On 31 Jul 2017 12:53, "Florian Rabitz" <florian.rab...@ktu.lt> wrote:
>
>> I guess a major problem with a cocktail approach would be the
>> amplification of uncertainties. How would we be able to attribute
>> the outcomes to either technique? An increase in global precipitation
>> might result either from the effect of CCT being larger-than-expected
>> or from the effect of aerosols being smaller-than-expected (vice versa
>> for decreasing global precipitation). Seems like this would require
>> a lot of fine-tuning. Also, in my view, the governance implications don't
>> look pretty.
>>
>> Best,
>> Florian
>>
>> On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 1:26:58 AM UTC+3, Andrew Lockley wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.tribuneindia.com/mobi/news/science-technology/res
>>> earchers-propose-cocktail-geo-engineering-to-save-climate/443998.html
>>>
>> --
>> 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.
>
>
> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>
>
>
> --
> Christoph Voelker
> Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research
> Am Handelshafen 12
> 27570 Br

Re: [geo] Team launches initiative to develop viable market for waste carbon dioxide | ASU Now: Access, Excellence, Impact

[Adam Dorr]

I think the notion that "We’ve got to get the tons out of the atmosphere,
and we’ve got to make money doing it” may be fundamentally misguided. The
total market potential for CO2 as an industrial input is, to a first
approximation, at least 2 orders of magnitude lower than the quantity of
CO2 that needs to be removed from the atmosphere annually in order to
withdraw 1 trillion (with a T) tons by 2100 (a commonly-cited target, and
likely too conservative).

Unless a massive new source of demand for CO2 emerges, then the only real
way to "make money" from carbon withdrawal at the scale necessary to
restore atmospheric carbon to pre-industrial levels is going to be with
publicly-funded CDR megaprojects. But I agree that market demand can serve
as a driver of technological innovation in the nearer term.

Adam

--
Adam Dorr
PhD Candidate
University of California Los Angeles School of Public Affairs
adamd...@ucla.edu
adamd...@gmail.com

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 8:35 AM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> https://asunow.asu.edu/20170606-solutions-asu-carbon-
> renewal-team-economic-opportunities
>
> ASU Now: Access, Excellence, Impact <https://asunow.asu.edu/>
>
> [image: image title]
>
> <https://asunow.asu.edu/20170606-solutions-asu-carbon-renewal-team-economic-opportunities#>
>
> <https://asunow.asu.edu/20170606-solutions-asu-carbon-renewal-team-economic-opportunities#>
>
> <https://asunow.asu.edu/20170606-solutions-asu-carbon-renewal-team-economic-opportunities#>
>
> <https://asunow.asu.edu/20170606-solutions-asu-carbon-renewal-team-economic-opportunities#>
>
> https://asunow.asu.edu/20170606-solutions-asu-carbon-renewal-team-economic-opportunities>
> Solutions <https://asunow.asu.edu/topics/now/solutions>
> Team launches initiative to develop viable market for waste carbon dioxide
> Tempe campus <https://asunow.asu.edu/topics/news/locations/tempe-campus>
>
> <https://asunow.asu.edu/20170606-solutions-asu-carbon-renewal-team-economic-opportunities#>
> <https://asunow.asu.edu/20170606-solutions-asu-carbon-renewal-team-economic-opportunities#>
> Can we take CO2 out of the air & make money doing it? ASU up for the
> challenge.
> June 6, 2017ASU partnering with Center for Carbon Removal, other research
> institutions to find economic opportunities in climate challenge
>
> How do you create a way to take carbon out of the air and make money doing
> it?
>
> It’s a wicked problem that will take decades to solve. One member of a
> team tasked with tackling it compared it to creating agriculture.
>
> The Center for Carbon Removal, in partnership with Arizona State
> University and several other research institutions, launched an audacious
> initiative this week with the goal of developing solutions that transform
> waste carbon dioxide in the air into valuable products and services.
>
> “Solving a problem with a solution that doesn’t exist” is how Julio
> Friedmann described it.
>
> “We have urgency around this task,” said Friedmann, a senior fellow at the
> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory who serves as the lab’s chief expert
> in energy technologies and systems. He recently served as principal deputy
> assistant secretary for the Office of Fossil Energy at the Department of
> Energy. “I’m seeing windows of opportunity start to close. … We’ve got to
> get the tons out of the atmosphere, and we’ve got to make money doing it.”
>
> In addition to ASU, universities involved in the initiative include Iowa
> State and Purdue, both of which have strong agricultural, forestry and
> economics programs as well as leading engineering, materials science and
> environmental science programs. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory also
> participated in the launch event for this initiative and has extensive
> expertise in alternative energy and new fuel sources.
>
> “We are talking about nothing less than a paradigm shift,” said David
> Laird, professor of agronomy at Iowa State and an expert in the
> interactions between soil and biochar, charcoal used as a soil amendment.
>
> Noah Deich, executive director of the Center for Carbon Removal, said that
> this initiative for a “New Carbon Economy” is urgently needed to “develop
> new businesses and reinvent the industries that powered the last industrial
> revolution — like manufacturing, mining, agriculture and forestry — to
> create a strong, healthy and resilient economy and environment for
> communities around the globe.”
> [image: Carbon sequestration team meets]
>
> The idea for the carbon-economy initiative came from discussions between
> Noah Deich (pictured Tuesday at the team workshop in Tempe), executive
> director of the Center for Carbon Removal, and ASU Pre

Re: [geo] Terraforming Planets, Geoengineering Earth

[Adam Dorr]

In my own work I have suggested that technological capacity be defined as
the capacity to manipulate matter, energy, and information as measured by
the metrics of speed, precision, and scale.

On a historical timescale, our technological capacity has grown
exponentially on each of these measures. If these exponential trends of
accelerating growth continue into the future (an admittedly big IF), then
we can expect to possess the technological capacity to manipulate matter
and energy at a planetary scale with molecular precision by the end of this
century, and at a speed such that the entire surface of a world such as
Mars could be "terraformed" or otherwise transformed within a period of
months, days, or even hours.

Our current capacities are the video game equivalent of Pong or Asteroids.
The amount of growth in these capacities, and the time taken for them to
progress to truly fantastic levels relative to today, are likely to be
vastly shorter than most observers assume. This is primarily because our
intuitions about change are linear and don't map accurately onto
accelerating trajectories, and secondarily because most observers are
typically not well-enough informed about the potential intervening steps in
the progression to accept that the later-stage capacities are plausibly
achievable in the relatively near term (in the same way that most observers
of Pong or Asteroids in 1979 would struggle to imagine a plausible pathway
to today's photorealistic video games running on handheld devices). As a
result, observers today consistently commit several basic errors when
reasoning about the future, all of which can be found in Fleming's above
linked essay.

For a more detailed discussion, see my paper "Common errors in reasoning
about the future: Three informal fallacies" in *Technological Forecasting &
Social Change* here:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162516301275

--
Adam Dorr
PhD Candidate
University of California Los Angeles School of Public Affairs
adamd...@ucla.edu
adamd...@gmail.com


On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Terraforming Planets, Geoengineering Earth
> James Rodger Fleming
> Science, Technology and Society Program
> Colby College, Maine 04901 USA
> Can humanity survive on Earth into the indefinite future without taking
> control of
> the climate system and biosphere, or perhaps one day engaging in solar
> engineering? If
> we seek to colonize other planets, will we need to live sequestered from
> harsh
> environments in little residential capsules and venture out only in
> spacesuits, or should
> we practice terraformation to make the environment of other planets more
> Earthlike? In
> either case, we will need to master bio-geo-chemical engineering to
> generate fresh air,
> water, and food. Would it be better then to engineer planets for humans or
> to engineer
> humans and perhaps cyborgs to withstand harsh environments? Since
> prediction of new
> technological developments or inventions has proven to be notoriously
> inaccurate, what
> insights can we derive from the history of planetary manipulation
> proposals and
> fantasies?
>
> --
> 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] new article

[Adam Dorr]

We had some discussion a week or two ago here in forum on this topic when
the Guardian article and the ETC Group document made the rounds.

The lifestyle and doctor analogy you use is similar to the one I used in
that conversation (I suggested eating sugar and dentistry).

I think it would be useful to see deeper research into the psychology and
ethics of "technology antipathy" and its related rhetoric. A quick spin
with Google doesn't turn up any substantial body of literature on this
topic, so all I can offer is conjecture, but blind technology antipathy
seems likely to be rooted in cognitive biases, informal logical fallacies
(namely the naturalistic fallacy), and irrationality of various kinds
(especially hypocrisy). The doctor and dentist analogies above help
illustrate some of this irrationality, as well as hint at some of the
values that might be operative behind technology antipathy. This is not to
say there are *no* reasons to be wary of deploying a new technology. Even
something as simple as a toothbrush and toothpaste carries some potential
drawbacks (e.g. concerns, however poorly founded, about flouride ingestion,
etc.). And the twin assumptions that 1) any new technology is likely to do
more harm than good, and 2) a technology is likely to be utilized by those
in power to further oppress disadvantaged groups, are at least
*understandable* from a precautionary perspective. But having recognized
that, there is clearly also a specific type of cognitive dysfunction that
gets going in people's heads which leads to conspiratorial irrationality
about vaccines and autism, GMOs and cancer, chemtrails, climate change
denial, thinking the moon landings were faked, and all the rest. There *is*
some good psychological research about conspiracy theories (Rob Brotherton
summarizes this for the popular audience), and it may well connect to
technology antipathy.

One final thing to note is that people *very* seldomly oppose technologies
that have overwhelmingly positive benefits and minimum drawbacks. Despite
the autism nonsense, vaccines are actually quite a good example. Dentistry
is obviously another, but there countless more, from chlorinated drinking
water to safe food packaging and refrigeration to telephones to clocks and
glasses and clothing and footwear all the way back to fire and the wheel.
Technology is simply practical knowledge, and it is therefore nearly
tautological to point out that the solution to problems created by that
knowledge is never ignorance - it is always *more* and *better* knowledge.



--
Adam Dorr
PhD Candidate
University of California Los Angeles School of Public Affairs
adamd...@ucla.edu
adamd...@gmail.com
www.adamdorr.com

On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Craig Morris <petiteplan...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> I am new to this group. Several folks recommended that I post my article
> on geo-engineering here, and they all swore I could post without joining,
> but this is either not possible, or I just failed the test ;-)
>
> Anyway, this might interest you:
>
> http://blog.iass-potsdam.de/2017/05/stop-shaming-geo-
> engineering-researchers/
>
> I'll check back by in a few days to see if anyone has shared any
> reactions. Otherwise, GE is simply too far out on the margins of what I do
> to warrant me joining yet another list I can hardly keep up with, so I'll
> leave the group then unfortunately.
>
> You can keep in touch with me on Twitter: @PPchef. I am the coauthor of
> the first history of Germany's Energiewende (http://energiewendebook.de/)
> and currently a Senior Fellow at the IASS.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Craig Morris
>
>
>
> --
> 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] etc_hbf_geobriefing_may2017.pdf

[Adam Dorr]

I'm sympathetic to some of the criticisms of technofixes, but only when
other plausible fixes are available.

In the case of climate change, it seems that the notion of solving the
problem with interventions like recycling, energy-efficient lightbulbs,
organic food and the rest of the "locally adapted ecologically and socially
sound solutions" folks typically have in mind is every bit "speculative and
distracting" (if not just plain delusional) as CDR climate engineering.


On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Yes, this seems to stem from a fear of technology as summarized in their
> closing statement:
>
> "Because of the geopolitical high-stakes, risk of weaponization,
> and intergenerational implications of geoengineering, the
> global community should first and foremost debate these
> aspects, before allowing the development of tools that a
> climate-denying government or “a coalition of the willing”
> could use, even if all other governments would conclude it is
> too risky and unfair to use. Geoengineering can never be
> confined to a technical discussion, a matter of “developing
> tools, just in case” or confined just to a climate perspective.
> Geoengineering research should – in line with the CBD
> decision – be focused on socio-political, ecological, ethical
> questions and potential impacts and contribute to a debate
> about whether democratic governance of geoengineering is
> ever possible, and how. And even more important: funding
> and research on climate change needs to urgently be scaled
> up to support implementation of proven and locally
> adapted ecologically and socially sound solutions to the
> climate crisis – not speculative and distracting technofixes."
>
> While I'm all for debating the various actions before deciding when/if to
> use them, it would seem important to fully understand the benefits as well
> as the risks and impacts of these, and that requires research and testing.
> Or shall we continue to base our decisions on speculation? Case in point,
> while BECCS, DAC, enhanced weathering, biochar and the others on ETCs s&*t
> list might be risky (e.g., they don't work as advertised, too expensive,
> etc, -let's find out for sure), how could these be "weaponized"and
> "unfair"? Interestingly I see that a-/re- forestation is not on their s&*t
> list, despite serious concerns from ecologists (though weaponization is
> still not mentioned):
> https://ecopreservationsociety.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/does-
> reforestation-contribute-to-global-warming-part-1/
> https://news.mongabay.com/2016/02/in-the-rush-to-
> reforest-are-the-worlds-old-growth-grasslands-losing-out/
> https://cereo.wsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/95/2016/
> 03/Joppa_Science_IPBES_2016.pdf
>
> Then there is this curious statement: "funding
> and research on climate change needs to urgently be scaled
> up to support implementation of proven and locally
> adapted ecologically and socially sound solutions to the
> climate crisis – not speculative and distracting technofixes."
>
> Am all for more funding of climate change research, but there seems to be
> enough scary knowledge already to warrant greatly expanded R funding
> specifically on a broad and deep search for solutions. Locally adapted
> ecological ones certainly are preferred, but with 7+B of us now on the
> planet is it likely that these solutions alone will solve the problem in
> the time required,  while they also continue to (so how) feed, house and
> clothe us?? For the sake of ecology, might it be wise and less risky to
> also search for solutions that don't ask more from Earth's already
> overtaxed ecosystems?
>
> Anyway, I'll cc the ETC authors to see if we can elicit a response as to
> why and how we have the luxury of ignoring/castigating technology/new ideas
> without having a better understanding of their actual risks and benefits.
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
> --
> *From:* Stephen Salter <s.h.sal...@ed.ac.uk>
> *To:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 11, 2017 12:40 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] etc_hbf_geobriefing_may2017.pdf
>
> Hi all
> It would help if the ETC people could give more detail about why putting
> sea surface temperatures back to where we liked to have them in the good
> old days should be criminal. We may be able to do this by changing the size
> distribution of 0.5% of the mass of a natural material, shown to help
> asthmatic children, which is now being produced from breaking waves. We may
> be able to do this with energy coming from the wind at a cost below the
> climate conference budget.
> ETC, please explain, if possible with some

Re: [geo] Viable and convivial technologies: Considerations on Climate Engineering from a degrowth perspective

[Adam Dorr]

Another interesting opposition article, thanks Andrew.

Unfortunately, the foundational assumption of the degrowth discourse (i.e.
that technological capacities and their impacts on the human condition may
be held constant for the indefinite future) is fatally flawed.

--
Adam Dorr
PhD Candidate
University of California Los Angeles School of Public Affairs
adamd...@ucla.edu
adamd...@gmail.com
www.adamdorr.com

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:18 PM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652617308983
>
> Journal of Cleaner Production
> <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09596526>
>
> Available online 2 May 2017
> <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09596526/>, doi:
> 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.159
> <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.159>
>
> In Press, Accepted Manuscript — Note to users
> <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652617308983#publication-aip-note>
> Viable and convivial technologies: Considerations on Climate Engineering
> from a degrowth perspective
>
>- Barbara Muraca
>- Frederike Neuber
>
> Show more
> <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652617308983#>
> --
> Check for full text access
> <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652617308983>
> Purchase
> <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ShoppingCartURL&_method=add&_eid=1-s2.0-S0959652617308983=serial&_origin=article&_ts=1494530097=8825c3c6c6e616f6cefdfd3f81e9f40f>Get
> Full Text Elsewhere
> <http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0959652617308983?showall=true>
> Highlights
>
>- •
>
>Critique of technology based on degrowth is applied to Climate
>Engineering.
>- •
>
>Biophysical (*viability*) and socio-cultural (*conviviality*) criteria
>are presented.
>- •
>
>Via formalized arguments a critique of Climate Engineering
>Technologies is discussed.
>- •
>
>Sulfate Aerosol Inj., Bio-energy w. Carbon Capture & Storage,
>Afforestation analyzed.
>
> Abstract
>
> Faced with the urgency of climate change, Climate Engineering has been
> framed as a fast and feasible technological solution. At the same time,
> however, critique against it is getting increasingly louder. This paper
> articulates a critical analysis of Climate Engineering technologies from a
> point of view situated within the degrowth discourse. In the first part two
> approaches discussed within the degrowth debate are presented: the concept
> of *viability* based on a biophysical perspective and the concept of
> *conviviality* based on a socio-cultural approach. In a second step
> formalized arguments from the point of view of applied ethics are
> articulated and applied to three Climate Engineering Technologies: Sulfate
> Aerosol Injection, Bio-energy with Carbon Capture and Storage, and
> Afforestation. In a third step, an extended version of the trade-off
> argument about mitigation versus Climate Engineering solution is discussed
> from a degrowth perspective: accordingly, within the current dominant
> growth paradigm, climate engineering technologies might lead to reduced
> mitigation efforts. The paper follows the argumentative turn in applied
> ethics and displays a formalization of arguments that can help clarify
> decision-making and identify the different dimensions at stake. The paper
> articulates arguments against the deployment of CE technologies and
> advances a new version of the trade-off-argument based on a degrowth
> perspective. From the point of view of a degrowth-based critique of
> technology, the only type of Climate Engineering Technology ethically
> acceptable would be afforestation under specific conditions
>
> --
> 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] etc_hbf_geobriefing_may2017.pdf

[Adam Dorr]

While several of the concerns expressed in the document bear some
consideration, I must say I'm discouraged by the overall thinking behind a
priori opposition to climate engineering technology. By analogy, it would
be like opposing the development of dentistry technologies because they
might allow you to continue eating sugar without damaging your teeth.

The thinking seems to be rooted in the notion that actions with negative
side effects are morally depraved (irrespective of their concomitant
benefits), and that remedying those side effects only serves to *worsen*
the depravity rather than alleviate it. I suspect a psychology that
valorizes self-deprivation and self-flaggelation is at work here, but that
isn't my field.

Regardless of whatever psychology is involved, I think it is clear that
this orientation toward any specific technology cannot withstand any
scrutiny since countless examples of its hypocrisy (e.g. the benefits of
dentistry and all the other accouterments of modernity) immediately emerge.



--
Adam Dorr
PhD Candidate
University of California Los Angeles School of Public Affairs
adamd...@ucla.edu
adamd...@gmail.com
www.adamdorr.com

On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Climate change, smoke and mirrors
>
> Latest missive from etc group.
>
> A
>
> --
> 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] Carbon Dioxide Removal Options: A Literature Review Identifying Carbon Removal Potentials and Costs

[Adam Dorr]

This is quite a nice piece of work from masters students of my alma mater
(UM's SNRE)!

My concern, as usual, is that there is no discussion of cost-reduction
pathways that take into account a sober and realistic prospectus of
immanent technological change - in particular, the combined and recursive
effects of low-cost solar energy and NAI machine labor. Ignoring these
changes for any analysis on a decadal timescale is a fatal error for any
scenario-based assessment, policy, or plan.

--
Adam Dorr
PhD Candidate
University of California Los Angeles School of Public Affairs
adamd...@ucla.edu
adamd...@gmail.com
www.adamdorr.com

On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 4:09 PM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/136610
>
> Carbon Dioxide Removal Options: A Literature Review Identifying Carbon
> Removal Potentials and Costs
> Johnson, Katelyn; Martin, Derek; Zhang, Xilin...  [more]
> <https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/136610>
> 2017
> Abstract: In 2015, nearly 190 countries came together in the historic
> Paris agreement to take action in minimizing the impacts of climate change.
> However, even with the consensus to cut carbon emissions, the continued
> trajectory of global emissions will push global temperatures 2°C past
> pre-industrial temperatures. Implementation of carbon dioxide removal (CDR)
> options is a way to meet the target. Through an extensive literature
> review, ten CDR/storage options were examined to gain a better
> understanding of the current state of research regarding the CDR potential
> of each option and their relevant costs, as well as the feasibility of
> their implementation. As we have concluded that all options require
> significant further research, a second major objective was to highlight
> where major gaps in research exist in order to help guide further inquiry
> in CDR options. Every option was examined extensively and presented in an
> individual chapter. Each chapter presents our findings regarding the
> CDR/storage potential and economic costs collected for each option. In
> addition, each chapter includes a discussion of the technical or natural
> process, geographic restrictions, policy implications, benefits and risks
> associated with the implementation, as well as recommendations for further
> research. The biggest takeaways from the literature review is that this set
> of CDR options offer enough removal potential to warrant equal
> consideration to other emission reduction measures, all options face
> limitations and uncertainties so a diverse portfolio of options should be
> pursued, and implementation should occur in a staged manner, in which
> options are implemented as they become feasible.  [less]
> <https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/136610>
> Handle: http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/136610
> Other Identifiers: 315
> Subject(s): carbon dioxide removal, negative emissions, climate change,
> CO2
> Show full item record
> <https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/136610?show=full>
>
> --
> 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] Paul Hawken et al Weigh In

[Adam Dorr]

I should perhaps clarify that I have thus far seen no viable CDR scenarios
that depend on social/political/economic change alone in the absence of
major technological shifts. Perhaps this book will be filled with new a
compelling evidence to the contrary, but my current understanding is that
no practicable amount of recycling and biking to work and conservation
tillage and reforestation and BECCS and all the rest can get us anywhere
near sequestering 800 GtC by 2050. And that 800 *billion* tons (!) is only
what must come out of the air that we've already put in - it doesn't
include the 300 GtG more we're slated to emit by then! There are pathways
to CDR at the hundred-gigaton scale, but they are entirely dependent upon
future technologies like machine-labor-driven DACCS and enhanced
weathering. Again, I do very much hope I'm wrong, but the task ahead of us
is absolutely staggering and the social/political/economic pathways that
depend on local conservation practices (as this book seems to imply) are
likely doomed to disappoint.


On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 9:39 PM, Jonathan Marshall <
jonathan.marsh...@uts.edu.au> wrote:

> ​I certainly agree that it sounds as if it is overly optimistic It
> will be interesting to see whether it suggests any socio-political remedies
> or whether it will be purely technological
>
>
>
> jon
>
>
> --
> *From:* adamd...@gmail.com <adamd...@gmail.com> on behalf of Adam Dorr <
> adamd...@ucla.edu>
> *Sent:* Sunday, 16 April 2017 1:53 PM
> *To:* Jonathan Marshall
>
> *Cc:* Geoengineering
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] Paul Hawken et al Weigh In
>
> Again, without salient details my fear is that this is the pop-science
> version of clickbait. I'm surely do hope I'm wrong, but unless these are
> fundamentally new CDR scenarios that have not yet been discussed anywhere
> in the geoengineering literature, my confidence in the claim that we can
> somehow "reverse the build-up of atmospheric carbon within thirty years" in
> the absence of radical technological change will have to remain
> discouragingly low.
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Jonathan Marshall <
> jonathan.marsh...@uts.edu.au> wrote:
>
>> I thought the website was reasonably clear as to what the book was about
>>
>> "*Drawdown* maps, measures, models, and describes the 100 most
>> substantive solutions to global warming. For each solution, we describe its
>> history, the carbon impact it provides, the relative cost and savings, the
>> path to adoption, and how it works. The goal of the research that informs
>> *Drawdown* is to determine if we can reverse the buildup of atmospheric
>> carbon within thirty years. All solutions modeled are already in place,
>> well understood, analyzed based on peer-reviewed science, and are expanding
>> around the world."
>> ​
>> In other words they are asserting that viable solutions already exist -
>> and perhaps that if you combine them you can get a successful programme
>>
>> whether we do have viable solutions, or they can achieve a description in
>> a useful way, is another matter.
>>
>> jon
>>
>>
>> --
>> *From:* adamd...@gmail.com <adamd...@gmail.com> on behalf of Adam Dorr <
>> adamd...@ucla.edu>
>> *Sent:* Sunday, 16 April 2017 10:29 AM
>> *To:* Greg Rau
>> *Cc:* Geoengineering
>> *Subject:* Re: [geo] Paul Hawken et al Weigh In
>>
>> After reading the blurb on the website, I'm still unclear what this book
>> is about. It purports to be the "story" of how different stakeholders are
>> ... responding to the threat of climate change. But what does that mean?
>> There "is as yet no roadmap that goes beyond slowing or stopping emissions"
>> ... OK, so is this the story of how these various stakeholders are
>> capturing and sequestering carbon?
>>
>> I need a little bit more detail in order to take this seriously, because
>> I have so far been woefully underwhelmed by various plans and proposals to
>> address climate change that do not adequately account for (or even
>> consider) technological advances on the decadal timescales in question.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.drawdown.org/the-book
>>>
>>> "The subtitle of *Drawdown*—*The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed
>>> to Reverse Global Warming*—may sound brash. We chose that description
>>> because no detailed plan to reverse warming has been proposed. There have
>>> been agreements and proposals on how to slow, cap, a

Re: [geo] Paul Hawken et al Weigh In

[Adam Dorr]

Again, without salient details my fear is that this is the pop-science
version of clickbait. I'm surely do hope I'm wrong, but unless these are
fundamentally new CDR scenarios that have not yet been discussed anywhere
in the geoengineering literature, my confidence in the claim that we can
somehow "reverse the build-up of atmospheric carbon within thirty years" in
the absence of radical technological change will have to remain
discouragingly low.


On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Jonathan Marshall <
jonathan.marsh...@uts.edu.au> wrote:

> I thought the website was reasonably clear as to what the book was about
>
> "*Drawdown* maps, measures, models, and describes the 100 most
> substantive solutions to global warming. For each solution, we describe its
> history, the carbon impact it provides, the relative cost and savings, the
> path to adoption, and how it works. The goal of the research that informs
> *Drawdown* is to determine if we can reverse the buildup of atmospheric
> carbon within thirty years. All solutions modeled are already in place,
> well understood, analyzed based on peer-reviewed science, and are expanding
> around the world."
> ​
> In other words they are asserting that viable solutions already exist -
> and perhaps that if you combine them you can get a successful programme
>
> whether we do have viable solutions, or they can achieve a description in
> a useful way, is another matter.
>
> jon
>
>
> --
> *From:* adamd...@gmail.com <adamd...@gmail.com> on behalf of Adam Dorr <
> adamd...@ucla.edu>
> *Sent:* Sunday, 16 April 2017 10:29 AM
> *To:* Greg Rau
> *Cc:* Geoengineering
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] Paul Hawken et al Weigh In
>
> After reading the blurb on the website, I'm still unclear what this book
> is about. It purports to be the "story" of how different stakeholders are
> ... responding to the threat of climate change. But what does that mean?
> There "is as yet no roadmap that goes beyond slowing or stopping emissions"
> ... OK, so is this the story of how these various stakeholders are
> capturing and sequestering carbon?
>
> I need a little bit more detail in order to take this seriously, because I
> have so far been woefully underwhelmed by various plans and proposals to
> address climate change that do not adequately account for (or even
> consider) technological advances on the decadal timescales in question.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> http://www.drawdown.org/the-book
>>
>> "The subtitle of *Drawdown*—*The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed
>> to Reverse Global Warming*—may sound brash. We chose that description
>> because no detailed plan to reverse warming has been proposed. There have
>> been agreements and proposals on how to slow, cap, and arrest emissions,
>> and there are international commitments to prevent global temperature
>> increases from exceeding two degrees centigrade over pre-industrial levels.
>> One hundred and ninety-five nations have made extraordinary progress in
>> coming together to acknowledge that we have a momentous civilizational
>> crisis on our earthly doorstep and have created national plans of action.
>> The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has accomplished
>> the most significant scientific study in the history of humankind, and
>> continues to refine the science, expand the research, and extend our grasp
>> of one of the most complex systems imaginable—climate. However, there is as
>> yet no roadmap that goes beyond slowing or stopping emissions."
>>
>> “At a time when the Trump administration is working to dismantle much of
>> the nation’s efforts to minimize climate change, Paul Hawken’s new book
>> swoops onto the scene like a knight in shining armor…. The book’s release
>> couldn’t possibly come at a better time. Refreshingly absent of political
>> analysis, it’s grounded in scientific reality and will likely go a long way
>> toward inciting people to action.”
>> — The Portland Tribune
>>
>> --
>> 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 G

Re: [geo] Paul Hawken et al Weigh In

[Adam Dorr]

After reading the blurb on the website, I'm still unclear what this book is
about. It purports to be the "story" of how different stakeholders are ...
responding to the threat of climate change. But what does that mean? There
"is as yet no roadmap that goes beyond slowing or stopping emissions" ...
OK, so is this the story of how these various stakeholders are capturing
and sequestering carbon?

I need a little bit more detail in order to take this seriously, because I
have so far been woefully underwhelmed by various plans and proposals to
address climate change that do not adequately account for (or even
consider) technological advances on the decadal timescales in question.



On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Greg Rau  wrote:

> http://www.drawdown.org/the-book
>
> "The subtitle of *Drawdown*—*The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to
> Reverse Global Warming*—may sound brash. We chose that description
> because no detailed plan to reverse warming has been proposed. There have
> been agreements and proposals on how to slow, cap, and arrest emissions,
> and there are international commitments to prevent global temperature
> increases from exceeding two degrees centigrade over pre-industrial levels.
> One hundred and ninety-five nations have made extraordinary progress in
> coming together to acknowledge that we have a momentous civilizational
> crisis on our earthly doorstep and have created national plans of action.
> The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has accomplished
> the most significant scientific study in the history of humankind, and
> continues to refine the science, expand the research, and extend our grasp
> of one of the most complex systems imaginable—climate. However, there is as
> yet no roadmap that goes beyond slowing or stopping emissions."
>
> “At a time when the Trump administration is working to dismantle much of
> the nation’s efforts to minimize climate change, Paul Hawken’s new book
> swoops onto the scene like a knight in shining armor…. The book’s release
> couldn’t possibly come at a better time. Refreshingly absent of political
> analysis, it’s grounded in scientific reality and will likely go a long way
> toward inciting people to action.”
> — The Portland Tribune
>
> --
> 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] A roadmap for rapid decarbonization - Science

[Adam Dorr]

With luck, CDR capacity will begin to expand dramatically not too long
after the renewables transition is really in full swing. There are major
socioeconomic and political uncertainties of course, but the underlying
technological advances driving progress on renewables are also likely drive
progress on CDR.

See my 2016 paper in *Anthropocene* ("The Impact Pulse and Restoration
Curves") for more details on how we might think about scenarios that
incorporate CDR into the decarbonization transition.


- Adam

On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Andrew Lockley 
wrote:

> Yes I agree this paper is based on a dubious premise. In all likelihood
> the doubling rate of renewables will be the controlling factor.
>
> There's going to be a slow start, a rapid transition, but then a
> tailing-off - as hard-to-switch uses (eg intercontinental flight) become
> dominant in carbon budgets
>
> Andrew
>
> On 24 Mar 2017 17:06, "Greg Rau"  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6331/1269/tab-pdf
>>
>> "...we propose framing the decarbonization challenge in terms of a global
>> decadal roadmap based on a simple heuristic—a “carbon law”—of halving gross
>> anthropogenic carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions every decade. Complemented by
>> immediately instigated, scalable carbon removal and efforts to ramp down
>> land-use CO2 emissions, this can lead to net-zero emissions around
>> mid-century, a path necessary to limit warming to well below 2°C."
>>
>> "We need urgent research to ascertain the resilience of remaining
>> biosphere carbon sinks (10). Strong financial impetus must be provided for
>> afforestation of degraded land and for establishment of no-regret
>> approaches to net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere—such as the
>> combination of second- and third-generation bioenergy with CCS (BECCS) or
>> direct air CCS (DACCS). Trials of sustainable sequestration schemes of the
>> order of 100 to 500 MtCO2/year should be well under way to resolve
>> deployment issues relating to food security, biodiversity preservation,
>> indigenous rights, and societal acceptance."
>>
>> GR - Seems unlikely we can halve emissions each decade, or that AR, BECSS
>> and DAC alone can take up the slack. So given the task and the risk of
>> failing, how is it that we have the luxury to ignore enhancing the sink
>> potential of the ocean - 70% of the Earth surface, half of the bio C cycle,
>> and half of the annual CO2 sink? Wouldn't this help "resolve [CDR]
>> deployment issues relating to food security, biodiversity preservation,
>> indigenous rights, and societal acceptance." See attached.
>>
>> --
>> 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.

Re: [geo] NYT: A Conservative Case for Climate Action

[Adam Dorr]

Well, fossil fuels are already *today* only marginally competitive for
electricity production relative to PV solar which is near grid parity in
sunny places already. If you then add a large carbon tax to fossil fuels, I
don't see how they could possibly remain cost-competitive. So that would
mean we're talking about taxing the fossil fuel industry out of existence -
which would be great, but is it politically feasible in many places?

As for China's coal plants, I think we can indeed count on them being
abandoned as soon as they stop making economic sense. There are entire
CITIES in China that have been built, only to be abandoned because the
economics stopped making sense

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/04/architecture/china-ordos-ghost-town/


--
Adam Dorr
University of California Los Angeles School of Public Affairs
Urban Planning PhD Candidate
adamd...@ucla.edu
adamd...@gmail.com

On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> I side with Doug McMartin on the parallel geo thead; there is a real risk
> that non-fossil cannot substitute for fossil energy fast enough globally
> under the best of economic incentives.  China will not abandon their 100s
> of new coal plants in the next 20 years. Replacement of fossil with PV and
> wind assumes that we have solved the energy storage problem. If we don't or
> can't, then what is Plan B?  So we need to also invest in decarbonating
> fossil energy and air if we are serious about stabilizing and then lowering
> air CO2 and global temps. Maybe the $40/tonne tax will be enough to
> incentivize the search for $35/tonne CCS and CDR.
> G
>
>
> --
> *From:* aryt alasti <aryt.ala...@gmail.com>
> *To:* Adam Dorr <adamd...@ucla.edu>
> *Cc:* Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net>; Geoengineering <
> geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, February 10, 2017 2:18 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] NYT: A Conservative Case for Climate Action
>
> I agree with that, but we do still need more proactive initiatives, on
> multiple fronts, sooner!
>
>
> Aryt
>
> On Feb 10, 2017 4:44 PM, "Adam Dorr" <adamd...@ucla.edu> wrote:
>
> I think the incentives supporting fossil fuels are not as insuperable in
> the longer-term as is often assumed. If oil and gas weren't currently so
> cheap from a supply glut - say, < $80/barrel - then PV solar would already
> be cost competitive for electricity production. And on the current cost
> decline curves, PV solar plus storage beats all fossil fuels across the
> board on LCOE without subsidies by 2025 in the majority of global
> geographies. That's with fossil fuel prices running fairly close to the
> cost of production (it isn't clear yet what the price floor is to sustain
> fracking, but it certainly isn't $20/barrel).
>
> This is only my personal opinion of course, but think PV solar WILL kill
> fossil fuels on economics alone almost everywhere by 2030.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Good points. An additional concern is that this does not address legacy
> fossil energy production and legacy CO2 already in the air.  There is no
> incentive to decarbonize fossil energy other than to kill fossil energy,
> and this can't and won't happen overnight. By their own admission the tax
> they envision addresses <50% of emissions over the coming decades.  So what
> is the plan for the other half, esp without any additional incentives to
> mitigate point and non-point sources and air. E.g., have we just wasted
> $20B on CCS R?
> Greg
>
>
> --
> *From:* aryt alasti <aryt.ala...@gmail.com>
> *To:* gh...@sbcglobal.net
> *Cc:* Geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.c om
> <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>>
> *Sent:* Friday, February 10, 2017 12:54 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] NYT: A Conservative Case for Climate Action
>
> Here's a response to that proposal, by Brad Plumer:
>
> http://www.vox.com/energy-and- environment/2017/2/8/14547290/
> conservative-carbon-tax
> <http://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/2/8/14547290/conservative-carbon-tax>
>
>
> Aryt
>
> On Feb 10, 2017 2:33 AM, "Greg Rau" <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Perhaps a glimmer of hope over here stateside:
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/ 02/08/opinion/a-conservative-
> case-for-climate-action.html? smid=pl-share
> <https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/opinion/a-conservative-case-for-climate-action.html?smid=pl-share>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails 

Re: [geo] Fwd: Watch the Videos of the "Restoring the Carbon Balance" Webinars and More

[Adam Dorr]

Given how close we already are to grid parity for PV solar LCOE, I have
seen no evidence to suggest that there is a fundamental barrier to declines
following the projected price curve for another decade or so - though I
could obviously be wrong.

A more interesting question is how *sensitive* the global energy system is
to transitions across price parity thresholds. Will solar only need to just
barely cross grid parity in order to begin to radically undermine
investment in fossil fuels? Or will it need to really smash the grid parity
barrier to instigate such a shift? It isn't clear to me yet.

Also, on a longer time horizon the automation of oil and gas production via
intelligent machine labor stands to reduce its costs as radically as
anywhere else across the global economy, so that's a complicating factor
for any decadal analysis.

I don't think we can infer very much from current investments. Industries
and institutions are notoriously bad at predicting the future as it is, not
to mention those with a gargantuan vested interest in only perceiving the
future in a way that serves their interests. As a case in point, I discuss
a particularly painful example of the abysmal quality of long-term planning
in a recent paper of mine: as of 2016 in all the major cities across the
US, transportation plans out to 2050 make ZERO mention of self-driving
cars! So, hundreds of billions of dollars worth of fully planned and
budgeted investments that ignore the most fundamental technological change
set to impact urban transportation in a century.


--
Adam Dorr
University of California Los Angeles School of Public Affairs
Urban Planning PhD Candidate
adamd...@ucla.edu
adamd...@gmail.com

On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Douglas MacMartin <macma...@cds.caltech.edu
> wrote:

> Actually I think it quite plausible that fossil fuels will be competitive
> in 2040+ (absent carbon pricing).  I don’t see anything on the horizon in
> storage that would make me believe that that problem is guaranteed to be
> solved by then (I think it’s really hard to predict when there’s orders of
> magnitude of scale-up needed), and I don’t think Moore’s law is even
> relevant to solar power.  There’s standard learning curve stuff, but
> Moore’s law works not because silicon gets cheaper, but because you can do
> more with the same amount of silicon.  But photon arrival rates are
> dictated by the sun, and we’re only off by a factor of a few from
> theoretical efficiency limits already.  So maybe fossil fuels will be
> uncompetitive, maybe they won’t, but I think it’s a massive overstatement
> to pretend that we “know” they won’t be competitive.  (If we knew that,
> no-one would be investing today in power plants with 50 year lifetimes that
> were going to be garbage in 20 years.)
>
>
>
> *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@
> googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Andrew Lockley
> *Sent:* Friday, February 10, 2017 5:19 PM
> *To:* geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
> *Subject:* [geo] Fwd: Watch the Videos of the "Restoring the Carbon
> Balance" Webinars and More
>
>
>
> Poster's note : slides are worth a skim. Kevin's vision doesn't seem to
> "bake in" what we know about solar energy's Moore's law-type price falls.
> Difficult to imagine fossils being at all competitive in 2040+, especially
> when storage and power-to-fuels development is factored in.
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: "Security and Sustainability Forumthe" <esaltzberg@
> securityandsustainabilityforum.org>
> Date: 2 Feb 2017 01:03
> Subject: Watch the Videos of the "Restoring the Carbon Balance" Webinars
> and More
> To: <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>
> Cc:
>
> Join the - Restoring the Carbon Balance - LinkedIn Group
>
> Having trouble viewing this email? Click here
> <http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?m=1102306387692=a87662c6-019c-411f-9616-b7e510e9ba37>
>
>
>
> <http://s.rs6.net/t?e=8kOhXRLhyEI=1=1>
>
> <http://s.rs6.net/t?e=8kOhXRLhyEI=3=1>
>
> <http://s.rs6.net/t?e=8kOhXRLhyEI=4=1>
>
> <http://s.rs6.net/t?e=8kOhXRLhyEI=5=1>
>
>
> <http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Watch-the-Videos-of-the---Restoring-the-Carbon-Balance--Webinars-and-More.html?soid=1102306387692=8kOhXRLhyEI#fblike>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
> <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=0018u8IrqLqyQFfzxf363HZ-xzh-IcenEMULV76YywLVvJokSCWs902x7LiKyqPTuI7G9DhfOqXkwlFryPA5a5LfsYVLM8uH82x4QraqbLRxHOeXFE8aXw2z0IedBV33vMz_-oqrQmzRodhnatUI2kysw57r3TpSO4BZmtjGJYxmCI==lIzXdJSVV5XkdNXZSlWeUTTslCLBt10FSJD7DZEODGV_IhQVZOL_Zw===Lf5ulGnKiVNGLW4FJnh5igRycZA4rMVtfDJ6WKE119YRsB-5R3sQMw==>
>
>
>
> Consider Attending GreenBiz 2017
>

Re: [geo] NYT: A Conservative Case for Climate Action

[Adam Dorr]

I think the incentives supporting fossil fuels are not as insuperable in
the longer-term as is often assumed. If oil and gas weren't currently so
cheap from a supply glut - say, < $80/barrel - then PV solar would already
be cost competitive for electricity production. And on the current cost
decline curves, PV solar plus storage beats all fossil fuels across the
board on LCOE without subsidies by 2025 in the majority of global
geographies. That's with fossil fuel prices running fairly close to the
cost of production (it isn't clear yet what the price floor is to sustain
fracking, but it certainly isn't $20/barrel).

This is only my personal opinion of course, but think PV solar WILL kill
fossil fuels on economics alone almost everywhere by 2030.





On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Greg Rau  wrote:

> Good points. An additional concern is that this does not address legacy
> fossil energy production and legacy CO2 already in the air.  There is no
> incentive to decarbonize fossil energy other than to kill fossil energy,
> and this can't and won't happen overnight. By their own admission the tax
> they envision addresses <50% of emissions over the coming decades.  So what
> is the plan for the other half, esp without any additional incentives to
> mitigate point and non-point sources and air. E.g., have we just wasted
> $20B on CCS R?
> Greg
>
>
> --
> *From:* aryt alasti 
> *To:* gh...@sbcglobal.net
> *Cc:* Geoengineering 
> *Sent:* Friday, February 10, 2017 12:54 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] NYT: A Conservative Case for Climate Action
>
> Here's a response to that proposal, by Brad Plumer:
>
> http://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/2/8/14547290/
> conservative-carbon-tax
>
>
> Aryt
>
> On Feb 10, 2017 2:33 AM, "Greg Rau"  wrote:
>
> Perhaps a glimmer of hope over here stateside:
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/ 02/08/opinion/a-conservative-
> case-for-climate-action.html? smid=pl-share
> 
>
>
> --
> 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+unsubscribe@ 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.

Re: [geo] Re: RESEARCHERS INVESTIGATING LARGE SUNSHADES TO COMBAT GLOBAL WARMING

[Adam Dorr]

I find the idea of space-based sunshades interesting, but I'm skeptical
that it will ever be practical relative to Earth-based alternatives. Even
assuming the sunshades are indeed manufactured in space with off-world
(i.e. lunar or asteroid) resources, the prospect of manufacturing and
assembling a structure the size of Texas with *human* labor in space seems
grossly implausible.

The problem, then, is that the solutions to the implausibility problem are
*also* solutions to other Earth-based geoengineering alternatives - namely,
a future abundance of cost-effective automation and/or intelligent machine
labor. If it takes thousands of narrow-AI robots in space to build this
sunshade, well, those same robots could MUCH more easily build
gigaton-scale direct-air CCS machinery here on Earth, to take just one
obvious example.

- Adam



--
Adam Dorr
University of California Los Angeles School of Public Affairs
Urban Planning PhD Candidate
adamd...@ucla.edu
adamd...@gmail.com

On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 6:13 PM, Robert G Kennedy III, PE <ro...@ultimax.com
> wrote:

> No, Andrew it would be rather short-lived, decades, say, and even that
> would require active position maintenance.  Remember, the sausage-shaped
> region around L1 is metastable, not truly stable.  So something has to
> work, albeit not very hard but all the time, to keep itself there.  But at
> least the "fuel" would be free--the sails would manipulate the very photons
> they're intercepting to keep thmselves on station.
>
> Modulating the shade Earth gets is a totally reversible process, just like
> the natural Solar Max/Min.  The effect of a school the size of Texas (say,
> 1,000,000 km^2) is about 1 part in 400, roughly 3X the magnitude of the
> existing Solar Max/Min cycle, which is 1 part in a 1000.  To reduce or turn
> off the cooling effect, the authorities simply shift the parasol a few 10's
> of thousands of km sideways off the Sun-Earth line.  Such a shift is small
> compared to the zone of metastability around L1, which is on the order of a
> few 100,000 km transverse dimension by maybe 1,000,000 km long.
>
> The umbral shadow cone peters out long before it reaches the Earth.  The
> shadow that reaches the earth is penumbral, not umbral.  At such a range
> (Mike is correct, L1 is 1.5M km from us, and the shades would orbit some
> distance even further inside that), the shading is uniform across the
> shadow. Very light, about 1 part in 400, which would not even be
> perceptible on bare skin.  I think it is important that any intervention be
> minimally intrusive, and that it be as uniform across the world.  For
> worldwide political acceptance, climate engineering must not be more of a
> burden on some than on others.  Which is why I am quite skeptical about
> regional solutions--that way lies mischief.
>
> L1 is far far away from traffic lanes for spacecraft.  Nothing goes there
> now except the occasional solar observatory, and no one is likely to go
> there unless it's the construction crew to deploy these things.  Also, the
> velocity gradients around any libration point are very shallow.  The
> relative velocity of objects moving in halo orbits around the Lagrangian
> points would be on the order of meters or tens of meters per second.  A
> very slow motion ballet.
>
> Robert G. Kennedy III, PE
> www.ultimax.com
> 1994 AAAS/ASME Congressional Fellow
> U.S. House Subcommittee on Space
>
>
> On 2016-12-13 17:19, Andrew Lockley wrote:
>
> Such a system may outlast civilisation. How would it self correct or self
>> destruct as CO2 levels fell?
>>
>> Would it endanger observational satellites or passing spaceships?
>>
>> A
>>
>> On 13 Dec 2016 22:13, "Michael MacCracken" <mmacc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Robert--Very interesting. Given the time scale involved, maybe what
>> to be thinking about, in global climate intervention sense, is
>> stratospheric aerosols first as this can be done quickly, but they have a
>> number of disadvantages, including the problem that backscattering is only
>> about 10% efficient--so about 10 times as much energy is taken out of the
>> direct beam and into the forward scattering part of the beam, are limited
>> as the need to reflect more energy rises to counterbalance an ongoing GHG
>> increase, etc., and then Dyson Dots are the exit strategy, there problem
>> being that it will take longer than we can wait to get started, but they do
>> not have the forward scatter problem nor is there the limit on how large
>> the intervention can be once one builds such a system--plus their effect
>> can be more easily varied in time.
>>
>> And actually, if one wants a really systematic approach, one would start
>&g

Re: [geo] Climate Change Policy and The Super-Hero Syndrome

[Adam Dorr]

I'm not sure how useful this sort of critique of techno-fixes is, as it
commits several fundamental errors that I've written about in my recent
publications - namely, the *Linear Projection Fallacy *and the *Ceteris
Paribus Fallacy*.

Moreover, there is no evidence that the prescribed solution to the problem
is politically or socially feasible. Historical evidence shows us that
societies have extremely poor track records of responding in a timely
fashion to "slow emergencies" as opposed to crises. So the notion that
intervening in the "A" variable of the I=PAT equation (i.e. *affluence*,
meaning per-capita consumption) is feasible is questionable. So far, A has
proven to be the *least* amenable to intervention, since even population
growth has been successfully slowed by economic development (primarily via
education and empowerment of women). Certainly for the vast majority of
environmental impact issues which humanity has successfully addressed, the
majority of successful interventions have been technological - e.g. acid
rain, ozone depletion, etc.

So while I am certainly sympathetic to concerns about depending entirely on
technological progress to solve environmental issues in general, and
climate change in particular, I am also discouraged to see these concerns
framed within a context of technological denialism. Profound technological
changes will occur over the next 20-30 years, and these have strong
implications for the environment and climate change.

Best,

Adam





--
Adam Dorr
University of California Los Angeles School of Public Affairs
Urban Planning PhD Candidate
adamd...@ucla.edu
adamd...@gmail.com

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 8:13 AM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> http://www.resilience.org/stories/2016-11-22/climate-
> change-policy-and-the-super-hero-syndrome
>
> Climate Change Policy and The Super-Hero Syndrome
> 12
> by Roger Boyd, originally published by Humanity's Test  | NOV 22, 2016
>
> There is a genre of Hollywood “feel-good” disaster movie, where everything
> seems nearly hopeless until the end, and then suddenly, many times against
> all hope, the super-hero (or super-heroes) saves the day. Whether it be
> human heroes that blow up the Earth-killing asteroid just in the nick of
> time; good mutants that defeat the bad mutants just in time; bad mutants
> turned good mutants that destroy the stayed-bad mutants just in time;
> future humans and non-human allies that save the Galaxy from the Empire.
> Anyway, you get the general storyline. The bad people/organisms /things win
> for the first 95% of the movie then the good people/organisms/things win
> against all the odds in the last 5%.
> The United Nations Climate Change bureaucracy, which tends to be full of
> economists, engineers and enviro-managers rather than actual climate
> scientists and ecologists, seems to have been watching too many of these
> feel-good disaster movies. Seems we need to make them watch the “feel bad”
> disaster movies instead, like the one where the Sun eats up the Earth, or
> perhaps a steady diet of the unlimited supply of zombie apocalypse movies.
> They need something a lot darker, where super-heroes don’t save the day.
> Then again, maybe they should just grow up and accept that super-heroes
> only exist in movies. Or maybe they should just listen to the scientists
> and ecologists a lot more.
> The United Nation’s main super-hero is called BECCS (Bio-Energy Carbon
> Capture & Storage). I know, not exactly as catchy as Superman, Thor, Cat
> Woman, or Wolverine, but what would you expect from a bunch of climate
> bureaucrats? BECCS is a true super-hero. The Bad Carbon will continue
> spewing itself into our atmosphere for decades to come, threatening to
> remove the ecological basis for modern human civilization. BECCS's friends,
> Energy Efficiency and Clean Power, will have held back Bad Carbon a bit,
> but could not stop BC in time! Then at the last minute, just before human
> civilization melts down, BECCS sucks up BC and deposits it deep in the
> Earth never to return (well at least for a few thousand years hopefully).
> The problem is that BECCS is not real; it’s a bunch of hopes and a
> religious belief in technology wrapped together. It assumes that we can set
> aside about a third of the current arable land on the planet to grow energy
> crops, instead of food. Then we can burn all those energy crops to help
> power our modern civilization, and can store all of the resulting carbon
> dioxide (billions of tons of the stuff) underground safely for thousands of
> years. That’s a lot of carbon dioxide per year, needing an infrastructure
> equivalent to the current oil & gas industry to transport it and pump it
> into the ground. What tiny-scale testing of the CCS (Carbon Capture and
> Storage) 

Re: [geo] Scientists Focused on Geoengineering Challenge the Inevitability of Multi-Millennial Global Warming

[Adam Dorr]

Post-scarcity is unintuitive, and it can be a challenge to fully unpack all
of the assumptions we normally make about production. Just to clarify the
confusion about cost, let me reiterate that I am using the term in the
*economic
*sense. A commodity that is *economically *costless is something for which
the marginal cost (i.e. the cost of producing one additional unit of the
good or service) is near-zero. The resulting supply of that good or service
is *superabundant*. That doesn't mean infinite, it simply means that the
supply is so large relative to demand that pricing and trade (i.e. markets)
for that thing would be meaningless.

Consider some examples. Air for our individual respiration needs is
economically costless because the supply is superabundant relative to
demand - and as a result, there is no market for air. Similarly,
groundwater in my home state of Michigan is economically costless relative
to individual home owners' needs, because the supply is superabundant
relative to demand: once you have an electric well in your basement, the
marginal cost of an additional gallon of water (say, 11 gallons vs. 10
gallons, or 101 vs. 100) is near-zero. And lastly, many digital goods have
just recently become superabundant as a result of key ongoing advancements
in computing. The marginal cost of an additional copy of a music file, for
example, is so low that it is near-zero, and so traditional markets for
physical copies of music (records) have disappeared because those goods
have entered a post-scarcity condition of superabundance. The entertainment
industry has been profoundly disrupted as a result of this technological
transition.

Again, economically superabundant does not mean infinite! All it means is
that the marginal cost per unit output is near-zero. There is one key
difference among the above examples, however. In the case of air, no human
involvement is needed to maintain its superabundant supply. But in the case
of groundwater and digital files, some *humans *somewhere up the supply
chain have to do the labor to build and maintain the infrastructure from
which the superabundant supply is produced. But narrowly intelligent
machine labor is poised to change that. The situation would then be more
directly analogous to the production of our air supply, which is generated
by the labor machines - albeit, biological ones (photosynthesizing plants).
Once more: air is not infinite, but it is superabundant,
meaning functionally costless.

I would encourage anyone interested to explore some of the literature - it
really is fascinating! But beyond that, I would emphasize the point I made
in my earlier message (and which I discuss at length in my recent
publications) which is that it is not possible to speak realistically about
the "long term" *without* fully understanding, appreciating, and accounting
for the full implications of technological change - of which the above
material is an important part.

Best,


Adam

--
Adam Dorr
University of California Los Angeles School of Public Affairs
Urban Planning PhD Candidate
adamd...@ucla.edu
adamd...@gmail.com

On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 6:26 AM, Douglas MacMartin <macma...@cds.caltech.edu>
wrote:

> It’s the “barring other physical limits” that is the important caveat.  I
> completely disagree with the statement that labor is the factor that makes
> CDR (and everything else) expensive.
>
>
>
> *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@
> googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Michael Trachtenberg
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 07, 2016 9:23 AM
> *To:* adamd...@ucla.edu
> *Cc:* R. T. Pierrehumbert <phys1...@nexus.ox.ac.uk>; Greg Rau <
> gh...@sbcglobal.net>; bmer...@mercerenvironment.net;
> andrew.lock...@gmail.com; geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>;
> Andrew Revkin <rev...@gmail.com>; cla...@onid.orst.edu; Oliver Morton <
> olivermor...@economist.com>; Oliver Morton <omeconom...@gmail.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] Scientists Focused on Geoengineering Challenge the
> Inevitability of Multi-Millennial Global Warming
>
>
>
> While I agree with your projection please note *nothing is costless*. A
> major reason chip labor is used is that it is still cheaper than
> AI/robotics. As that changes, for better or worse, unemployment follows.
> Cost less NOT costless.
>
>
>
> *Michael Trachtenberg, PhD*
> Visiting Scientist
> Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology
> Rutgers University
> New Brunswick, NJ
> mi...@aesop.rutgers.edu
> 609-610-6227
>
>
>
> On Sep 6, 2016, at 10:52 PM, Adam Dorr <adamd...@ucla.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> The connection is that economic cost is the CDR feasibility bottleneck.
> And barring other physical limits, labor is the factor of production that
> makes CDR (and everything else) expensive. *Machine *labor obviates this
&

Re: [geo] Scientists Focused on Geoengineering Challenge the Inevitability of Multi-Millennial Global Warming

[Adam Dorr]

The connection is that economic cost is the CDR feasibility bottleneck. And
barring other physical limits, labor is the factor of production that makes
CDR (and everything else) expensive. *Machine *labor obviates this
feasibility bottleneck.

Choose any product or service, trace its supply chain to its origins, and
this becomes obvious: a functionally unlimited supply of costless skilled
labor straightforwardly renders all commodified goods and services
superabundant (though obviously not infinite). CDR is not feasible today
because it would cost trillions of dollars to build the tens of thousands
of building-sized direct air CO2 capture facilities and storage needed to
draw 5+ Gt of carbon out of the atmosphere. And the reason why it would
cost trillions of dollars is because, today, *people *would have to build
and operate those facilities. Fast-forward 50 years, and narrowly
intelligent machines could be tasked with the entire process, end-to-end,
including *their own* manufacture and the (costless) manufacture of their
supply of energy (most likely solar) and raw materials.

There is a substantial literature that has begun to explore the
post-scarcity implications of narrow AI, machine labor, and other
disruptive technologies. Among the environmental implications, CDR
geoeingeering is (in my mind) a particularly salient case. The specific
example of self-driving cars merely illustrates that the machine labor in
question is not 5000 years away, or 500, but - quite obviously - 50 or less.

Best,

Adam

--
Adam Dorr
University of California Los Angeles School of Public Affairs
Urban Planning PhD Candidate
adamd...@ucla.edu
adamd...@gmail.com

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:46 PM, Michael Trachtenberg <
mi...@aesop.rutgers.edu> wrote:

> HI Adam,
>
> The majority of physical chemical processes while controlled will not be
> accelerated greatly beyond known maxima simply by applying computing
> capabilities.
>
> Mike
>
> *Michael Trachtenberg, PhD*
> Visiting Scientist
> Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology
> Rutgers University
> New Brunswick, NJ
> mi...@aesop.rutgers.edu
> 609-610-6227
>
>
>
> On Sep 6, 2016, at 7:08 PM, Adam Dorr <adamd...@ucla.edu> wrote:
>
> As I explain in detail in the papers I attached and in my other recent
> work, there are two problems with this reasoning. The first hinges is how
> we define prudence. *Ignoring *a possibility until evidence guarantees
> that the outcome is certain is, I argue, not at all prudent. And the second
> is that there is already a veritable mountain of evidence that arrival of
> the specific technologies I described (namely, narrow artificial
> intelligence and machine labor) is already imminent - to say nothing of the
> overwhelming confidence we can have that these technologies will have
> arrived by, say, 2050 or 2075. Self-driving cars are the clearest prominent
> example, but there are many others.
>
> Best,
>
>
> Adam
>
> --
> Adam Dorr
> University of California Los Angeles School of Public Affairs
> Urban Planning PhD Candidate
> adamd...@ucla.edu
> adamd...@gmail.com
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 2:16 AM, R. T. Pierrehumbert <
> phys1...@nexus.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, and maybe they’ll get controlled fusion working too.  It would be
>> imprudent to bank on such things until there is real evidence that it will
>> happen.
>>
>> On Sep 6, 2016, at 12:57 AM, Adam Dorr <adamd...@ucla.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>> To take just one prominent example, I think that too few folks are giving
>> serious consideration to the *explosion *in CDR feasibility (and other
>> ecological restoration capacities) that is likely to follow the arrival of
>> widespread narrowly intelligent machine labor (i.e. the AI of the sort that
>> can drive a car, not the *general *sort that is self-aware and wants to
>> take over the world). Dismissing this as science fiction might have been
>> reasonable 20 years ago. But today, with cars that can drive themselves
>> right over the horizon, I feel very strongly that it is intellectually lazy
>> and socially irresponsible to continue doing so. Other imminent
>> technological changes will also have a profound impact on the feasibility
>> of various CDR approaches. It would be helpful if all who are actively
>> engaged in this arena could take care to avoid some of the more common
>> general errors in reasoning about the future, so that they may think more
>> clearly about the policy, planning, and other implications of technological
>> change.
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop recei

Re: [geo] Scientists Focused on Geoengineering Challenge the Inevitability of Multi-Millennial Global Warming

[Adam Dorr]

As I explain in detail in the papers I attached and in my other recent
work, there are two problems with this reasoning. The first hinges is how
we define prudence. *Ignoring *a possibility until evidence guarantees that
the outcome is certain is, I argue, not at all prudent. And the second is
that there is already a veritable mountain of evidence that arrival of the
specific technologies I described (namely, narrow artificial intelligence
and machine labor) is already imminent - to say nothing of the overwhelming
confidence we can have that these technologies will have arrived by, say,
2050 or 2075. Self-driving cars are the clearest prominent example, but
there are many others.

Best,


Adam

--
Adam Dorr
University of California Los Angeles School of Public Affairs
Urban Planning PhD Candidate
adamd...@ucla.edu
adamd...@gmail.com

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 2:16 AM, R. T. Pierrehumbert <phys1...@nexus.ox.ac.uk
> wrote:

> Yeah, and maybe they’ll get controlled fusion working too.  It would be
> imprudent to bank on such things until there is real evidence that it will
> happen.
>
> On Sep 6, 2016, at 12:57 AM, Adam Dorr <adamd...@ucla.edu> wrote:
>
>
> To take just one prominent example, I think that too few folks are giving
> serious consideration to the *explosion *in CDR feasibility (and other
> ecological restoration capacities) that is likely to follow the arrival of
> widespread narrowly intelligent machine labor (i.e. the AI of the sort that
> can drive a car, not the *general *sort that is self-aware and wants to
> take over the world). Dismissing this as science fiction might have been
> reasonable 20 years ago. But today, with cars that can drive themselves
> right over the horizon, I feel very strongly that it is intellectually lazy
> and socially irresponsible to continue doing so. Other imminent
> technological changes will also have a profound impact on the feasibility
> of various CDR approaches. It would be helpful if all who are actively
> engaged in this arena could take care to avoid some of the more common
> general errors in reasoning about the future, so that they may think more
> clearly about the policy, planning, and other implications of technological
> change.
>
>
>

-- 
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] Fwd: solar cell captures CO2 and sunlight, produces burnable fuel (Science, July 29)

[Adam Dorr]

The syngas produced would need to be sequestered, but the technology itself
does do the *removal* process, so it at least has CDR potential. Those
other papers look very interesting. It would be great to see a comparison
of the energy efficiency of these various technologies. I would also note
that, at least in my personal opinion, we should avoid encouraging the use
of hydrogen as a fuel, given its numerous disadvantages and inefficiencies
compared to other options.

--
Adam Dorr
University of California Los Angeles School of Public Affairs
Urban Planning PhD Candidate
adamd...@ucla.edu
adamd...@gmail.com

On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> If hydrocarbon fuel is being produced from CO2 and then ultimately
> combusted in an ICE, how is this CDR? How is this producing negative
> emissions?  I haven't seen the paper either, but are they actually using
> air CO2, or more likely, some highly concentrated source and at what cost?
> Anyway, those interested in true electrochemical CDR with H2 fuel
> production powered by your choice of renewable or nuclear electricity (and
> without exotic chemicals), I can humbly offer these:
> http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b00875
> http://www.pnas.org/content/110/25/10095.full
> http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es800366q
>
> Greg
>
>
> --
> *From:* Adam Dorr <adamd...@ucla.edu>
> *To:* geoengineerin...@gmail.com
> *Cc:* geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, July 29, 2016 12:34 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] Fwd: solar cell captures CO2 and sunlight, produces
> burnable fuel (Science, July 29)
>
> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this catalyzed electrolysis,
> where the solution in question produces hydrogen and carbon monoxide (as
> opposed to the more familiar hydrogen and oxygen from the electrolysis of
> water)? Does the PV solar cell participate in any capacity other than
> providing electrical current?
>
> I understand why the idea of artificial photosynthesis is exciting, and
> why this system could claim to achieve that. But if the PV cells are just
> providing electricity, then this (in my personal opinion) is actually MORE
> exciting than just artificial photosynthesis, because it suggests that it
> is a CDR technology with the potential to be driven by any power source.
> That means all electricity-producing renewables (wind, geothermal, wave,
> etc.) plus nuclear energy could be used to drive this CDR method.
>
> The only catch is that with PV solar driving it, one can somewhat get away
> with ignoring the energy efficiency of the process - since the power source
> is "free" in the sense that the electricity isn't coming from a wall socket
> at a direct opportunity cost to other uses.
>
> I am unable to access the actual paper yet, but the news article doesn't
> mention energy or material throughput, so it isn't yet possible to evaluate
> the technology's efficiency. (They do claim a 1000x greater "speed" and 20x
> lower cost compared to other catalysts, but these figures aren't meaningful
> without accompanying energy consumption and gas output data).
>
> Potential downsides/concerns include the toxicity of the compounds
> involved (not sure about ethyl-methyl-imidazolium tetrafluoroborate, but
> cobalt oxides can be nasty beyond minute amounts), and the durability of
> the catalyst (i.e. number of cycles it can sustain, given than its efficacy
> depends on nanostructure).
>
>
> Adam
>
>
> --
> Adam Dorr
> University of California Los Angeles School of Public Affairs
> Urban Planning PhD Candidate
> adamd...@ucla.edu
> adamd...@gmail.com
>
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Fred Zimmerman <
> geoengineerin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Thoughts? I'm having a difficult time evaluating significance of this.
>
>
> https://news.uic.edu/breakthrough-solar-cell-captures-co2-and-sunlight-produces-burnable-fuel
>
> Researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago have engineered a
> potentially game-changing solar cell that cheaply and efficiently converts
> atmospheric carbon dioxide directly into usable hydrocarbon fuel, using
> only sunlight for energy.
> The finding is reported in the July 29 issue of *Science* and was funded
> by the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Energy. A
> provisional patent application has been filed.
> Unlike conventional solar cells, which convert sunlight into electricity
> that must be stored in heavy batteries, the new device essentially does the
> work of plants, converting atmospheric carbon dioxide into fuel, solving
> two crucial problems at once. A solar farm of such “artificial leaves”
>

Re: [geo] Fwd: solar cell captures CO2 and sunlight, produces burnable fuel (Science, July 29)

[Adam Dorr]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this catalyzed electrolysis,
where the solution in question produces hydrogen and carbon monoxide (as
opposed to the more familiar hydrogen and oxygen from the electrolysis of
water)? Does the PV solar cell participate in any capacity other than
providing electrical current?

I understand why the idea of artificial photosynthesis is exciting, and why
this system could claim to achieve that. But if the PV cells are just
providing electricity, then this (in my personal opinion) is actually MORE
exciting than just artificial photosynthesis, because it suggests that it
is a CDR technology with the potential to be driven by any power source.
That means all electricity-producing renewables (wind, geothermal, wave,
etc.) plus nuclear energy could be used to drive this CDR method.

The only catch is that with PV solar driving it, one can somewhat get away
with ignoring the energy efficiency of the process - since the power source
is "free" in the sense that the electricity isn't coming from a wall socket
at a direct opportunity cost to other uses.

I am unable to access the actual paper yet, but the news article doesn't
mention energy or material throughput, so it isn't yet possible to evaluate
the technology's efficiency. (They do claim a 1000x greater "speed" and 20x
lower cost compared to other catalysts, but these figures aren't meaningful
without accompanying energy consumption and gas output data).

Potential downsides/concerns include the toxicity of the compounds involved
(not sure about ethyl-methyl-imidazolium tetrafluoroborate, but cobalt
oxides can be nasty beyond minute amounts), and the durability of the
catalyst (i.e. number of cycles it can sustain, given than its efficacy
depends on nanostructure).


Adam


--
Adam Dorr
University of California Los Angeles School of Public Affairs
Urban Planning PhD Candidate
adamd...@ucla.edu
adamd...@gmail.com

On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Fred Zimmerman <geoengineerin...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> Thoughts? I'm having a difficult time evaluating significance of this.
>
>
> https://news.uic.edu/breakthrough-solar-cell-captures-co2-and-sunlight-produces-burnable-fuel
>
> Researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago have engineered a
> potentially game-changing solar cell that cheaply and efficiently converts
> atmospheric carbon dioxide directly into usable hydrocarbon fuel, using
> only sunlight for energy.
>
> The finding is reported in the July 29 issue of *Science* and was funded
> by the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Energy. A
> provisional patent application has been filed.
>
> Unlike conventional solar cells, which convert sunlight into electricity
> that must be stored in heavy batteries, the new device essentially does the
> work of plants, converting atmospheric carbon dioxide into fuel, solving
> two crucial problems at once. A solar farm of such “artificial leaves”
> could remove significant amounts of carbon from the atmosphere and produce
> energy-dense fuel efficiently.
>
> “The new solar cell is not photovoltaic — it’s photosynthetic,” says Amin
> Salehi-Khojin, assistant professor of mechanical and industrial engineering
> at UIC and senior author on the study.
>
> “Instead of producing energy in an unsustainable one-way route from fossil
> fuels to greenhouse gas, we can now reverse the process and recycle
> atmospheric carbon into fuel using sunlight,” he said.
>
> While plants produce fuel in the form of sugar, the artificial leaf
> delivers syngas, or synthesis gas, a mixture of hydrogen gas and carbon
> monoxide. Syngas can be burned directly, or converted into diesel or other
> hydrocarbon fuels.
>
> The ability to turn CO2 into fuel at a cost comparable to a gallon of
> gasoline would render fossil fuels obsolete.
>
> Chemical reactions that convert CO2 into burnable forms of carbon are
> called reduction reactions, the opposite of oxidation or combustion.
> Engineers have been exploring different catalysts to drive CO2 reduction,
> but so far such reactions have been inefficient and rely on expensive
> precious metals such as silver, Salehi-Khojin said.
>
> “What we needed was a new family of chemicals with extraordinary
> properties,” he said.
> [image: Amin Salehi-Khojin & Mohammad Asadi]
>
> Amin Salehi-Khojin (left), UIC assistant professor of mechanical and
> industrial engineering, and postdoctoral researcher Mohammad Asadi with
> their breakthrough solar cell that converts atmospheric carbon dioxide
> directly into syngas.
>
> Salehi-Khojin and his coworkers focused on a family of nano-structured
> compounds called transition metal dichalcogenides — or TMDCs — as
> catalysts, pairing them with an unconventional ionic liquid as the
> electrolyte insi

Re: [geo] CDR as Mitigation

[Adam Dorr]

I agree with Dr Burns, the conflation of CDR with mitigation is
problematic. It is both more logical and more politically expedient for CDR
to be referred to as "restoration" or "remediation".

--
Adam Dorr
University of California Los Angeles School of Public Affairs
Urban Planning PhD Candidate
adamd...@ucla.edu
adamd...@gmail.com

On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 6:53 AM, Wil Burns <w...@feronia.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Ken Caldeira <kcalde...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think of carbon dioxide removal as a form of mitigation and of solar
> geoengineering as an extreme form of adaptation.
>
> I find the characterization of CDR as “mitigation” as both inaccurate and
> ill-advised in the context of discussion of geoengineering as a climate
> policy option. A working definition of the term mitigation, from the UNFCCC
> Secretariat, is “efforts to reduce or prevent emission of greenhouse
> gases;” CDR approaches do not, by definition, reduce or prevent GHG
> emissions; rather, they attempt to sequester emissions once they are
> released. The consequences of this create a fundamentally different
> situation on the ground than processes that prevent release of emissions.
> For example, the work of Tim Searchinger and others demonstrate that
> production of feedstock for BECCS  may simply result in displacement of
> other carbon reservoirs to compensate for the loss of food and forest
> stocks to meet bioenergy demands. As a consequence, atmospheric
> concentrations of CO2 may not decrease, or might even increase. That’s a
> far different result than what would occur in terms of true mitigation
> approaches, such as fuel-switching, or a rapid transition to renewables.
>
>
>
> Moreover, BECCS could require 20-25% of net primary productivity to be
> operationalized on a large-scale. Additionally, the fact that CDR
> approaches don’t “mitigate” emissions means that said emissions have to be
> sequestered, which has potentially serious implications in terms of things
> e.g. groundwater integrity, or the CO2 may be utilized for enhanced oil
> recovery, potentially, according to the EPA,  producing 3x as much oil as
> current U.S. reserves. This could result in carbon lock-in for decades to
> come. This isn’t “mitigation” in even the most extremely attenuated
> conception of the term.
>
>
>
> Don’t get me wrong; given our feckless response to climate change, I
> support CDR research, and potentially, deployment. However, I think it’s
> unfortunate that we portray this as “mitigation.” Therein lies the creation
> of the bugaboo that we know as “moral hazard.” While simply characterizing
> climate geoengineering as a “bridge” to a decarbonized future may not
> create such a hazard, characterizing geoengineering as actual “mitigation”
> assuredly could.
>
>
>
>
>
> Dr. Wil Burns
>
> Co-Executive Director, Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment
>
> A Scholarly Initiative of the School of International Service, American
> University
>
> 2650 Haste Street, Towle Hall #G07
>
> Berkeley, CA 94720
>
> 650.281.9126 (Phone)
>
> http://www.dcgeoconsortium.org
>
>
>
> Blog: Teaching Climate/Energy Law & Policy,
> http://www.teachingclimatelaw.org
>
> Twitter: https://twitter.com/wil_burns
>
> Skype ID: Wil.Burns
>
> View my research on my SSRN Author page:
>
> http://ssrn.com/author=240348
>
>
>
> --
> 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.