Re: [geo] An outside-the-box plan to fight climate change - Opinion - Chinadaily.com.cn

[Gernot Wagner]

Agreed -- on the continued disagreement with Lomborg, that is.

His framing as "Plan B" is precisely the kind of framing we need to get
away from. See e.g. Pete Irvine's excellent recent talk
<https://twitter.com/CollectiveforC1/status/1496025477399687169?s=20=UOohxrxit-DIwUxPGeUREQ>
on that point.

*Gernot Wagner, **New York University (on leave at Columbia Business
School, spring 2022)*
gwagner.com
*Keep in touch: *gwagner.com/#newsletter


On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 2:58 PM  wrote:

> I might agree with Lomborg that geoengineering research “might just prove
> to be Earth’s best backup plan” if he meant it as a backup to aggressive
> mitigation and adaptation. But Lomborg has long called out mitigation as
> costly and unnecessary as he does again in this piece (and also, e.g. here
> <https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-adaptation-panic-exaggerating-disaster-11634760376>
> )
>
>
>
> So I remain entirely comfortable continuing to disagree with him.
>
>
>
> Peter Frumhoff
>
>
>
> *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com  *On
> Behalf Of *Alan Robock ?
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 24, 2022 2:32 PM
> *To:* renaud.derich...@gmail.com; geoengineering <
> geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
> *Cc:* Stephen Salter 
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] An outside-the-box plan to fight climate change -
> Opinion - Chinadaily.com.cn
>
>
>
> That's not exactly right.  What he wrote is:
>
> "We should not commence geo-engineering now, since the technology is not
> ready and we don't yet know enough about it. But we simply cannot afford to
> not research it. It might just prove to be Earth's best backup plan."
>
>
> I think we all agree with this.  I debated him once on CNN.  It feels
> uncomfortable to agree with him.
>
> Alan
>
> Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
>   Chair-Elect, AGU College of Fellows
>   Associate Editor, *Reviews of Geophysics*
> Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751
> Rutgers UniversityE-mail:
> rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
> 14 College Farm Roadhttp://people.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock
> New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 ☮ https://twitter.com/AlanRobock
>
> [image: Signature]
>
> On 2/24/2022 2:26 PM, Renaud de RICHTER wrote:
>
> Both SAI and MCB got a strong supporter:  Bjorn Lomborg
>
>
>
>
> http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202202/12/WS620712e7a310cdd39bc8634f.html?mc_cid=3dc934fe46_eid=2decfaafd5
>
>
> --
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAHodn9_A6T_kjUzp42cpiX6ZDKcWmFtnR_LTztTA%2Bnopr-YkHQ%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAHodn9_A6T_kjUzp42cpiX6ZDKcWmFtnR_LTztTA%2Bnopr-YkHQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>
> .
>
>
>
> --
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/2fefaab0-1d24-9b8c-8e61-9e9f533b6ae2%40envsci.rutgers.edu
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/2fefaab0-1d24-9b8c-8e61-9e9f533b6ae2%40envsci.rutgers.edu?utm_medium=email_source=footer>
> .
>
> --
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/005b01d829b8%246faab790%244f0026b0%24%40gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/005b01d829b8%246faab790%244f0026b0%24%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>
> .
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJK3vz2yboWUM3V_wP-fTQz2is%3D-uSvwoDZp82Mqu_DGmEB4xw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [geo] Senior scholars?

[Gernot Wagner]

To be clear, this effort goes quite a bit further. From the "extended
argument": "[…] it is *effective *and *enforceable *political control by
the Global South that would be required."

That, of course, renders basically any global (climate) governance effort
anywhere illegitimate.

*Gernot Wagner, **New York University (on leave at Columbia Business
School, spring 2022)*
gwagner.com
*Keep in touch: *gwagner.com/#newsletter


On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 8:40 PM Andrew Revkin  wrote:

> Yes, that's a solid point. How many sustainability challenges (other than
> CFC's) have been, or can be, "governed a fair, inclusive, and effective
> manner"?
>
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 11:46 PM Greg Rau  wrote:
>
>> “In short, solar geoengineering deployment cannot be governed globally
>> in a fair, inclusive, and effective manner.”
>> Apparently, neither can adequate emissions reduction. Considering what’s
>> at stake, how about trying harder on both fronts? Or would that be asking
>> too much of governance “experts”? Guess our only hope is CDR, or is that
>> also beyond human control?
>> Greg
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jan 21, 2022, at 7:07 PM, 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering <
>> geoengineering@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>>
>> From the content of the letter, it is obvious the authors are not
>> geoengineering experts.  The signatories of the open letter
>> <https://www.solargeoeng.org/non-use-agreement/open-letter/> are listed
>> at https://www.solargeoeng.org/non-use-agreement/signatories/.  They are
>> mainly governance scholars, as noted in the article
>> <https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.754>, which means
>> their fields are more in social science than physical science.
>>
>>
>>
>> I doubt that people with scientific expertise in geoengineering would
>> support such an ignorant and harmful polemic.  It is distressing that the
>> evidence-free attitudes in this letter have such widespread senior academic
>> support.  If this viewpoint remains influential, our planetary goose is
>> cooked.
>>
>>
>>
>> Robert Tulip
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
>> *On Behalf Of *Andrew Lockley
>> *Sent:* Saturday, 22 January 2022 3:47 AM
>> *To:* geoengineering 
>> *Subject:* [geo] Senior scholars?
>>
>>
>>
>> About that recent letter on "International Non-Use Agreement on Solar
>> Geoengineering"...
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.solargeoeng.org/
>>
>>
>>
>> It has been signed by "senior scholars", we're told:
>>
>>
>>
>> "...over 45 senior scholars from around the world who are the First
>> Signatories of our Open Letter..."
>>
>>
>>
>> But is this description correct, insofar as the signatories' publication
>> record on this specific subject?
>>
>>
>>
>> I've been asked to share the attached data, by an anon source. It's based
>> on WOS searches, (with a couple of manual amendments for missing pubs).
>>
>>
>>
>> 'Web of science search, topic: "solar geoengineering" OR "solar radiation
>> management" OR "climate engineering" OR "geoengineering" OR "stratospheric
>> aerosol geoengineering" OR "marine cloud brightening" OR "cirrus cloud
>> thinning"'
>>
>>
>>
>> While this search is doubtless neither perfect nor exhaustive, it does
>> not appear obviously biased to me. (I had no role in its generation.)
>>
>>
>>
>> I've added only mean/max/mode info - pasting data to a new file to
>> protect my source.
>>
>>
>>
>> You will note the following key points of information
>>
>> 1) Mode number of topic papers detected among sigs is zero - Only ~1/3
>> have ever published on the topic. Any "senior" status has therefore
>> generally been acquired in other fields, or not at all.
>>
>> 2) Max pubs is 8 among signatories (FYI same as me - and am an unwaged RA
>> with no PhD, and not by any sensible objective definition a "senior
>> scholar").
>>
>> 3) Of the top ~400 authors on solar geo, only 7 have signed their
>> letter.  (<2%)
>>
>> 4) Mean publications of signatories <1
>>
>> 5) Max pubs of non-signatories is over 10x that of signatories
>>
>>
>>
>> As always, I express no opinion. You can form your own view, bas

Re: [geo] CDR / Geoengineering map

[Gernot Wagner]

This is a rather…odd jumble of information:
twitter.com/GernotWagner/status/1405908094224379907?s=19

Gernot Wagner, New York University
gwagner.com

On Fri, Jun 18, 2021, 11:01 Geoeng Info  wrote:

> https://map.geoengineeringmonitor.org
>
> Geoengineering Map
>
> This interactive world map on geoengineering, prepared by ETC Group and
> the Heinrich Boell Foundation, sheds light on the alarming expansion of
> geoengineering research and experimentation.
>
> It builds on an earlier map of Earth Systems Experimentation published in
> 2012. That original map documented around 300 projects and experiments
> related to the field of geoengineering. Almost a decade later, close to
> 1,400 such projects have been identified -- including past, ongoing and
> planned ones.
>
> These include Carbon Removal and Solar Radiation Management as well as
> other geoengineering approaches. The map also contains Carbon Capture and
> Weather Modification projects. There is no complete record of weather and
> climate control projects so this map is necessarily partial.
>
> For more information and background on geoengineering and its risks and
> impacts on ecological, economic, social and justice see
> geoengineeringmonitor.org
>
> --
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAKSzgpbFP7Pa6-Dipfo53jbqkuCMrxPQon7W34G5Po6osYACXw%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAKSzgpbFP7Pa6-Dipfo53jbqkuCMrxPQon7W34G5Po6osYACXw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>
> .
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJK3vz3_O9_f_NdBSioJpr_fa%2BmehcENt%3DV72NthNfSqvcH2Og%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [geo] My CNN geoengineering question to Sen. Cory Booker

[Gernot Wagner]

Indeed. The very fact that they are staging a "debate" -- and e.g. pretend
its somehow linked to UN climate week -- is bad news all around. For what
it's worth, they've been making the rounds among climate
scientists/economists, (fortunately) only getting rejections, as far as I
can tell.

One strong vote to simply ignore.

Cheers,
G

*Gernot Wagner, **New York University*
gwagner.com
*Keep in touch: *gwagner.com/#newsletter



On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 2:19 PM Hawkins, David  wrote:

> The audience is not the people in the room.  The audience is the people
> who will receive the spin about the meeting and Heartland, not you, will
> control that activity.
>
> --
> *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
> on behalf of Klaus Lackner 
> *Sent:* Friday, September 6, 2019 2:16 PM
> *To:* rev...@gmail.com ; Alan Robock <
> rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu>
> *Cc:* Geoengineering 
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] My CNN geoengineering question to Sen. Cory Booker
>
>
> You can’t convince people who are already convinced.  This email offers
> you an opportunity to change someone’s mind.
>
> Klaus
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: * on behalf of Andrew Revkin <
> rev...@gmail.com>
> *Reply-To: *Andrew Revkin 
> *Date: *Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 5:45 PM
> *To: *Alan Robock 
> *Cc: *Geoengineering 
> *Subject: *Re: [geo] My CNN geoengineering question to Sen. Cory Booker
>
>
>
> Glad you stuck in there, Alan.
>
>
>
> There actually was one other geoengineering question - asked by a Columbia
> student of Andrew Yang. His answer was pretty great:
>
>
>
> https://twitter.com/Revkin/status/1169441473768710147
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_Revkin_status_1169441473768710147=DwMFaQ=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ=10szylF6BPVKuwho3rdhaWVodQM9Cm1N-Ny6_CNV9aQ=EC_So8YClRsaD5YDZF21Tyxrfjvm4XG8UrOb-TB9EWc=>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 8:03 PM Alan Robock 
> wrote:
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> Last night I attended CNN's Climate Town Hall, and asked my Senator Cory
> Booker a question about solar geoengineering research.  You can see it
> starting at 27:44 on
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHIMD2E6DgE=PL29Rq0wvBhgOcY9ew5490FwzT5U5N6CqT=11=0s
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-3Fv-3DWHIMD2E6DgE-26list-3DPL29Rq0wvBhgOcY9ew5490FwzT5U5N6CqT-26index-3D11-26t-3D0s=DwMFaQ=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ=10szylF6BPVKuwho3rdhaWVodQM9Cm1N-Ny6_CNV9aQ=Lnkx0FkLE--5I65VGUC2Vm57Q3ojBdN1hX3BSALvH6w=>
> He immediately called me "Sir," and said he did not know anything about it,
> but would find out.  Today Rutgers got an email from his office asking for
> more information and I will explain what it is and why we need more
> resources for research.
>
> I did not intend to embarrass him.  I submitted the same question to CNN
> to be asked of all 10 candidates, and they decided to invite me and have me
> ask it of my own Senator.  I spent 4 hours in the audience listening to
> Biden, Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg, O'Rourke, and Booker, and was the last
> person to ask a question.  It was a long time, but very interesting.  Mine
> was the only geoengineering question.  Booker referenced one, and it must
> have been to one of the four other candidates who appeared before my 4
> hours.
>
> The other interesting email I got today was the one below.  How do you
> recommend I answer?   My plan is to say that appearing there would give
> legitimacy to a "debate" about settled science.  I have not debated global
> warming deniers for years now for this reason.
>
> Alan
>
>
>
> Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
>
>   Associate Editor, Reviews of Geophysics
>
> Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751
>
> Rutgers UniversityE-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
>
> 14 College Farm Roadhttp://people.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock 
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__people.envsci.rutgers.edu_robock=DwMFaQ=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ=10szylF6BPVKuwho3rdhaWVodQM9Cm1N-Ny6_CNV9aQ=oI9BmDfO_gobnBXG9xdWAl_J87iwJ-iLLrbs5xBTTIs=>
>
> New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551  USA  ☮ http://twitter.com/AlanRobock 
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__twitter.com_AlanRobock=DwMFaQ=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ=10szylF6BPVKuwho3rdhaWVodQM9Cm1N-Ny6_CNV9aQ=pWQURTxtZwXVAaVHeHwfZ0_r1987v4zYGQC6RxIVNHo=>
>
>
>
>  Forwar

Re: [geo] EDF - our position on geoengineering

[Gernot Wagner]

This is from...2015.

Gernot Wagner, New York University
gwagner.com

On Mon, Jul 1, 2019, 04:36 Andrew Lockley  wrote:

>
> https://www.edf.org/climate/our-position-geoengineering
>
> Our position on geoengineering
> Based on our best understanding of the current science, EDF believes that:
>
> Reducing emissions of greenhouse gases as rapidly as possible is essential
> to addressing the climate challenge facing humanity.
> Deliberate climate interventions such as albedo modification should not be
> undertaken for the foreseeable future as they present serious ecological,
> moral and geopolitical concerns.
> Engaging in transparent small-scale field research to further our
> understanding of the climate system and the implications of any albedo
> modification proposals is prudent and governance regimes should be
> established in parallel with the very first experiments.
> Research on development of carbon dioxide removal techniques and their
> impacts should also be undertaken.
> Geoengineering: Why it can't save the day
> What environmental advocates are saying
> EDF has played an early role in the NGO community in promoting governance
> of climate engineering research. Increasing numbers of environmental NGOs
> have joined us in this effort, and some of them have endorsed small-scale
> research. For example, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) stated its
> support for a U.S. government-led SRM research program, but called for
> guidance on governance before scaling up.
>
> Natural Resources Defense Council recently released a statement endorsing
> small-scale research and World Wildlife Fund-UK is also "cautiously
> supporting" it. Most other large environmental NGOs have taken mixed and
> sometimes internally inconsistent positions on small-scale outdoor SRM
> research.
>
> Friends of the Earth (FoE) International and FoE-U.S. oppose outdoor
> research, while FoE-UK has taken a different position. At the United
> Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, Greenpeace International
> proposed language to ban all geoengineering activities but Greenpeace-UK
> representatives have not taken the same approach in discussions in the UK.
>
> The most vehement opposition to research has come from The Action Group on
> Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC), which has rallied dozens of
> primarily small NGOs to its "Hands Off Mother Earth" campaign and recently
> launched a website "to provide a space for critical perspectives, building
> resistance and tracking developments." ETC has repeatedly lobbied at the
> CBD for a complete moratorium on outdoor geoengineering research.
>
> At the other side of the spectrum, the Arctic Methane Emergency Group
> urges deployment of geoengineering technologies as soon as possible to
> "refreeze the Arctic," halt snow and sea ice decline and prevent rising
> methane emissions from becoming a dominant climate forcing agent.
>
> --
> 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.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-06MN_xg%2B7y%2BMMwMXj59S3z9-vYyq-15_QiNsm0PtXrVOA%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-06MN_xg%2B7y%2BMMwMXj59S3z9-vYyq-15_QiNsm0PtXrVOA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>
> .
> 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.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJK3vz1Y0FzkwZVhTHVoWNV1XdKbEwZ6Da_4VVrZdaX0HqBnOg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Solar Geoengineering Research Zotero Library 1,500+ research papers

[Gernot Wagner]

This post should have mentioned prominently that some 1,100 of the
references came from Nils Matzner and Jesse Reynolds!

Entschuldigung, Nils! Verontschuldiging, Jesse!

Now fixed: https://geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu/blog/zotero


*Gernot Wagner, Harvard University**
gwagner.com
**through June; **New York University thereafter*



On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 2:17 AM Andrew Lockley 
wrote:

>
> http://gwagner.com/sg-zotero/
>
> Solar Geoengineering Research Zotero Library
> 1,500+ research papers
>
>
>
> By Elizbeth Burns, Amy Chang, Pete Irvine, Ella Necheles and Gernot Wagner
>
> Ever since Paul Crutzen broke a long-standing taboo on solar
> geoengineering research with an essay published in Climatic Change in 2006,
> the number of publications in the field has increased rapidly. By now there
> are over 1,500.
>
> We have attempted here to collect and catalog them in an easily accessible
> Zotero database.
>
> The database isn’t perfect, but we hope its attempts to make sense of the
> burgeoning literature will be useful for researchers, students, and anyone
> interested in getting a comprehensive overview of the field.
>
> We are scanning the literature for new publications. If something is
> missing or amiss, please let us know in the comment section here. All five
> of us have edit access to the database and will strive to keep things
> up-to-date.
>
> First published on the Solar Geoengineering Research blog.
>
> --
> 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] Zeckhauser-Wagner-2019-Implications-of-Uncertainty-and-Ignorance-for-Solar-Geoengineering-brief.pdf

[Gernot Wagner]

There's an entire 26-brief workshop volume where this came from:
https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/governance-deployment-solar-geoengineering


*Gernot Wagner, Harvard University**
gwagner.com
**through June; **New York University thereafter*



On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 6:52 AM Andrew Lockley 
wrote:

> The Implications of Uncertainty and Ignorance for
> Solar Geoengineering
> Richard J. Zeckhauser
> Harvard Kennedy School
> Gernot Wagner
> Harvard University Center for the Environment
> Key Points
> • Both unchecked climate change and any potential deployment of solar
> geoengineering (SG) are governed by processes that are currently unknow-
> able; i.e., either is a icted with ignorance.
> • Risk, uncertainty, and ignorance are often greeted with the
> precautionary
> principle: “do not proceed.” Such inertia helps politicians and
> bureaucrats
> avoid blame. However, the future of the planet is too important a conse-
> quence to leave to knee-jerk caution and strategic blame avoidance.
> Rational
> decision requires the equal weighting of errors of commission and omission.
> • Signi cant temperature increase, at least to the 2°C level, is almost
> certainly
> in our planet’s future. is makes research on SG a prudent priority, with
> experimentation to follow, barring red-light ndings.
> • On an expected-value basis, greater SG uncertainties make SG itself
> more
> attractive. at is because the uncertainties of unchecked climate change
> and
> SG are highly correlated. e uncertainties of climate change are likely far
> more consequential.
> What’s known about climate change provides a lower bound on its cost.1
>  What’s unknown
> makes it possibly much costlier. And then there are climatic unknowables,
> consequences that
> we can’t even conjecture. ese unknowns and unknowables, which we label
> UUs, make the
> expected costs of climate change greater than calculations employing known
> factors would indi-
> cate. It is hard to imagine pleasant surprises about climate e ects.
> It is against this backdrop of UU-a icted climatic consequences that solar
> geoengineering (SG)
> must be evaluated.
>
> --
> 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 Republican likes geoengineering. Is that middle ground?

[Gernot Wagner]

That sounds about right: reckless, radical, and woefully misinformed.

On Feb 1, 2018 5:25 PM, "Brian Cartwright" 
wrote:

It's clear from Congressman Smith's endorsement of geoengineering that he
sees it as preferable to regulations that would reduce emissions. I would
call that reckless and radical rather than "middle of the road".

Brian Cartwright

*
> Technology Advances Civilization. Bureaucrats Do Not
>
> [image: Photo of Rep. Lamar Smith]
>
> 
>
> *Rep. Lamar Smith *
>
> 
>
> *Chairman, House Science Space, and Technology Committee
> *
>
>
>
> 2:44 AM 01/29/2018
>
> Technology has advanced civilizations throughout history. Even in ancient
> civilizations, such as during the Bronze Age, technological innovation
> improved the quality of life for millions of people around the world. More
> recently, innovations have continued at increased speed. For instance,
> important technologies have led to lifesaving medical cures and affordable
> energy through hydraulic fracturing.
>
> Technological innovation takes many forms in many fields of science. One
> area that needs more focus is climate change. As the climate continues to
> change, as it always has, we should look to technology to solve possible
> problems. These technologies could help us both mitigate challenges and
> adapt to our ever-evolving world.
>
> This opinion is shared by some of the world’s brightest minds. The head of
> the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Global Energy Institute recently wrote,
> “Technology and innovation, rather than sweeping federal mandates, offer
> the best approach for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating the
> impacts of climate change.” Likewise, Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft,
> one of the most successful technology companies in history, has pushed for
> a greater focus on technology solutions. In 2016, Mr. Gates launched a new
> private sector technology fund with an initial investment of $1 billion.
>
> We should celebrate this type of thinking and these actions. For too long,
> the government has tried to use mandatory regulations to address climate
> change. The previous administration proposed extensive climate regulations
> like the Clean Power Plan, which would have driven up basic living costs
> for all Americans. And its impact on climate change was negligible. The
> plan would have reduced global temperatures by only 0.03 degrees Celsius
> and reduced sea level rise by the thickness of three sheets of paper.
>
> The Paris Climate Accord, which incorporated environmental pledges from
> countries around the world, failed to meet any type of arbitrary climate
> goal. An analysis by Bjorn Lomborg, the former director of Denmark’s
> Environmental Assessment Institute and advocate for long-term climate
> solutions, found that the Accord would only reduce global temps up to 0.17
> degrees Celsius by 2100!
>
> Another area of research that has been overlooked for too long is
> geoengineering. This concept involves using technology to make positive
> changes in our atmosphere. While this subject is at the basic research
> phase, many concepts are groundbreaking and warrant further investigation.
> One such area of research is solar radiation management, which involves
> slightly altering the amount of sunlight that penetrates and warms the
> earth. Another concept, greenhouse gas reduction, involves altering the
> makeup of gases in our atmosphere to ensure that levels remain safe.
>
> In November, the Science Committee held a hearing on the topic of
> geoengineering with government, academic, think tank, and industry
> witnesses. During the hearing, experts commented on the potential power of
> these innovative concepts and advocated further research. While we do not
> yet know if these concepts will work, we should explore them further and
> encourage the innovative minds that are using technology to find solutions.
>
> By focusing our resources on basic research, we can find solutions that
> meet our needs. America is home to some of the best scientists and greatest
> scientific facilities in the world. Supporting our scientists with adequate
> resources for technology innovation will unlock ideas and concepts that can
> be employed by private industry. Broad, burdensome, ineffective government
> regulations are not, and never will be, the solution.
>
> As in the past, by letting technology lead the way, Americans will reap
> the benefits and enjoy a better quality of life.
>
> *Congressman Lamar Smith represents the 21st district of Texas in the
> House of Representatives and is the Chairman of the House Science, Space,
> and Technology Committee.*
> --
>
>
> --
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To 

Re: [geo] Chemtrailers...

[Gernot Wagner]

And, sadly, the numbers of those believing this stuff aren't small:
nature.com/articles/s41599-017-0014-3


*Gernot Wagner, Harvard University*
gwagner.com

*Climate Shock*
*, a Top 15 FT McKinsey Business Book of the Year 2015, now Austria’s
Natural Science Book of the Year 2017*climateshock.org
<http://www.climateshock.org/>

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 9:05 AM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Personally, I flatly refuse to engage professionally with chemtraillers.
> You'll get nowhere. I just block them.
>
> You can direct people to a debunk website and say you'll block them if
> they contact you again.
>
> Personally, I get on with many of them fine. I'll happily chat to them
> socially at conferences and stuff.
>
> A
>
> On 13 Nov 2017 13:16, "Douglas MacMartin" <macma...@cds.caltech.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> I don’t know if this was a good idea or not to respond bluntly to Dane.
>> The right answer is probably to just delete all of the garbage emails,
>> since responding generally only brings more.  Though my inbox is kind of
>> filled with crap from these folks anyway, so can’t get worse, right?  I
>> guess some people thought that congress holding a hearing was proof that
>> the US government was deploying geoengineering.
>>
>>
>>
>> (Last time I interacted with Dane, he edited my emails to remove my
>> answers to his questions, then posted them on his website to show that I
>> refused to answer his questions.  And he also edited out all the
>> hate-spewing nonsense from his own emails to make it look like he was
>> charming and I was a jerk.  Which is why my conclusion is that he knows
>> full well that he’s making stuff up.)
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Douglas MacMartin [mailto:dgm...@cornell.edu]
>> *Sent:* Monday, November 13, 2017 8:08 AM
>> *To:* Dane Wigington <da...@frontier.com>; ShadowsFall1 <
>> shadowsfa...@protonmail.com>
>> *Cc:* macma...@caltech.edu; i...@garynull.com
>> *Subject:* RE: Geoengineering
>>
>>
>>
>> Ah, Dane.  You are an odd character.
>>
>>
>>
>> Anyway, you have precisely the same odds of exposing me for a climate
>> engineering coverup as I do of exposing you for starting world war one, and
>> for precisely the same reason.
>>
>>
>>
>> So, if you have any integrity left in you at all, you should actually
>> post this on your website this time, unlike the last time where you
>> deliberately removed any information from my emails that would expose you
>> for what you are, and blocked me from commenting on your website to correct
>> the information there.
>>
>>
>>
>> 1.  All aircraft exhaust contains water vapour (a byproduct of
>> combusting hydrocarbons) and particulates.  In the right conditions these
>> form contrails, as anyone with access to the internet can learn quickly (I
>> think persistent ones are about 15% of the time, if I recall right).
>> Anyone who thinks that high bypass ratio engines are somehow immune to this
>> doesn’t understand contrail formation (it’s about the same as saying red
>> cars don’t need gasoline).  So, hypothesis #1 is that clouds are made of
>> water, and hypothesis #2 is that there is some vast conspiracy involving a
>> few hundred thousand people; I’ll let you judge for yourself which is more
>> likely.  Further, taking pictures of contrails doesn’t prove that they
>> aren’t contrails any more than taking pictures of a tree proves it isn’t a
>> tree.  So… zero evidence presented here, lets move on.
>>
>> 2.  People have found contaminants in soil.  Ok… and the connection
>> is?  If you claim that anything found in soil could only have come from a
>> deliberate coverup and no other cause, you should apply your own logic to
>> acorns.  I don’t know where things like barium come from, my guess would be
>> industrial pollution, but I don’t know.  So… zero evidence presented here
>> (and I’m not sure what this has to do with anything else anyway), lets move
>> on.
>>
>> 3.  There are patents and previous programs in weather modification,
>> which Dane has successfully found (they are all public, after all, so it
>> doesn’t take much research to find them).  Yup, we all agree.  I have no
>> idea if any of it still goes on in the US or not, I know China still does.
>> (Spraying things like silver iodide to seed clouds and make it rain, I’ve
>> been told it doesn’t really work.)  So… nothing new here, and zero evidence
>> presented that this has anything to do with climate engineering.  I’m not
>> sure

Re: [geo] An Economic Anatomy of Optimal Climate Policy - Moreno-Cruz, Keith, Wagner

[Gernot Wagner]

Thanks all for your quick read and reactions.

I don't want to hide behind disciplinary language/conventions, but yes,
that's clearly partially what's going on here. As Juan notes, this is an
idealized model of optimal climate policy. One representative agent,
generally 'well-behaved' but still highly generalized damage functions,
etc. etc.

It isn't a 'welfare' calculation that comes up with empirical statements.
(The only numbers in this paper count pages and equations.) It's welfare
"in the context of the model" -- a textbook-style treatment of all four
climate policies in one coherent, 'stylized' optimal control framework.

Those are also the words we just added to the abstract. Already up at
gwagner.com, up at HKS soon, too. (The beauty of working papers, and
another disciplinary difference of sorts: Working papers are living
documents. Journals are where papers go to die.)

Cheers,
Gernot

*Gernot Wagner, Harvard University*
gwagner.com

*Climate Shock*
*, a Top 15 FT McKinsey Business Book of the Year 2015, now Austria’s
Natural Science Book of the Year 2017*climateshock.org
<http://www.climateshock.org/>

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 6:41 PM, Moreno-Cruz, Juan <
juan.moreno-c...@econ.gatech.edu> wrote:

> Andrew,
>
> Yes, you are right; sorry I misunderstood you. That is VERY important, but
> like you said it is outside the scope of this paper.
>
> With respect to the figures, this is, as Ken was saying, a discipline
> style difference.  But I like your suggestion and we will work on better
> captions.
>
> Thanks again!
>
> Juan
>
> On Jul 13, 2017, at 12:37 PM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Juan,
>
> From reading your paper, it's not clear to me that it includes any attempt
> to quantify the ratio of benefits and harms of SRM, with appropriate error
> bars. That's not to say it is a flawed work, just that this is apparent
> outside the scope.
>
> To comment on the paper specifically, I think the graphs would benefit
> from clearer description and labelling, so they can be read in isolation.
>
> Andrew
>
> On 13 Jul 2017 5:28 p.m., "Moreno-Cruz, Juan" <
> juan.moreno-c...@econ.gatech.edu> wrote:
>
>> We welcome a robust analysis as well, that is why we wrote the paper.
>>
>> Thank you for the comments, this is still in working paper form and your
>> input will help us improve this version substantially.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jul 13, 2017, at 12:26 PM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> That's only necessary if the negative impacts aren't economically
>> trivial, compared to the benefits.
>>
>> I'm unconvinced that they are non-trivial, and would welcome a robust
>> analysis.
>>
>> A
>>
>> On 13 Jul 2017 5:21 p.m., "Alan Robock" <rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I also had the same reaction.  To talk about welfare, you have to add
>>> all the negative impacts of SRM and quantify them.  The costs of SRM are
>>> not just implementation.
>>>
>>> Alan
>>> _
>>> Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
>>>   Editor, Reviews of Geophysics
>>> Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751 
>>> <(848)%20932-5751>
>>> Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644 
>>> <(732)%20932-8644>
>>> 14 College Farm Road  E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
>>> New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551  USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock
>>> ☮  http://twitter.com/AlanRobock
>>> Watch my 18 min TEDx talk at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsrEk1oZ-54
>>>
>>> On 7/13/17 10:01 AM, Moreno-Cruz, Juan wrote:
>>>
>>> That is a very fair point, Ken.  This was meant to be caveated (is that
>>> a word?), as we do in the introduction, that this is a highly abstract idea
>>> of an optimal policy scenario.  But you are right, the abstract is the
>>> first thing people read and should represent the analysis more accurately.
>>> We will change it accordingly.  Thanks!
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 13, 2017, at 11:56 AM, Ken Caldeira <
>>> kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> While Juan is a good friend, I note the difference in language across
>>> disciplines.
>>>
>>> The abstract states, rather boldly: "the introduction of solar
>>> geoengineering leads to higher emissions yet lower temperatures, and, thus,
>>> increased welfare;".
&g

Re: [geo] Trump presidency 'opens door' to planet-hacking geoengineer experiments

[Gernot Wagner]

Our response in *The Guardian*, just published today
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/29/criticism-harvard-solar-geoengineering-research-distorted>
.

Cheers,
Gernot


Fear of solar geoengineering is healthy – but don't distort our research

Models suggest solar geoengineering could reduce climate change and our
independently assessed studies are vital to understanding its full potential
[image: Sunrise over Pacific Ocean]
<https://viewer.gutools.co.uk/proxy/preview/environment/2017/mar/29/criticism-harvard-solar-geoengineering-research-distorted#img-1>“The
amount of material we would release is tiny... For example, if we tested
sulphates, we would put less material into the stratosphere than a typical
commercial aircraft does in one minute.” Photograph: ISS/Nasa

   -
   
<https://www.facebook.com/dialog/share?app_id=180444840287=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fenvironment%2F2017%2Fmar%2F29%2Fcriticism-harvard-solar-geoengineering-research-distorted%3FCMP%3Dshare_btn_fb>
   -
   
<https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Fear%20of%20solar%20geoengineering%20is%20healthy%20%E2%80%93%20but%20don%27t%20distort%20our%20research=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fenvironment%2F2017%2Fmar%2F29%2Fcriticism-harvard-solar-geoengineering-research-distorted%3FCMP%3Dshare_btn_tw>
   -
   

   - View more sharing options

David W Keith and Gernot Wagner

Tuesday 28 March 2017 17.15 BST

Even if the world were to cut emissions to zero tomorrow, global
temperatures and sea levels would rise for decades
<https://viewer.gutools.co.uk/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/aug/15/climate-urgency-weve-locked-in-more-global-warming-than-people-realize>.
If our roll of the climate dice is unlucky <http://www.climateshock.org/>,
they could rise for centuries. It is in this context that some climate
researchers have begun to reluctantly take seriously ideas first proposed
<http://keith.seas.harvard.edu/publications/geoengineering-climate-history-and-prospect>
in
the 1960s: the possibility of using solar geoengineering to help restore
the world’s climate, alongside aggressive actions to reduce greenhouse-gas
(GHG) emissions to zero and below.

Fear of solar geoengineering is entirely healthy
<http://mashable.com/2016/09/11/solar-geoengineering-is-necessary/>. Its
mere prospect might be hyped by fossil fuel interests to thwart emissions
cuts. It could be used by one or a few nations in a way that’s harmful to
many. There might be some yet undiscovered risk making the technology much
less effective in reality than the largely positive story told by computer
models.

Yet that healthy fear can distort discussion in unhealthy ways. A reader
glancing at recent coverage
<https://viewer.gutools.co.uk/environment/2017/mar/24/us-scientists-launch-worlds-biggest-solar-geoengineering-study>
in
the Guardian, especially a piece by Martin Lukacs
<https://viewer.gutools.co.uk/environment/true-north/2017/mar/27/trump-presidency-opens-door-to-planet-hacking-geoengineer-experiments>,
might assume we were capitalistic tools of Donald Trump, eager to
geoengineer the planet, democracy and justice be damned.

That reader might miss the fact that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) concluded that, “Models consistently suggest that [solar
geoengineering] would generally reduce climate differences compared to a
world with elevated GHG concentrations and no [solar geoengineering]”, or
that many scientists, including the UK Royal Society
<https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/publications/2009/geoengineering-climate/>
 and US National Academy
<http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18988/climate-intervention-reflecting-sunlight-to-cool-earth>,
support research. So do many environmentalists, including the Environmental
Defence Fund <https://www.edf.org/climate/our-position-geoengineering> and
the Natural Resources Defence Council
<https://www.nrdc.org/media/2015/150210>.

With all that in mind, we have begun to study solar geoengineering more
closely. The emphasis here is on study. It would be reckless to deploy
solar geoengineering based on today’s limited research.

What makes Harvard’s effort different is that we are planning on doing so
in anintegrated, multi-disciplinary programme
<http://geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu/> spanning many faculties
and points of view. That integrated programme is the context for a proposed
outdoor experiment.

Prof Frank Keutsch <http://chemistry.harvard.edu/people/frank-keutsch> and
one of us (Keith) are proposing to fly a balloon
<http://keith.seas.harvard.edu/publications/stratospheric-controlled-perturbation-experiment-scopex-small-scale-experiment>
about
20km into the air. Its objective is to quantify the microphysics of
introducing tiny particles into the stratosphere to improve estimates of
the risks and benefits of solar geoengineering in large atmospheric models.
It is n

Re: [geo] US scientists launch world's biggest solar geoengineering study

[Gernot Wagner]

Indeed. For some context:
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603974/harvard-scientists-moving-ahead-on-plans-for-atmospheric-geoengineering-experiments/


*Gernot Wagner, Harvard University*
gwagner.com

*Climate Shock*
*, a Top 15 FT McKinsey Business Book of the Year 2015, now also Austria’s
Natural Science Book of the Year 2017*climateshock.org
<http://www.climateshock.org/>

On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Douglas MacMartin <
macma...@cds.caltech.edu> wrote:

> Embark on what?
>
>
>
> The Guardian article is somewhat confused in general.  Basically, there’s
> only two real observations.  Harvard has some research money.  And some
> quite small fraction of that research money will go into very small scale
> outdoor field experiments.
>
>
>
> I personally think it is quite advisable to pursue research, which is all
> that is going on; individual opinions on whether outdoor experiments are
> advisable even at process-scale may differ, but no-one should form their
> opinions of those based solely on the Guardian article.
>
>
>
> *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@
> googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Adrian Tuck
> *Sent:* Saturday, March 25, 2017 11:49 AM
> *To:* shin.asay...@gmail.com
> *Cc:* geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] US scientists launch world's biggest solar
> geoengineering study
>
>
>
> The idea that we know enough by way of predictability to embark on this,
> when models predict macro weather rather than climate, is inadvisable, to
> put it mildly.
>
>
>
> On 25 Mar 2017, at 05:10, Shinichiro ASAYAMA <shin.asay...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> In association with this new Harvard solar geoengineering research
> program, I would like to take an opportunity to selfishly advertise our
> paper on Japanese lay public views on outdoor experiments of stratospheric
> aerosol injection, recently published in Geoforum.
>
> Ambivalent climate of opinions: Tensions and dilemmas in understanding
> geoengineering experimentation
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016718517300209
>
>
>
> In our paper, we explicitly delved into how lay publics conceptualized the
> idea of small-scale outdoor experiment of SAI and what this experimentation
> is for and about. Our paper is also the first critical social science
> research to empirically inquiry public understanding of geoengineering in
> Asian context.
>
>
>
> Your feedback is more than welcome!
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Shinichiro
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2017-03-25 6:49 GMT+09:00 Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>:
>
> US scientists launch world's biggest solar geoengineering study
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/24/us-
> scientists-launch-worlds-biggest-solar-geoengineering-
> study?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Gmail
>
>
> US scientists launch world's biggest solar geoengineering study
>
> Research programme will send aerosol injections into the earth’s upper
> atmosphere to study the risks and benefits of a future solar tech-fix for
> climate change
>
> [image: Image removed by sender. The sun from space]
>
> Scientists say the planet could be covered with a solar shield for as
> little as $10bn a year. Photograph: ISS/Nasa
>
> [image: Image removed by sender.]*Arthur Neslen*
>
> Published:12:39 GMT+00:00 Fri 24 March 2017
>
>  Follow Arthur Neslen
>
> US scientists are set to send aerosol injections 20km up into the earth’s
> stratosphere in the world’s biggest solar geoengineering programme to date,
> to study the potential of a future tech-fix for global warming.
>
>
>
> The $20m (£16m) Harvard University project will launch within weeks and
> aims to establish whether the technology can safely simulate the
> atmospheric cooling effects of a volcanic eruption, if a last ditch bid to
> halt climate change is one day needed.
>
> AdvertisementHide
>
> Scientists hope to complete two small-scale dispersals of first water and
> then calcium carbonate particles by 2022. Future tests could involve
> seeding the sky with aluminium oxide – or even diamonds.
>
> Is geoengineering a bad idea? | Karl Mathiesen
>
> “This is not the first or the only university study,” said Gernot Wagner,
> the project’s co-founder, “but it is most certainly the largest, and the
> most comprehensive.”
>
> Janos Pasztor, Ban Ki-moon’s assistant climate chief at the UN who now
> leads a <https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/news/announcements/411>geoengineering
> governance initiative
> <https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/news/announcements/411>, said that the

[geo] Forum on U.S. Solar Geoengineering Research

[Gernot Wagner]

We’re holding a Forum on U.S. Solar Geoengineering Research in DC this
Friday, March 24th, joint with the Emmett Center on Climate Change and the
Environment at the University of California, Los Angeles. Some of you will
be there. For those who are not, we’re hosting a livestream at
geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu. Please also refer to the page for a
full agenda.

Best,
Gernot


*Gernot Wagner, Harvard University*
gwagner.com

*Climate Shock*
*, a Top 15 FT McKinsey Business Book of the Year 2015, now also Austria’s
Natural Science Book of the Year 2017*climateshock.org
<http://www.climateshock.org/>

-- 
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.