thank you
jon
From: Gideon Futerman
Sent: Thursday, 1 September 2022 10:00 PM
To: Jonathan Marshall
Cc: geoengineering; andrew.lock...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [geo] resiliencer workshop
Hi Jonathan
The workshop is discussion based, carried out under
i gather there is no zoom for anyone from a distance to watch?
jon
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com on
behalf of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Thursday, 1 September 2022 9:04 AM
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] resiliencer workshop
Australia is also well placed to build upon its existing. and long term.
support for more fossil fuels, and a technology neutral position which always
means encouraging more fossil fuels and the release of massive amounts of
GHG
jon
___
From:
For what it is worth, I completely agree. Lomborg seems to be completely
against mitigation. He does not think there is a pressing problem, and while
some of his suggestions are definitely worthwhile, geoengineering without
mitigation is likely to be disastrous...
jon
Yes it is true that there are levels of population which are unsustainable, but
the problem with emissions is the distribution of emissions via population.
It would seem obvious that if we were to focus on lowering populations we
should lower those populations which have the greatest
For me the problem is that the debate is run by the Heartland Institute. I
would not expect them to play fair, or to moderate in an unbiased manner. I'd
want to know who the other 'experts' are going to be in advance as well.
jon
From:
Wonder who is sponsoring/funding them, if anyone?
jon
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com on
behalf of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2019 6:48 AM
To: geoengineering; carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] Worldward
es are ill-intended, precisely the opposite - they
have the best of intentions, but they do have money supposedly available for
research.
jon
From: Andrew Lockley
Sent: Tuesday, 18 December 2018 3:52 PM
To: Jonathan Marshall
Cc: geoengineering
Subject: Re: [g
>Poster's note: "well-funded campaigns in support of [geoengineering] use" are
>news to me. Anyone know where I can get
>my hands on some of this apparently abundant cash?
the article points out on page 8: richard Branson is offering
$25 million as a prize for designs able to remove
Yes, it always comes back to the social system. The current social system seems
likely destroy itself, no matter what technologies are available. Even if SRM
was completely non-problematic, we probably could not do it without there being
a profit in it which was greater than the profit of
worse than runaway climate change, but we don't know and may not ever know.
Hence I would agree with the IPCC that it is better to try other methods
properly.
jon
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018, 23:46 Jonathan Marshall,
mailto:jonathan.marsh...@uts.edu.au>> wrote:
Having just read Chapter 4 I'd have to
Having just read Chapter 4 I'd have to agree, that the IPCC considers
Geoengineering likely to have foul consequences especially in its SRM form.
However it does say that if conditions are bad enough we may have to use it and
that there is high agreement that it could help lower temperature
There is no necessarily mutually exclusive binary happening here. It could be
dangerous to take either option, if those options are reduced to: "do nothing
or do GE".
As I keep saying if we don't try and clear up the economic and political
systems that are going on here, we almost certainly
1) There is as yet no evidence that using this technology is on anyone's
political program, and most local coverage I've seen is in the Murdoch media.
2) The point that some forms of GE are simply ways of continuing pollution is
demonstrated (should the project go ahead) by the current
Must have been kept quiet so no one would know
jon
From: Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Tuesday, 20 March 2018 8:19 AM
To: Geoengineering
Cc: Jonathan Marshall; Sean Hernandez
Subject: Wrapping glaciers and painting mountains - slippery
Or it is necessary to demonise people who think there might be problems with
some forms of Geoengineering, otherwise we would have to admit that the form of
social organisations we are dealing with are inherently destructive and we are
stuffed anyway, and its called projection - it works many
One probable reason why there is supposedly little outrage about the disease
issues (and there is a lot of outrage) is that the 'horse has already bolted."
Companies make money selling products that produce or encourage the diseases
and companies make money selling the remedies, so its a win
For what it is worth I just use the term 'climate technologies' to cover all
technologies that are likely to have some effect on climate.
That includes renewables, biofuels, carbon trading, carbon prices,
geoengineering, CCS, Carbon removal, Coal burning and so on.
Any such tech system is
So yes there is money for CC, and no money or help for decreasing emissions.
And not surprisingly "Enhanced oil recovery (EOR), an important pathway to
geologic carbon dioxide sequestration" in other words using CO2 to increase oil
production and produce more emissions, probably without
NOT claiming anything like this for the average biochar program - but I
hope this is intriguing enough to have a little attention on this list to this
specific SRM “CDR-cousin”.
Ron
On Jan 22, 2018, at 4:55 PM, Jonathan Marshall
<jonathan.marsh...@uts.edu.au<mailto:jonathan.marsh...@uts.
Stephen
>Warm surface water reduces the movement of nutrients so marine cloud
>brightening should
>give surface plankton a slight advantage.
I'm not a technical person, and don't pretend to be, so please excuse me. Does
this process vacuum up water? because I'm not clear what would stop it
not supported. In the west we may face destructive
corporate domination, there they may face something else.
jon
From: Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 January 2018 9:25 AM
To: Jonathan Marshall
Subject: Re: [geo] A Cr
political action to ensure that we do moderate
those tendencies, or the GE is largely pointless.
jon
From: Stephen Salter <s.sal...@ed.ac.uk>
Sent: Monday, 22 January 2018 10:36 PM
To: Reno; Jonathan Marshall
Subject: Re: [geo] A Critical Examination o
this.
jon
From: Peter Flynn <pcfl...@ualberta.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 January 2018 2:50 AM
To: Jonathan Marshall; andrew.lock...@gmail.com
Cc: geoengineering
Subject: RE: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and
Technological Ratio
Ok, launched before ready but that's life... here's the second part.
The primary question of this article is a simple one. If the dynamics of
capitalism are inherently destructive of ecologies, then GE is unlikely to
prevent that destruction, nor give a breathing space for new developments.
"There's a category of people, often found cosseted inside institutions of
various kinds, for whom "more government" is the answer to absolutely
everything. "
It strikes me that if you wanted less government, then you would not want
geoengineering. I've not seen any viable self-supporting GE
This is a satirical fake news site - although the comments showed plenty of
self-declared Trump supporters seem to think the item is real, showing how
great Trump is.
in another article on the same site Hilary Clinton committed suicide
so yes the political fantasy is interesting
Thanks
There could be an argument that when your prime political and economic system
is capitalist, then profit is your prime guideline for any action. If it makes
profit to pollute then you pollute. If carbon is to be removed it has to be
profitable.
If it makes profit to do both, then you do both.
@googlegroups.com <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> on
behalf of Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, 12 May 2017 9:56 AM
To: Jonathan Marshall
Cc: geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] etc_hbf_geobriefing_may2017.pdf
The fossil era is ending, regardless of what happens with ge
Unfortunately the only real solution is probably social, political and
psychological change.
If we keep the current social system then people will keep gaming any solutions
put forward to keep that social system, and its power and wealth distribution,
going - probably one reason why you can
rs.
I'm not religious, but wouldn't this be like the Rapture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture
Anyway, we've transcended geoengineering, but what the heck it's Friday.
Greg
____
From: Jonathan Marshall <jonathan.marsh...@uts.edu.au>
To: &quo
Yes, another problem is that Hawkins forgets how much energy and effort we
would have to expend to get 6-7 billion people to another planet, and for them
to be able to live afterwards
Even getting a couple of thousand people would be a truly enormous effort.
Much easier to stop using coal,
f 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
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
I'm not entirely sure that geoengineering physics etc attracts less money that
geoengineering social science - However, it is an empirical proposition which
probably needs evidence, not assertion.
If it is true, and I don't think there are all that many social scientists
interested in GE
ing@googlegroups.com> on
behalf of Michael MacCracken <mmacc...@comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, 22 November 2016 12:42 PM
To: Jonathan Marshall; geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] CO2 capture may be our only option for stabilising
temperatures - we need to find out the costs, f
les will be changed in an instant when the results of climate
change get bad enough. But now the arguments about them are wasting time which
we may not have." - which of course was not your comment :)
Best
Jon
On 11/21/16 6:12 PM, Jonathan Marshall wrote:
Hi Mike,
While I agree that SRM
The real thing to remember about governance is that it is often about politics
and preserving the social status quo.
Just as current governance processes seem often to be about protecting the
fossil fuel industries from any harm.
I would imagine the most likely result of changing the rules
Greg:
>"What could possibly go wrong" is that by continuing to not take CDR and SRM
>seriously (Mann and
>Toles), we will increasingly commit ourselves to drastic emissions reduction -
>"the simplest safest
>solution...to address the problem at its root cause" - last line in the
>chapter.
It
Sorry about the delay I'm away from a computer.
Ron writes:
>On this list, we have pretty much stayed away from CCS - not considered to be
>part of geoengineering - or
>what Andrew wrote about. Can you expand on your own research to the "Geo"
>area - perhaps specifically to
>BECCS? I'm
For what it is worth I've just had a paper published on CCS in Australia which
pretty much agrees with Andrew's argument.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516302750
It basically seemed to allow various governments and the coal industry to
defend the status quo.
This
?
People interested in the social side of GE and the Anthropocene may possibly be
interested in this conference, especially if you live in Australia.
The Australian Anthropological Society invites authors to submit an abstract of
original work for consideration for a presentation at the 2016
This seems pretty clear to me.
Why should dangerous geoengineering projects with almost certain large scale
unintended consequences be researched simply because they are possible in
fantasy?
In many cases, the logistics seem close to absurd, and simply deflect money
from more useful and
The right wing government in Australia, has been attacking our major scientific
organisation the CSIRO ever since it came into power, cutting money for
research.
It appears to now have destroyed the climate change research part of the
organisation, on the intersting grounds that climate
>In the past, high costs & tech uncertainties have driven funders away from
>carbon removal projects
In Australia that would not appear to be correct. The government had 100s
millions available for CCS, but on the whole the coal industry appears not to
have been interested.
Despite this
For what it is worth, I find it deeply frustrating when people use the common
argument that because we have accidently broken 'earth systems' and can call
this 'geoengineering', we should *therefore* use intentional geoengineering to
fix things. (Just to be clear, i'm not saying anyone is
I would tend to argue that given that establishment powers (political,
corporate, military and propaganda) have, in general, failed to promote the
relatively easy routes to combat global warming (such as no new coal mines,
refurbishing old coal power stations, slowly increasing carbon taxes,
47 matches
Mail list logo
