Re: [geo] Re: Survey, last chance to participate

Andrew, cc two lists I have responded despite the failure to include biochar as one of the 7 subject CDR options. I urge any who think biochar should have been listed to also respond. Ron > On Mar 3, 2019, at 6:29 AM, Andrew Lockley wrote: > > PS pls share the link, to ge

Re: [geo] Geoengineering and diversity

Andrew, cc Clare and list: Per your request, I respond for one part (the biochar part) of the CDR part of Geo - as I think you have raised several important topics. > On Sep 20, 2018, at 5:15 PM, Clare James wrote: > > Agreed that commercial perspectives are vital for any useful asse

Re: [geo] paywalls

tp://twitter.com/AlanRobock> 2017 > Nobel Peace Prize to ICAN! > Watch my 18 min TEDx talk at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsrEk1oZ-54 > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsrEk1oZ-54> > On 8/4/2018 1:24 PM, Ronal W. Larson wrote: >> Andrew and list: >> >&

Re: [geo] Attribution of Arctic sea ice decline from 1953 to 2012 to influences from natural, greenhouse-gas and anthropogenic aerosol forcing

Andrew and list: Thanks for the lead. Believing that arctic ice loss is our best global indicator of how fast we are heading to ever more serious climate problems, I've tried to follow Arctic melting for the last 10-12 years (I just learned that 2018 is lagging other years ov

Re: [geo] annual per capita cost of geoengineering

Andrew: cc list For biochar, add the concepts of internal rate of return (IRR) and recommended analysis time period (30 years? 100 years?) (as a few of the needed extra parameters, for given types of soil, climate, species, etc). First cost is not the right parameter. Ron > On Feb

Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and Technological Rationality in Social Context

Professor Marshall: cc list This is to pick up on one of your sentences below on CO2 removal (CDR). I understand that this thread and the Gunderson et al article have intentionally (up to now) only discussed the SRM half of Geo. But perhaps getting your reaction to the biochar form o

[geo] CEC 2017 Conerence

Dr. Scheffran and “geo” list:.. (new thread title; previously: Re: [geo] collaboration - Security of Solar Radiation Management geoengineering Thanks for bringing the CEC 2017 conference back up. I find videos helpful, as I can stop and look more carefully at PPts. To save others’ ti

Re: Re: [geo] [CDR] The International Conference on Negative CO2 Emissions » 22-24 May 2018

List, Peter and David: Nice discussion! I hope we can continue for a bit longer. 1. I recommend the patent site suggested by Peter: https://patents.justia.com/inventor/peter-eisenberger .A major portion of the firs

Re: [geo] Allam cycle gas power plant producing pure CO2 & electricity at cost of regular gas power plants

Paul: 1. This Science article from May might answer your question from below: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/goodbye-smokestacks-startup-invents-zero-emission-fossil-fuel-power

Re: [geo] ?Micro-climate engineering? green roofs in cities

Alan et al: Last Tuesday, voters in Denver approved a “Green Roof” ballot measure - despite opposition by many listed in this post-election interview: http://www.westword.com/news/green-roof-initiative-leader-discusses-big-win-over-denver-developers-9679900

Re: [geo] New research on soil carbon sinks

Eric and list: Thanks for this CDR-type lead. Your link (a PR piece from Washington State University) gives this added information: Marc G. Kramer, Kate Lajtha, Anthony Audfenkampe. Depth trends of soil organic matter C:N and 15N natural abundance controlled by association with miner

Re: [geo] revised_code_of_conduct_for_geoengineering_research_2017.pdf

Dr. Hubert: See inserts below. > On Oct 15, 2017, at 12:28 PM, Anna-Maria Hubert > wrote: > > Dear Dr. Larson, > > Thank you for your message. It’s great to hear that you like the new draft - > our team put in significant work over the past two years to get the text to > this stage

Re: [geo] revised_code_of_conduct_for_geoengineering_research_2017.pdf

List and Prof. Hubert, cc Andrew 1. In addition to the cite given below, here is another entry point to this topic: http://www.ce-conference.org/system/files/documents/revised_code_of_conduct_for_geoengineering_research_2017.pdf

Re: [geo] New Rhode Island law to create geoengineering study commission

Dr. Pasztor: cc list and Dr. Robock The Colorado legislature in January unanimously passed SJR 17-002 entitled "CONCERNING THE COLORADO GENERAL ASSEMBLY'S SUPPORT FOR THE CONTINUED RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND APPLICATION OF BIOCHAR FROM OUR FORESTS.” [ http://leg.colorado.gov/sites/d

Re: [geo] nuclear powered DAC

David: cc List I agree that DAC is not likely a good choice for a few years - but there are hundreds of companies producing biochar today with a good bit of hot CO2 release. Most has to be thought of as essentially free. And the gas is carbon neutral - with hopes of increasing the ov

Re: [geo] Carbon budget/removal in NYTimes interactive

Robert and list, cc Eric 1. I like your enthusiasm - but suggest that your projected time trajectory is a tad fast. The year 2030 is only 13 years away. I can support half of your 20 Gt C/yr eventually in total - maybe by 2040 or 2050. We should be very happy if we can ever take

Re: [geo] GMDD - The Carbon Dioxide Removal Model Intercomparison Project (CDR-MIP): Rationale and experimental design

List and cc Andrew: Thanks again to Andrew for bringing these articles to our attention. In addition to Andrew’s cite below, the full (free) article is at: https://www.geosci-model-dev-discuss.net/gmd-2017-168/gmd-2017-168.pdf

Re: [geo] Ensuring That We Hear the Voices of the Vulnerable: Toward a Human Rights-Based Approach to Bioenergy and Carbon Capture and Storage – Wil Burns | FCEA

Andrew, cc List and adding Dr. Burns At the “ceassessment.org” website given below there is an opportunity to leave comments. Mine was the first - agreeing with the short paper’s quite negative conclusions on BECCS. And hoping that Dr. Burns would similarly write about biochar - whic

[geo] SDG#13 , #14, #15

Greg, cc list: This starts a new thread - continuing one you started called “[geo] Ocean pastures, clouds, and salmon”. This has none of the details of the previous thread, but was generated by reading the Russ George blog you cited on 1 July. What I have below is way too

Re: [geo] Ocean pastures, clouds, and salmon

Greg, cc list: 1. Thanks for alerting us on 1 July to the cloudiness-CDR-related message found at the Russ George website (http://russgeorge.net/2017/07/01/greatest-uncertainty-in-climate-change-models-is-diminishing-cloudiness/

Re: [geo] Learning from those wacky Roman geoengineers

Also to note that Russ George is working on “ocean pastures” that fit well with biochar - and that I owe you/iist more on ocean biology. Ron > > Greg > > > > From: Ronal W. Larson > To: RAU greg ; Geoengineering > > Sent: Tuesday, July 4, 2017 3:40 PM > Subjec

Re: [geo] Learning from those wacky Roman geoengineers

Greg and List: The Washington Post is reporting on a July (Non-fee) paper at http://ammin.geoscienceworld.org/content/102/7/1435 . First author Marie Jackson at the University of Utah. Title: “Phillipsite and Al-tobermorite minera

Re: [geo] The International Conference on Negative CO2 Emissions » 22-24 May 2018

Andrew and list: Thanks for this announcement. I will try to attend - in part to visit a new, successful NET program in Stockholm. It happens to be featured tomorrow in a webinar (cost $40 for non-members); signup at https://ttcorp.regfox.com/ibi-webinar-stockholm-biochar-project <

Re: [geo] Potentials, consequences and trade-offs of terrestrial (CDR): Strategies for climate engineering

I put this paper into a pro-CDR category - and hope for more modeling efforts of this high caliber. Ron > On Apr 25, 2017, at 9:38 PM, Ronal W. Larson > wrote: > > List: cc Andrew > > The cite given below by Andrew is for a 20 MB full thesis - which my > s

Re: [geo] Webinar Tomorrow: A briefing and discussion on solar geoengineering: science, ethics and governance

Greg, cc list: Thanks for the reminder of this webinar, which I thought was well done. A little surprise at the 2.5 hour duration and having 7 good sets of slides. These slides are at: https://handouts-live.s3.amazonaws.com/592c8d1596ab4e688df5eb4b46b63e89?sessionId=29464078711428741

Re: [geo] Carbon Dioxide Removal Options: A Literature Review Identifying Carbon Removal Potentials and Costs

xx > On May 4, 2017, at 5:09 PM, Andrew Lockley wrote: > > > https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/136610 > > > Carbon Dioxide Removal Options: A Literature Review Identifying Carbon > Removal Potentials and Costs > Johns

Re: [geo] Potentials, consequences and trade-offs of terrestrial (CDR): Strategies for climate engineering

List: cc Andrew The cite given below by Andrew is for a 20 MB full thesis - which my server couldn’t handle. I’d greatly appreciate anyone able to suggest a work-around so we can all view the full document. The author, (now Dr.) Lena Boysen alerted me to this non-fee initial

Re: [geo] Woody Biomass for Power and Heat Impacts on the Global Climate

Bernard and List, cc Andrew 1. Thanks for your complete documentation re this important CDR-via-biomass thread. I have also visited and enjoyed your own website and its recent emphasis on this “woody biomass” topic. 2. Your final bullet indicates a missing document (re the 5

Re: [geo] ETC : Why SRM experiments are a bad idea

> long-term stability in the soil; the presence of toxins from the > feedstock itself or the combustion process; and social and > economic constraints and impacts.81" > > So good luck in changing their minds. > Greg > From: Ronal W. Larson > To: RAU greg > Cc:

Re: [geo] ETC : Why SRM experiments are a bad idea

Greg, cc List and Andrew. The answer to your CDR question below is affirmative (with apologies for needing to explain at length why I think so; about half of the following are quotes from the ETC original). I have hopes that ETC is now or will soon be endorsing some forms of C

Re: [geo] Heavily attended webinar marks early IFRC engagement with issue of geoengineering

List: with ccs 1. To add to the report below from Andrew and Dr. Hawkins “Red Cross” response - see recent non-fee AGU article (“Geoengineering: A humanitarian concern”) by the identified webinar discussant (first author) Dr. Pablo Suarez: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2

[geo] Fwd: Soil Organic Carbon Conference start

List: Should contain a good bit on CDR over next few days. Ron > Begin forwarded message: > > From: "Ronal W. Larson" > Subject: Soil Organic Carbon Conference start > Date: March 21, 2017 at 3:13:21 AM MDT > To: Biochar > > List: > >

Re: [geo] New Geoeng Disaster film

Eric and list: Seems they had trouble with this film (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/jerry-bruckheimer-boards-geostorm-as-866329 ) https://en.wikiped

Re: [geo] Social Cost of Carbon - new NAS report (on methodology - not values of)

Dave et al I hope you are right that there is an opportunity for an SCC law suit. I’m expecting that the SCC topic will just be ignored by all the Federal agencies. Re the CPP - I saw recently that a September date was likely at the Supreme Court. With everything on hold,

Re: Re: [geo] Social Cost of Carbon - new NAS report (on methodology - not values of)

Mike with ccs Thanks for supplying the link to the CPP docket. Yours seems to be the only one of about 80 similar legal declarations that covered the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) - the subject of the House hearing. I assume both the CPP and SCC are as much lost causes with a

Re: [geo] Social Cost of Carbon - new NAS report (on methodology - not values of)

Greg, cc Robert and list This to add a bit more (mostly discouraging), after viewing/listening to the full Subcommittee hearing on the 28th (site below). I should have said when I started this thread that the Social Cost of Capital (SCC) is a vitally important part of at least

Re: [geo] Debunking 3 Soil Carbon Myths

Andrew and list: This article seems to have completely missed the concept of biochar - which seems to me to be the main approach that combines this list, CDR/NETs and soils. I have just left a note at the CCR site, hoping the author will return re biochar. I have looked up a

Re: [geo] News Article – Center for Security Studies | ETH Zurich

Dr. Fischer: cc “Geo” List, Hans-Peter Thanks for writing on CDR - about which we hear too little on the Geo list. This is to hope you will investigate additionally the potential of biochar, which you did not mention, as a promising CDR mechanism. Especially in your country,

[geo] Jim Hansen (briefly) on CDR

List: 1. A quote appearing today that might be of interest to some on this list. Jim Hansen has an Earth Institute blog entry today (http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/2017/01/11/rolling-stones/ ) that briefly mentions CDR (the bold

Re: [geo] (mustread) A planet with brains, Grinspoon NPR

Andrew and list (adding author) 1. Because your “best” (below) among Anthropocene articles was such a strong statement, I investigated Dr. Grinspoon’s relationship to “Geo” as well. His new book out just this month - entitled: Earth in Human Hands: Shaping Our Planet’s Future - wa

Re: [geo] “Negative Emissions”: The Next Challenge for Climate Policy

Greg: cc Dr. Geden and list Thanks for the alert. The article is apparently based on a longer report at https://www.swp-berlin.org/en/publication/negative-emissions-a-challenge-for-climate-policy/

Re: [geo] "UN Convention still says “No” to manipulating the climate"

Dr. Williamson, list, et al 1. You say below that you had a “small part” - but you seem to have been the primary author for almost all of “Report 84” (cite given below). I’ve only so far read the CDR part of most interest to me, but I will try to at least skim the rest. I thought i

Re: [geo] "UN Convention still says “No” to manipulating the climate"

ation to see a reduction in the number of earths we are presently at. I failed a few years ago in getting their attention. Fred: Thanks for your interest. Ron > ᐧ > > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 10:12 PM, Ronal W. Larson <mailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net>> wrote:

Re: [geo] "UN Convention still says “No” to manipulating the climate"

Doug, Jim, Jesse, list: I’d like to ask anyone at this last CBD meeting whether they heard any discussion of the tens of thousands of biochar projects going on now. Certainly mostly small, but some are getting into thousands of acres/hectares. Some have scientific intent - most do not

[geo] New US government document focusing on soil carbon

List: 1. Reminder:The White House produced a climate document, released on 5 November, for the recent Marrakech COP22 meeting. That was announced to this list on about that date. Its title contained the words “Deep Decarbonization”. It can be found at https://www.whitehouse.gov

Re: [geo] Speculative promise as a driver in climate engineering research

ppening’, given that > we are historically situated, vulnerable but not politically powerless humans > (cf. Bonneuil & Fressoz, 2013).” > Regards, > Greg Rau > > > On 11/30/2016 1:03 PM, Ronal W. Larson wrote: > Greg: cc list, Andrew (and adding the paper’s a

Re: [geo] interesting data set pertinent to recent papers on soil carbon

ll be eating > less food, especially meat. And there seems to be no questioning of the > security of biomass/forests in the face of increasing fire and pest threat. > The authors have such confidence in land based energy sources and C sinks > that the ocean, with far larger

[geo] interesting data set pertinent to recent papers on soil carbon

List: I just found and am impressed by historic carbon (especially soil carbon) data found on slide #10 at [1]. This site has considerable other good climate data. Also note the projected further projected loss in another important soil carbon paper from this week [2].

[geo] New excellent soil carbon degradation paper

List: I strongly recommend a Nature ”letter” that is officially being released tomorrow: “Quantifying global soil carbon losses in response to global warming” to warming http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v540/n7631/full/nature20150.html

Re: [geo] Speculative promise as a driver in climate engineering research

Greg: cc list, Andrew (and adding the paper’s author) 1. Note that Elsevier has (below) left a final “t” off of the author’s name 2. I think I have found a library where I can obtain “Futures” - but I have not yet read the full article. If anyone can send me a copy, I

Re: Re: [geo] Interdisciplinary collaboration in geoengineering research

t large. [RWL: Holly - thanks to you and Robert - some of the few Social Scientists who have included biochar. Again, apologies for only commenting above on biochar - but I know too little about its competitors - which all look very different to me. I hope others will also com

Re: [geo] Re: Interdisciplinary collaboration in geoengineering research

List: cc Robert and Peter This is mainly to come to Robert’s defense - from the perspective of a non-social scientist (active primarily in the biochar side of “Geo”). Robert and I have had several off-list discussions on biochar (and continuing). I have found them all to be v

Re: [geo] Bioengineering CDR

Greg: cc list 1. Yesterday, you started a new thread, related to an article in Science, that appeared a few days ago. You gave this enigmatic comment at the end (the original is below): “GR - More arrows, lifer preservers and/or hazards?” I write in hope of more dialog on two

[geo] Re: US Strategic Plan for Deep Decarbonization by 2050

Mike and list , cc others (from yesterday on different thread name - which related to choosing CDR/NET paths; I received an automated reply note that Dr. Mengis is on an extended trip - but still hope we might hear from her) 1. Thanks for the early alert. Possibly we will hear Pres

Re: [geo] Indicators and Metrics for the Assessment of Climate Engineering

Andrew, cc list and two more new ccs 1. Thanks again for finding and alerting the Geo list to so many pertinent papers - and especially this one from yesterday. I write to thank the authors (2 being cc’d) and hope that we can have more dialog on this Geo-Assessment topic. (I like CE re

Re: [geo] Report of Negative Emissions seminar

Greg and list: Again I agree mostly with all you have below. But I suggest a few more additions for this list to ponder: 1. You provide below the middle two of four summary statements. The first reads: - “Urgent need to reduce emissions. To limit warming to below 1.

Re: [geo] Trump, Energy and Climate

the CDR community have not been doing the education that is needed on CDR and politics. Ron ps Surprising perhaps that the three of us talking on this topic all have a connection to Ann Arbor. > > Fred > ᐧ > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Ronal W. Larson <mailto:ron

Re: [geo] Trump, Energy and Climate

Fred et al: I like all your points. The Forbes article (cite below) by Joel Kotkin should be helpful to this list as we attempt to keep the climate topic alive. Here is what Kotkin had to say on climate (under the heading “The Green Trap” (with two inserts): Clinton’s suppo

Re: [geo] Trump: Hot air and/or hot planet?

Greg and List This is partially to support your comment and especially to urge more dialogue along these lines. I say “partially” because much of US energy policy is state directed. Mr. Trump received less than 1 out of 3 votes in your home state of California. I guess tha

Re: [geo] Trump, Energy and Climate

Mark, cc List Thanks, Mark, for starting this thread. Your short early response article is important - as most of us want to continue one or both types of “Geo”. Three questions: a. You said: “…we may see some moderation, especially on matters where the divisions do not rigidly f

Re: [geo] Soil C Sink Under Siege

Greg and list, cc two authors 1. This is a non-fee paper that can be downloaded at http://www.nature.com/articles/srep35798 . 2. I have only skimmed the paper (and the supplemental), as a word search found none of the words used

Re: [geo] Oceans, CO2 and glacials

Greg, cc List Wanting biochar to receive a similar “ocean” plug, I unsuccessfully tried to understand this paper.. The full (non-fee) paper is at http://orca.cf.ac.uk/95508/1/Geology-2016-Lear-G38636.1.pdf ) (as

Re: [geo] The trouble with negative emissions

and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers > Department of Mechanical Engineering > University of Alberta > peter.fl...@ualberta.ca <mailto:peter.fl...@ualberta.ca> > cell: 928 451 4455 > > > > From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com > <mailto:geoengineering

Re: [geo] The trouble with negative emissions

Greg, Oliver, Michael and list (adding Johannes Lehmann) I am attending the third Asia Pacific Biochar Conference (APBC) in Chunchon, South Korea - and so can’t get into this discussion fully. But I believe this list will find that a very important (non-fee, Nature Communications) pape

Re: [geo] Saving the World the Hard Way: $104-570T, J. Hansen et al.

Greg and ccs: Check out this site: http://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/us/federal-lawsuit/ Hansen says there that both the US Administration and Congress have failed; the courts are our only remaining hope and the three bran

Re: [geo] Engineered Dependency: The Threat of Forced Choice through Plutocratic Influence in Geoengineereing and Climate Change

List, cc Andrew Too bad that the full van Gool paper is not available. I look forward to Andrew’s “no-governance” paper. I write hoping we can have some discussion on the “necessarily” part of this phrase from below: “Large-scale implementation of such techniques would

Re: [geo] Radiocarbon constraints imply reduced carbon uptake by soils during the 21st century

List, cc Andrew I would like to advance an opposite view - that this article is giving soil CDR (through biochar) a boost. Biochar is not the only form of “soil CDR”, but it is the only one with claims to recalcitrance (older soil carbon). My guess is that of the 157 sites which the

Re: [geo] Re: Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in geoengineering

inherently impossible, but in Australia it has not been of any practical use > in fighting greenhouse gas emissions. > > jon > > > > From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com > <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.co

Re: [geo] Re: Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in geoengineering

I think we can both agree that mitigation is > limited, at best. > > A > > > On 21 Sep 2016 17:17, "Ronal W. Larson" <mailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net>> wrote: > Andrew, list and ccs > > The word “prevaricate” is strong - and I have no

Re: [geo] Re: Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in geoengineering

mply an observation. I'm not speculating as to the specific > motivations. Without the promise of CDR, we'd either have to accept our fate > (2+C), or actually DO something. > > A > > > On 21 Sep 2016 09:47, "Ronal W. Larson" <mailto:rongretlar...

Re: [geo] Re: Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in geoengineering

Andrew, cc Michael and List: (adding Professor Coffman, as a courtesy) 1. Two questions: a. Could you expand on your below phrase ”This has kicked mitigation into the long grass.”It is not clear to me whether this is a pro-CDR or con-CDR statement. For me, biochar is a

Re: [geo] Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in geoengineering

“Geo” List + Dr. Schuiling’s list + adding Andrew and his co-author, Prof. Coffman I find this an interesting exchange, based on the Lockley-Coffman paper, with my hope for further discussion on “hazards”. See (different types of) inserts on the three messages below (mostly on

Re: [geo] Michigan Scientists See Urgency for Negative Emissions | Climate Central

John, list  et al: Your diagram is helpful.   -- 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 grou

Re: [geo] Michigan Scientists See Urgency for Negative Emissions | Climate Central

Bhaskar et al You are mostly correct below, but leaving out the fact that the “8 Billion tons of Carbon consumption per year” is nearly balanced by the subsequent return of that carbon as the biomass rots or is consumed by “critters”. The net annual change is a small part of that 8 Gt

Re: [geo] Recap: US Biochar Initiative - 2016 Conference

List: cc Andrew, Noah I added a few comments on Noah’s paper at https://beta.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/biochar/info Ron > On Aug 26, 2016, at 1:51 AM, Andrew Lockley wrote: > > > http://www.centerforcarbonremoval.org/blog-p

Re: [geo] Michigan Scientists See Urgency for Negative Emissions | Climate Central

John, list, et al: Apologies if this comes to you twice. Am still at the conference hotel and have had trouble sending. This time much shorter. > On Aug 25, 2016, at 9:08 AM, Ronal W. Larson > wrote: > > John, list et al: > > Re your almost last sente

Re: [geo] Rapid scale-up of negative emissions technologies: social barriers and social implications

List: cc Andrew and author Holly Buck (I think one of the best social scientists looking at “Geo” topics) At first I was disappointed that Ms. Buck’s paper only twice used the term ”biochar”. This because I believe including biochar in this sort of social science research would help

[geo] carbon brief report for 16 August

List: I recommend this site from two days ago: https://www.carbonbrief.org/ipcc-special-report-feasibility-1point5?utm_source=Daily+Carbon+Briefing&utm_campaign=367c89f2fe-cb_daily&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_876aab4fd7-367c89f2fe-303442881

Re: [geo] Review of Stilgoe, Jack. 2015. Experiment Earth

List, cc Greg and Andrew The full book review is at https://experimentearth.org/2016/08/08/review-of-experiment-earth-in-journal-of-responsible-innovation/ The full version

Re: [geo] Public attitudes to climate engineering research and field experiments:

Professor Sugiyama, cc List 1. Thanks for the PNAS Decision Pathway URL you provided below. Extensive use of the terms “deliberative” and “values”. They did look at several CDR options - with the respondents favoring (as usual) afforestation. Two tutorials used in the deliberative

Re: [geo] Can we suck CO2 out of the air?

Andrew and list: See insert below. > On Aug 10, 2016, at 1:51 AM, Andrew Lockley wrote: > http://www.exponentialinvestor.com/can-we-suck-co2-out-of-the-air/ > > Can we suck CO2 out of the air? > > 4TH AUGUST 2

Re: [geo] Public attitudes to climate engineering research and field experiments:

leader. > David > > Sent from my iPad > > On Aug 12, 2016, at 6:51 PM, Ronal W. Larson <mailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net>> wrote: > >> Dave: cc list: -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengine

Re: [geo] Public attitudes to climate engineering research and field experiments:

of the impact of such priming by surveying primed > and unprimed subgroups. That could indicate the value of education. > > Sent from my iPad > > On Aug 12, 2016, at 4:53 PM, Ronal W. Larson <mailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net>> wrote: > >> Andrew and list (that hop

Re: [geo] Public attitudes to climate engineering research and field experiments:

Andrew and list (that hopefully will get eventually to persons conducting these surveys): 1. I understand that the intent was only to study the “solar” half of "Geo” as exemplified by this sentence: “….Information material on climate engineering, which we defined as stratospheric aer

Re: [geo] Virtuous Life, Climate Change and effective altruism

List, Andrew and 4 added ccs: 1. I agree in part with Andrew - on his (below) "argument” term. But I think the topic is hugely important and this list needs to encourage more like this - from Philosophers snd Ethicists. I particularly think this sentence is not justified, for ALL of geoengi

Re: [geo] CIA Director Brennan Speaks at the Council on Foreign Relations on geoengineering

List: Fred, Ken, and other ccs 1. There is a much longer version of the Brennan talk, including numerous Q/A (none re geo), at: http://www.cfr.org/intelligence/john-brennan-transnational-threats-global-security/p38082

Re: [geo] CarbonCycle and other profitable strategies for air capture of CO2

List (cc Deane Little and Andrew - with thanks for this lead) 1. This message seems worthy of additional dialog on this list. I recommend looking at the following two sites which do a better job of explaining what is new http://dc.engconfintl.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1041&conte

Re: [geo] Agriculture Secretary Vilsack Announces Climate Smart Agriculture and Forestry Results,

Greg and list: 1. I suggest that the way the US Government looks at geoengineering topics for funding, you wouldn’t expect to see much USDA effort on BECCS. The US R&D effort on BECCS I think is primarily (??) through the Pittsburg NETL lab which has spent billions on CCS. That lab

Re: [geo] News review of week 23 of 2016

“Info” This is to ask you to add to your calendar the event seen at http://usbi2016.org/ for a biochar conference Aug. 22-25.2016 Ron Larson > On May 30, 2016, at 8:27 AM, CE News Site wrote: > > > > Climate Engineering News Review for Week 23 of 2016 > Upc

Re: [geo] Carbon Budget: >1.5 deg C assured in <10 years

Greg cc list 1. To add to your (obviously rhetorical) very important question, I would say we need to add terms like “implementation” and “industrialization” to your “policy and R&D”. 2. By chance, I had an opportunity this past hour to make this “industrialization” point

Re: [geo] Who May Geoengineer: Self-defense, Civil Disobedience, and Revolution (Part One) – Patrick Taylor Smith

Professor Smith, cc List 1. This is to urge that in your forthcoming Part II, you avoid the word “geoengineering” - and instead refer to SRM (solar radiation management) and CDR (carbon dioxide removal), according to your intent. Because you at one point refer to ocean iron fertilizat

Re: [geo] Anti biofuels letter

Dave, list and ccs See inserts below. > On May 14, 2016, at 5:50 PM, Hawkins, Dave wrote: > > ​Ron, > > I you look up the publications of a number of the signers of this letter you > will see that many of them have published papers emphasizing the value of > carbon uptake in forests

Re: [geo] Anti biofuels letter

List, cc Dr. Rau This is to comment on both the Senate Amendment 3140 and Greg’s reaction, both received today.. 1.. The actual amendment is near the end of the Senate discussion on the amendments - found at https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2016/02/02/se

Re: [geo] Senate Energy Bill Carbon Removal Amendments

List: cc Noah Deich and Dan Kammen 1. This is to comment on the news release from the Berkeley “Center for Carbon Renewal” sent 5 days ago by Andrew, which started this way: > On May 5, 2016, at 2:07 PM, Andrew Lockley wrote: > > Senate Widens Scope of Energy Bill

Re: [geo] Analysis: How much is the UK relying on 'negative emissions' to meet its climate targets?

Phillip, list, Leo Thanks. I just skimmed through your ocean-oriented biomass paper http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/370/1974/4317#T2 , and was surprised/delighted to see biochar, but not BECCS.

Re: [geo] Analysis: How much is the UK relying on 'negative emissions' to meet its climate targets?

List cc Leo Hickman 1. This is to comment on the 15 April sixth report at the Carbon Brief site on NETs (mostly on BECCS) as provided to this list last Saturday. http://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-much-is-the-uk-relying-on-negative-emissions-to-meet-its-climate-targets

[geo] Interesting climate/geo discussions today - with social science focus

List: I listened for about 5 hours today to the NAS meeting identified below. The meeting was very well done. A video is promised (I’ll pass on, if I get word later), but they said no transcript or other report on today will be coming. The website link given below was htt

Re: [geo] March temperature smashes 100-year global record

>>> 30% of convention energy production. (Can we really afford to >>increase >>> land,water, nutrient use by 30% over standard BE to accommodate CCS?) >>> The energy penalty for adding C-negatvity to electrolytic H2 >>production >>> may be <5% and does not require BE or land

Re: [geo] March temperature smashes 100-year global record

2g + 1/2O2g + Ca2+ + 2HCO3- > See the links I listed earlier. > Furthermore, the energy cost of adding this CDR to electrolytic H2 production > is theoretically near zero because bicarbonation of minerals is exothermic. > CO2 consumed per H2 generated ranges from 22 to 44 (tonnes/tonne

Re: [geo] March temperature smashes 100-year global record

Greg, Stephen, list 1. Re Stephen’s idea: Sounds like an idea where the next step will have to be by the US air force (or someone’s military). Starting with 200 passenger designs wouldn’t seem to go very far. 2. I have nothing against H2 for lighter than air craft - but Hel

  1   2   3   4   5   >