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

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

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

glegroups.com > <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> on behalf of Ronal W. Larson > <rongretlar...@comcast.net <mailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net>> > Sent: Thursday, 22 September 2016 8:45 AM > To: Andrew Lockley > Cc: Coffman, D'Maris; Geoengineering; Mi

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

ing@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Ronal W. Larson <rongretlar...@comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, 22 September 2016 8:45 AM To: Andrew Lockley Cc: Coffman, D'Maris; Geoengineering; Michael Hayes Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in geoengineering Andrew, list and ccs

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

Andrew, list and ccs OK - I see where you are coming from. I agree that the Paris Agreement did not go far enough. I agree with your final sentence - mitigation is nowhere as aggressive as is deserved. But I can’t agree that too much reliance on CDR, and especially biochar, was the

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

Ronal You need only look at the Paris Agreement for the ultimate example of prevarication. CDR is being used as "magical thinking" (not my words) to avoid near term mitigation. I think we can both agree that mitigation is limited, at best. A On 21 Sep 2016 17:17, "Ronal W. Larson"

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

Andrew, list and ccs The word “prevaricate” is strong - and I have not observed any lie within the biochar or any other CDR community. Biochar practitioners and entrepreneurs are focussed on fixing a huge soil problem - that just happens to work, without conflict, for excess

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

Ronal What I'm saying is that CDR is being used to prevaricate on mitigation. That's simply 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.

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] Re: Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in geoengineering

Michael The influence of CDR technology is plain. It underpins the Paris Agreement. This has kicked mitigation into the long grass. We will, pending CDR, be allowed to eat too much meat, waste too much food, use inefficient cars, and have poorly insulated buildings and homes. We will move goods

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

Critique: Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in geoengineering *Abstract:* In the introduction to the paper ‘Distinguishing morale hazard from moral

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

I hope that Michael isn’t implying that olivine weathering needs geological time scales!. There are people who think that the rate of weathering is what is determined in sterile laboratories with distilled water, whereas in fact we know that the weathering of olivine in nature is 1000 to 10.000