I'd be delighted if that could be the case, but I am not sure we have the
time to wait until it clearly is the case. We have, over the years, been
promised electricity too inexpensive to monitor (for nuclear) and even more,
perhaps with fusion. There has been too much time spent waiting--we need
Agreed--it would have helped (at least conceptually) if I had said
essentially phase down and out over several decades, which I would suggest
is possible if we put our minds to it, even with population going up (phase
in the internalization of the costs of climate change on fossil fuels and be
Ron,
1. I can't speak for IASS - but it was a very short video, and biochar has
a much lower profile. The public discourse about CDR is mostly about carbon
capture and OIF. I know there is a great deal of confusion about biochar as
to it's capacity and efficiency. For me, it seems like it could
And apparently no mention at all of the adverse impacts that SRM would
offset‹offsets so serious that there is global agreement (if not yet
sufficient action) that the world must totally give up fossil fuels to
avoid, that are viewed as potentially having nonlinearities and
irreversibilities such
Well, the brief description in the Lawrentian leaves out much. I certainly
mentioned the adverse impacts SRM is proposed to counteract. I spent 15
minutes in the beginning discussing the nightmare rationale for SRM and I
played the newly released IASS video (http://youtu.be/3GKjl7afwaY) to
Bjornar etal
1. I also enjoyed the short IASS video. However, I was surprised that
there was no mention there or at their web site of biochar. Any explanation
for this omission?
2. Your talk had geoengineering in the title, but it seemed to be
only on SRM. Will your
Interestingly, one could equally well replace SRM with mitigation
in the paragraph below starting The main ethical
Tom.
++
On 2/22/2014 10:57 AM, Bjørnar Egede-Nissen wrote:
Well, the brief description in the Lawrentian leaves out much. I
certainly mentioned the
Dr. Wigley, cc list:
I am afraid I don't see the parallel you see between SRM and
mitigation. I see and read about quite small opposition to most mitigation
schemes (solar wind, energy efficiency). Yes from some on aesthetic grounds,
Yes from some objecting to higher costs. Yes
http://www.lawrentian.com/archives/1002706
Visiting lecturer discusses moral quandaries in geoengineering
POSTED ON FEBRUARY 21, 2014 BY XUE YAN
On Tuesday, Feb. 18, Bjornar Egede-Nissen, from the department of political
science at the University of Western Ontario, gave a lecture titled