I am not condoning Andrew's action, but I am not convinced by Doug's
argument that its results are necessarily harmful (though Doug says
"non-zero", I think it is clear that he expects a negative result). If this
leads to a fuller, open discussion of what sort of experiments are and
aren't
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/review-of-international-studies/article/world-in-the-making-on-the-global-visual-politics-of-climate-engineering/276476FAE0FA1C5993251C36216A01D2
*Authors*
Ann-Kathrin Benner
I'm inclined to take what Oliver says as gospel. Instead of denouncing me
for summoning SATAN, perhaps I can invite the congregation of the list to
consider an alternative?
It may be possible for some of the high priests of geoengineering to
convene an inquisition, for vetting proposed
Weighing in here on this very interesting issue. I agree with Oliver Morton
that there is real value here, but I see the value as cautionary. In
reality, Andrew Lockley's experiment is not going to change the climate,
but it is a rogue implementation of a climate intervention. This makes an
Hi All
I ask as an ignorant non-legal person, please could one of the many expert
ethicists and political decision makers help me understand the difference
between the release of very small quantities of medicinally benign material
aimed at helping all species intended to advance knowledge
Jessica I've taken on board your point that the SATAN branding (while
perhaps usefully provocational in the UK) is more literally believed
elsewhere - and therefore probably isn't appropriately cross cultural. I
remember a similar problem with mitigation being described as a "Manhatten
project",
On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 12:18 AM Daniele Visioni
wrote:
> I personally don’t want to be associated even remotely with anything you
> do now or in the future, so this will be my last message on this group
> before I unsubscribe.
>
I don't want to be associated with Andrew Lockley either, but he's
There is an EPA authority, the Toxic Substances Control Act, TSCA, that can
require risk information be developed and submitted to EPA for review prior to
releasing chemicals into the environment, at scale, for a new use:
TSCA Section 5(a) Significant New Use Rules (SNURs) can be used to
To clarify, my intent is not to pass judgement on Andrew's experiment (and
I have already posted my criticism of Make Sunset's actions, especially
their claims and efforts to sell "cooling credits"). My point is a
pragmatic one: continued experiments without some form of advance review
(and I do
The EPA is a domestic agency for the USA - a good example of why
international governance may ?should? be sought for geoengineering (if
academics can stop slapping each other with gloves and drawing up
meaningless letters asking to ban research). Until then, forum shopping
will continue.
On Fri,
Hi David et al.,
Not particularly anxious to wade into another debate over these issues but
I think it's important to set (at least my understanding of) the record
straight.
In its latest Nevada launches Make Sunsets gave advanced notice and
received permission
* did not cause harm*
On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 2:27 PM Ron Baiman wrote:
> Hi David et al.,
>
> Not particularly anxious to wade into another debate over these issues but
> I think it's important to set (at least my understanding of) the record
> straight.
>
> In its latest Nevada launches Make
https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-268/
*Authors*
Marc von Hobe , Christoph Brühl, Sinikka T.
Lennartz, Mary E. Whelan, and Aleya Kaushik
How to cite. von Hobe, M., Brühl, C., Lennartz, S. T., Whelan, M. E., and
Kaushik, A.: Comment on “An approach to sulfate
Of course it is perverse that our societies have failed to act against releases
of GHGs but that is not a persuasive argument for those who believe there
should be some form of advance review of outdoor SRM experiments. Like it or
not, the need for social license for such experiments appears
14 matches
Mail list logo
