Mark It is as you say unfortunately true that we do not focus only on what a paticular approach does but unfortunately also how it is characterized. In human affairs such approaches result in discriminations of all kinds. It is truly a sad day to see the science community and the climate policy apparratus legitimize, in fact practice such discrimination in their dialoques and decision making. I personally find those that introduce concepts like moral hazards are particularly agregious in distorting our efforts to make informed decisions matched only by climate deniers. I for one think we should all hold the line on focusing on what are the cost and benefits of diffferent decisions. Use our rapidly growing understanding and knowledge where we have them and acknowledging uncerrtainty where it exists.
Now I do realize that the best we can likley do is to resist the generalizations that labels bring . On the issue of carbon removal there is one perspective missing in your analysis . One of the distinctive properties of CO2 is that it distributes itself uniformly and so removing a CO2 molecular by flue gas capture and by Direct Air Capture have identical impacts - and are thus both pure mitigation approaches . The only distinction is that DAC can remove CO2 that was previouslly emitted by flue gas so it has the additional capability to deal with overshoot. In this frame DAC is clearly not geoengineering any more than any human activity is geoengineering because as allknow too well small emissions by individuals when there are billions of us is geoengineering our plant by changing its climate . So I encourage us all to fight generalizing this complicated challenge we face by not practicing it ourselves. Instead lets all focus on the specifics -eg why does SRM have a greater risk of unintended consequences than for example DAC and why does SRM deal with the sympto of climate change while DAC deals with the core problem. Those are the real reasons to favor DAC over SRM and not because one is geoengineering and the other is not. Thanks for your effort to promote this important dialoque Peter On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 7:59 AM, Mark Turner <markalistairtur...@gmail.com> wrote: > A thought piece raising the questions we are asking ourselves in C2G2. > > Geoengineering? Mitigation? Something else altogether? > > https://www.c2g2.net/categorise-carbon-removal/ > > -- > 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 group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: This email message and all attachments contain confidential and privileged information that are for the sole use of the intended recipients, which if appropriate applies under the terms of the non-disclosure agreement between the parties. -- 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 group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
