Dear Steven,
"After about four man-years it is now hard to go much further with no money." I just want to express my gratitude and commendations that what you have tried. Let's just hope the scheme gets now funded. I am sure our Geoengineering Group all rejoices in your accomplishment and is thankful. Kind regards, Albert > Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:42:08 +0100 > From: s.sal...@ed.ac.uk > To: j...@cloudworld.co.uk > CC: geoengineering@googlegroups.com > Subject: [geo] Re: Cap and trade considered harmful > > > John > > Count me in. The guys trying to defraud the carbon trading schemes are > so much brighter than the ones setting the rules that there is no chance > of ever saving carbon, just making billions for the traders. > > Slightly counter to one of your recent emails, the design of the most > critical part of the cloud albedo hardware, the spray generation and > filtration system system is now almost complete and drawings will be > taken to subcontractors very soon. After about four man-years it is now > hard to go much further with no money. > > Stephen > > Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design > School of Engineering and Electronics > University of Edinburgh > Mayfield Road > Edinburgh EH9 3JL > Scotland > tel +44 131 650 5704 > fax +44 131 650 5702 > Mobile 07795 203 195 > s.sal...@ed.ac.uk > http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs > > > > John Nissen wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > There seems to be growing concerns about cap and trade, for example, > > yesterday from the New York Times. [1] > > > > Here are some reasons against: > > * There is an illusion of emissions reduction, which may hamper efforts > > to get significant real reductions from the main polluters. > > * The cap and trade cannot work on a large enough scale to produce > > necessary world wide emissions reductions. > > * The market it crates puts an unpredictable price on carbon, so it is > > difficult to make investment decisions, especially on renewable energy. > > * The scheme includes offsetting through approved projects, which are > > difficult to set up and prone to failure. > > * Because of above problems, many countries will refuse to sign up to > > the scheme, further diluting its effect. > > > > Jim Hansen describes Cap and Trade as the "Temple of Doom" [2]. > > > > Therefore, it is proposed to have a levy on fuels, in order to increase > > their price, and let market forces reduce the consumption. > > > > Now I would argue that the money raised should be spent on > > geoengineering. If you agree, who could we contact to discuss this > > idea? Could we get the idea promoted prior to Copenhagen in December, > > so that an alternative to Cap and Trade gets discussed there? > > > > Cheers from Chiswick, > > > > John > > > > [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/22/opinion/22wed11.html?th&emc=th > > > > [2] http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20090505_TempleOfDoom.pdf > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in > Scotland, with registration number SC005336. > > > > _________________________________________________________________ With Windows Live, you can organise, edit, and share your photos. http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/134665338/direct/01/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
