On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 5:46 AM, Alan Robock <rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu> wrote:
> > There is no consensus among readers of this group. > A few of you are completely gung ho, with no interest in evaluating the > risks as well as the benefits of any policy recommendation, but that > does not represent the views of very many. > I completely agree with Alan's views. My impression is that this is far too nascent a field to actively promote itself. I too suspect that a large majority of group members, and a silent one at that, is skeptical of the "gung ho brigade" of this group. A lot of what's being professed here is largely personal opinion and research that is long way from getting established. Peter's contention of large-scale sustainable afforestation as a low-cost and feasible course of action for dramatic emission reductions being a case in point. By the way, Peter, I'm happy to see you include artificial trees as part of the equation. I consider Klaus Lackner's artificial trees as the single most attractive geoengineering technology out there. Since cost and viability of large-scale sustainable afforestation is yet to be established, it cannot be said which one's a better option amongst the two carbon stock management choices. Manu --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
