List: Fred, Ken, and other ccs
1. There is a much longer version of the Brennan talk, including
numerous Q/A (none re geo), at:
http://www.cfr.org/intelligence/john-brennan-transnational-threats-global-security/p38082
<http://www.cfr.org/intelligence/john-brennan-transnational-threats-global-security/p38082>
2. Because I officially visited a CIA library in the mid-70s re
solar, representing a Congressional entity, I’d be very surprised if there were
not a lot of CIA staff looking at all the Geo approaches. Alan Robock has
mentioned being interviewed once. Anyone know more that relates the CIA to
"Geo”?
3. See inserts below.
> On Jul 5, 2016, at 9:06 AM, Ken Caldeira <kcalde...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think of carbon dioxide removal as a form of mitigation and of solar
> geoengineering as an extreme form of adaptation.
>
> They are not not mutually exclusive, and not substitutes except insofar as
> more carbon dioxide removal reduces the motivation to deploy solar
> geoengineering.
RWL: The (above, highlighted) double negative looks like a typo. I
agree that more CDR means less SRM. But also believe that more SRM means more
CDR. So no symmetry.
one more below
>
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 07:52 Fred Zimmerman <geoengineerin...@gmail.com
> <mailto:geoengineerin...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> What I find interesting about this is that it had seemed to me that this
> community had largely moved on to CDR & especially BECCS as the preferred
> mechanism, most people accepting David Keith's view of SAI as a last-ditch
> option for slowing the rate of change. Do others agree with my formulation?
[RWL: Not me - on both counts. It seems to me that BECCS has fallen
from that #1 position given the many problems today facing CCS. The
Mississippi CCS plant is now projected to cost 3X the promised value. And the
value is supposed to lie in EOR, not real sequestration.
Ron
>
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com
> <mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
>
> <https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html>
> Extract
>
> Another example is the array of technologies—often referred to collectively
> as geoengineering—that potentially could help reverse the warming effects of
> global climate change. One that has gained my personal attention is
> stratospheric aerosol injection, or SAI, a method of seeding the stratosphere
> with particles that can help reflect the sun’s heat, in much the same way
> that volcanic eruptions do.
>
> An SAI program could limit global temperature increases, reducing some risks
> associated with higher temperatures and providing the world economy
> additional time to transition from fossil fuels. The process is also
> relatively inexpensive—the National Research Council estimates that a fully
> deployed SAI program would cost about $10 billion yearly.
>
> As promising as it may be, moving forward on SAI would raise a number of
> challenges for our government and for the international community. On the
> technical side, greenhouse gas emission reductions would still have to
> accompany SAI to address other climate change effects, such as ocean
> acidification, because SAI alone would not remove greenhouse gases from the
> atmosphere.
>
> On the geopolitical side, the technology’s potential to alter weather
> patterns and benefit certain regions at the expense of others could trigger
> sharp opposition by some nations. Others might seize on SAI’s benefits and
> back away from their commitment to carbon dioxide reductions. And, as with
> other breakthrough technologies, global norms and standards are lacking to
> guide the deployment and implementation of SAI.
>
>
> --
> 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
> <mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering
> <https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering>.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
> <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.
>
> ᐧ
>
> --
> 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
> <mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering
> <https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering>.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
> <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.
--
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.
