Greg, GEO list and 2 ccs
Six answers to your questions below;
> On Jan 21, 2022, at 9:46 PM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> “In short, solar geoengineering deployment cannot be governed globally in a
> fair, inclusive, and effective manner.”
[RWL1: This quote follows three reasons (that do not follow for CDR)
from this cite - 5 days ago:
https://science.thewire.in/environment/scholars-float-political-intervention-against-solar-geoengineering/
> Apparently, neither can adequate emissions reduction.
[RWL2; Maybe - but depends on “adequate” (which wasn’t for decades)..
Both wind and solar PV are now least cost and energy efficiency was always
getting pretty good government - based on my experience with our local PUC (=
Public Utility Commission). Our local utility has pretty aggressive goals now
in all these reduction (as opposed to removal) categories - and it is being
governed.. (My PUC is NOT doing well with CDR (because our utility is not) -
but some PUCs and utilities are.)
> Considering what’s at stake, how about trying harder on both fronts?
[RWL3: Good - with your “both” meaning solar geoengineering and
emissions reductions. But the group of 45 has given three reasons why the
former is impossible. I doubt the 45 are concerned at all with governance of
emissions reductions.
> Or would that be asking too much of governance “experts”?
[RWl4: The 45-group, which has given up on solar geoengineering are
predominately from the field of “governance". So they are saying “trying
harder" isn’t going to work - for theirthree stated reasons. Arguments
against their conclusions should focus on their three reasons.,
> Guess our only hope is CDR,
[RWL5: Maybe not “our only hope” - but CDR seems a lot more possible
than solar geoengineering now - especially after the strong negative message
this week - in Science. We working on CDR are very fortunate to not have this
sort of dialog on the CDR list
> or is that also beyond human control?
[RWL6. Not sure whether your “that” refers to “hope” or “CDR” or
“beyond human control”. Assuming you are referring to “ DR" (whose list
moderation you lead), I now believe it very unlikely we will ever see any such
negative reaction to CDR. This in large part because CDR generally seems to
not need be controlled and if needed, can be or already is.
One point of evidence is the many hundreds of entrees in four categories
of the $100 million Musk XPRIZE (only on CDR). Entrants have to answer (in 10
days) many dozens of questions - none on this topic.
I doubt that a thread like this would get much attention on your CDR
list. But I am glad to see such discussion here. Has to help come up with
better technologies (that go beyond global long-lived sulfur additions).
Ron
> Greg
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Jan 21, 2022, at 7:07 PM, 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering
>> <geoengineering@googlegroups.com <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>> From the content of the letter, it is obvious the authors are not
>> geoengineering experts. The signatories of the open letter
>> <https://www.solargeoeng.org/non-use-agreement/open-letter/> are listed at
>> https://www.solargeoeng.org/non-use-agreement/signatories/
>> <https://www.solargeoeng.org/non-use-agreement/signatories/>. They are
<SNIP - NOT RELATED TO CDR>
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/07AD8884-5817-4D7C-BE4C-B4563E0D23F0%40comcast.net.
