Late to this, but as I am working on something which uses geoengineering to cover both solar and carbon geoengineering, a word to those eg Doug who see no value in doing so.
For me there is value in a term which covers "action that changes the climate impact of cumulative carbon dioxide emissions to date" and that is the crucial thing which solar and carbon geoengineering have in common. It is also why the moral hazard they pose is similar; by reducing the impact of cumulative emissions to date they produce something which looks like space for further emissions that was not there before. Ken's idea/definition is an interesting one, which I shall think about more. But it seems a little odd. Imagine a world with 2GtC emissions and 2GtC negative emissions. Not a geoengineered world, if I read Ken right. But if emissions drop and negative emissions remain the same it becomes a geoengineered world; if it is not to be geoengineered the negative emissions have to be actively controlled so that they balance the positive. I am not saying that the idea that constant CDR *is* geoengineering but responsive CDR *is not* makes no sense, but it is a pretty subtle idea... On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 at 03:04, Seth Miller <sethath...@gmail.com> wrote: > Will, > > I don’t want to beat this into submission, but I thought it was worthwhile > to respond to a couple points. You write: > > These distinctions that you attempt to make here appear to be an effort to > liberate the CDR community from admitting that what its advocating may > have, and is intended to have, profound biogeochemical and climatic > impacts. > > > I disagree! I am not trying to deny that CDR has climatic impact. I am > simply saying that the general public - which should be expanded to include > many scientists who are not specifically researching global climate for a > living - does not distinguish geoengineering this way when they are making > practical decisions. > > As an example, in the US the federal government and the state of > California are both opening planning on giving billions of dollars in CDR > tax credits to *oil companies*, a group of people who are not exactly > known for their climate stewardship. Meanwhile, in Mexico a startup yahoo > buys a balloon on Amazon and releases a couple of grams of combusted sulfur > into the atmosphere and causes an international incident. > > Society had very different reactions to these activities, even though both > fit your Oxford Geoengineering Program definition of geoengineering:[1] > > *Geoengineering is the deliberate large-scale intervention in the Earth’s > natural systems to counteract climate change.* > > > *This is a climate scientist’s definition*. It serves those whose job is > to map how climate systems interact. By this definition, any intervention > with the intent to scale to global climate impact should be fair game,[2], > so that the scientists can study the potential implications ahead of the > actual event. This definition allows scientists to do more comprehensive > work, and for that use I totally support it. > > But the public has more interest in geoengineering than studying it. Stuff > is happening in real time, on the ground, and we have to figure out whether > to fund these activities or slow walk them. And for that purpose, it does > not help to lump CDR in with startup bros. The public needs a word that > recognizes their similarities but distinguishes the two. > > Scientists don’t have that word, so naturally the pubic appropriates the > word that is available (geoengineering) and twists it to serve their own > purposes. IMHO, the sis not a bad procedure. I’d like the public to be able > to engage in these conversations, and I am not going to get mad at them > when they try, even if they mess things up a bit. > > A productive response to the public when they do this would not be “stop > mucking with my words”, but instead, “what do you mean when you use the > word ‘geoengineering’”? They probably honestly don’t know, but I can offer > at least three logically consistent answers, none of which come from > Oxford, but all of which have plausibly equal merit: > > > - *An NGO or religious organization's definition.* *We are stewards of > the earth*. Activities that attempt to reverse climate damage by > reversing the direct causes of that damage are not geoengineering, whereas > activities that attempt to reverse climate damage by introducing a new > mechanism are geoengineering. In this, CDR and afforestation are not > geoengineering, whereas AI and liming the ocean are. > > - *An engineers definition*: *We implement*. Activities that attempt > to reverse climate change that can be turned off and/or reversed themselves > in case of error are not geoengineering, whereas activities that release > particles into the ocean, land, or atmosphere with no practical means for > retrieval are geonengineering. Again CDR would be considered ’not > geoengineering’, whereas AI would. > > - *A policymakers definition*: *We define subsidies and regulations*. > An activity that could be used to reverse climate change at the large scale > does not become geoengineering until it reaches a scale that matters > globally (say, 1% of deployment scale). By that logic, biochar is not > geoengineering in its current market structure, but if we created a global > program to convert crops to char, then biochar becomes geoengineering. > > > This diversity interferes with communication among scientists, because now > we have to be aware that others might use the same words as us and not mean > the same thing. But look what we get in return! People care about the work! > > We don’t want uniformity of perspective, a One Definition that Rules Them > All. We want to engage the wild diversity of the planet on this, and that > means listening to the ‘misuse’ of the term geoengineering to understand > the perspective of the users. (It also means that some of those users will > be engaging in bad faith. I don’t have a good solution there, much as I > don’t have a good suggestion for handling sociopaths in any field.) > > Bottom line: We can show some empathy here, “yes and” people instead of > telling them “no but”, and we sometimes discover that they are not simply > misunderstanding what is important, but instead have something constructive > to offer from their own perspective. > > Thanks for listening! I’ll sit back down now. > > > Best, > Seth > > > > [1] Caveat: This assumes the aforementioned yahoo is to be taken seriously > that he wants to scale aerosol injection. If he is just trying to raise > investment dollars, he does not meet the Oxford definition because he lacks > intent. > > [2] In a previous email you said that intent should not be part of the > definition, but the word “deliberate” from the Oxford definition belies > this. I won’t go into this further here. > > > > Virtually all of these approaches, indeed, involve substantial “meddling” > in the system that makes the distinction with SRM seem highly questionable. > You admit so much in the context of OIF, which is a CDR option. However, it > doesn’t stop there. Recent research also indicates that large-scale > afforestation can fundamentally alter hydrological regimes at the regional > level, which is hardly “minimal” intervention or one with “minimum” moral > considerations. See: > https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=a01ee20d34deff361ae78b312c2a292bd62f4d9a, > as well as recent research on the impacts of the “green wall” in Africa. > Research on the potential impacts of enhancing alkalinity into ocean > ecosystems could also profoundly alter biogeochemical cycles; indeed, > again, it’s the INTENT of those who do so. Ocean upwelling, as Oschlies, et > al., have pointed out, could pose the specter of a “termination effect” > similar to what opponents of SRM often point to. > > And seeking to “return” back to a previous era in ocean ecosystems that > have adapted to different regimes, and evolved as such, is not necessarily > benign, or “minor” as a form of intervention. If we believe in the > necessity of CDR, let’s be willing to admit that its substantial > intervention in the climatic system, and defend it as such. Again, I return > to these definitions below and ask how one can plausibly argue that CDR > doesn’t fit easily within each. > > *Geoengineering is the deliberate large-scale intervention in the Earth’s > natural systems to counteract climate change.* > *Oxford Geoengineering Programme (2019)* > > *Attempted large scale human control of either biogeochemical cycles or > the climate itself.* > *Robert G. Watts, Engineering Response to Global Climate Change (1997)* > > > > > <image001.jpg> <http://twitter.com/> > *WIL BURNS* > Co-Director, Institute for Carbon Removal Law & Policy > American University > > Visiting Professor, Environmental Policy & Culture Program, Northwestern > University > > Email: wbu...@american.edu > Mobile: 312.550.3079 > https://www.american.edu/sis/centers/carbon-removal/ > > > *Want to schedule a call? Click on one of the following scheduling links:* > > - 60-minute phone call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/phone-call > - 30-minute phone call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/30min > - 15-minute phone call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/15min > - 60-minute conference call: > https://calendly.com/wil_burns/60-minute-conference-call > - 30-minute conference call: > https://calendly.com/wil_burns/30-minute-group > - 60-minute Zoom call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/60min > - 30-minute Zoom call: > https://calendly.com/wil_burns/30-minute-zoom-call > > > Follow us: > <image002.png> > <https://www.facebook.com/Institute-for-Carbon-Removal-Law-and-Policy-336916007065063/> > <image003.png> <https://twitter.com/CarbonRemovalAU> > > <image004.png> > > > *From:* Seth Miller <sethath...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Friday, February 3, 2023 4:01 AM > *To:* Wil Burns <w...@feronia.org> > *Cc:* Ken Caldeira <kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu>; Andrew Lockley < > andrew.lock...@gmail.com>; Michael Hayes <electrogeoc...@gmail.com>; > Robert Tulip <rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au>; > carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com < > carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com> < > carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering < > geoengineering@googlegroups.com> > *Subject:* Re: [CDR] Tiresome nomenclature squabbles > > I will shill for a version of Ken’s distinction of geoengineering as an > activity that requires an intent to *change*the earth’s climate. > > *We scientists and engineers tend to define terms technically,* and this > is the right thing to do when we ask each other to make technical > decisions. Which technology will have the largest impact for the least > cost? It’s a technical question, and we try to estimate costs and impacts > and risks quantitatively, and > > *The public will tend to define things morally*, which is probably the > right thing to do for public policy. The public has an intuition - which is > technically pretty sound - that meddling in complex systems often elicits > large, unexpected results. They frame this in moral terms (“Playing God”) > that don’t resonate with scientists, but honestly their inherent distrust > of our ability to cleanly engineer complexity has merit. > > In my view, CDR is seen as ‘morally acceptable’ because it is perceived as > reversing processes with the minimum possible deviation from their original > path. The good activity (CDR/CCS) isn’t exactly the opposite of the bad one > (extracting and burning fossil fuels), but it’s pretty close. There is > minimal ‘change’, the word I underlined in Ken’s definition, and the > complexity of the intervention is low so the moral risks are small. By > contrast, marine arctic brightening or OIF or aerosol injection have a > longer distance from the original activity of burning carbon. Substantial > change is required, the complexity is high, so the moral risks are > perceived as high. > > *Technical definitions do a different job than moral ones*, and we should > not confuse the two simply because they both contain the word ‘definition’. > It’s useful to call on the old saying that you can’t logic a person out of > a belief that they didn’t logic themselves into! I am skeptical that we > will ever move the public to embrace a technical definition as a > replacement for a moral, in this or any other field. They are each aides to > a different type of thinking. > > To be clear, the public’s moral definition is failing them because the > planet is faced with a unique situation where the default moral choice > (inaction) is riskier than just about any action, and therefore should not > be considered moral anymore. This is why I think Peter’s framing of > ‘climate restoration’ as a public goal is genius. It re-defines morality at > such a great distance from today that small, conservative steps should be > seen as immoral. > > > Seth > > > P.S. Back to Andrew’s original point: We scientists are logic-ing our way > through this morass and should be more responsible about getting terms > right. Instead, we often will sprinkle a little technical jargon in on top > of a little moral jargon and see if that’s enough to position us for scarce > funding. This is indeed bad, and my intuition is that this is the behavior > that is rubbing Andrew wrong. > > I don’t have a good way to stop it any more than I have a good way to stop > bullshitting in any endeavor. I’ll just offer my perspective that they > problem is not that people are using logically wrong definitions, but that > they are mixing the moral definitions with technical ones because this > allows them to achieve communications ‘victory’, at the expense of > communications clarity. > > > > ------- > > Seth Miller, Ph.D. > www.linkedin.com/in/sethmiller2 > Check my blog at: perspicacity.xyz > > > On Feb 3, 2023, at 1:10 AM, Wil Burns <w...@feronia.org> wrote: > > Dear Ken, > > I’m curious where you found a definition of “geoengineering” that > establishes the criteria you set forth here. Here’s a couple of mainstream > ones: > > > - *Geoengineering is the deliberate large-scale intervention in the > Earth’s natural systems to counteract climate change.* > > *Oxford Geoengineering Programme* > > > - *Attempted large scale human control of either biogeochemical cycles > or the climate itself.* > > *Robert G. Watts, Engineering Response to Global Climate Change (1997)* > > > Under both of these definitions, I think CDR fits under this rubric: > > > 1. Under the Oxford definition, CDR is: 1. A large-scale intervention > (or certain can be in terms of the scales society now is contemplating), > and 2. Seeks to counteract the impacts of climate change that are > inevitable should atmospheric concentrations continue to rise; > 2. Under the Watts definition: 1. Many CDR approaches will exert a > profound impact on biogeochemical cycles (kind of the quintessential > definition, for example of those that rely on photosynthesis to effectuate > sequestration, see: > > https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf;) > and 2. CDR is intended to “control” the climate in terms of ensuring > radiative forcing is mediated. > > > > I get why CDR folks worry about the “g word,” but I don’t buy the > distinction you’re making, Ken, based on credible definitions that have > been promulgated to date. > > wil > > > > > > <image001.jpg> <http://twitter.com/> > *WIL BURNS* > Co-Director, Institute for Carbon Removal Law & Policy > American University > > Visiting Professor, Environmental Policy & Culture Program, Northwestern > University > > Email: wbu...@american.edu > Mobile: 312.550.3079 > https://www.american.edu/sis/centers/carbon-removal/ > > > *Want to schedule a call? Click on one of the following scheduling links:* > > - 60-minute phone call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/phone-call > - 30-minute phone call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/30min > - 15-minute phone call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/15min > - 60-minute conference call: > https://calendly.com/wil_burns/60-minute-conference-call > - 30-minute conference call: > https://calendly.com/wil_burns/30-minute-group > - 60-minute Zoom call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/60min > - 30-minute Zoom call: > https://calendly.com/wil_burns/30-minute-zoom-call > > > Follow us: > <image002.png> > <https://www.facebook.com/Institute-for-Carbon-Removal-Law-and-Policy-336916007065063/> > <image003.png> <https://twitter.com/CarbonRemovalAU> > > <image004.png> > > > *From:* carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com< > carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com> *On Behalf Of *Ken Caldeira > *Sent:* Thursday, February 2, 2023 11:05 AM > *To:* Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> > *Cc:* Michael Hayes <electrogeoc...@gmail.com>; Robert Tulip < > rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au>;carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com < > carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com> < > carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering < > geoengineering@googlegroups.com> > *Subject:* Re: [CDR] Tiresome nomenclature squabbles > > Carbon dioxide removal is an activity, or a tool, and can be fully > described without reference to intent. > > In contrast, geoengineering involves specific intention to alter Earth's > climate. CDR is a tool that is not typically applied to this intention, > but could be. > > If the intention of using CDR is to avoid climate change from > concurrent CO2 emissions, the intent is to prevent the alteration of > climate, not to alter climate. > > If the intention of using CDR is to bring atmospheric CO2 levels down > below pre-industrial levels, then that application of CDR technologies > might be considered geoengineering. > > > On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 6:21 AM Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Michael, as always, I'm very keen to avoid entering an extended discussion > with you - but I'm writing to correct your false statements: > *The geoengineering list was focussed specifically on SRM only after the > CDR list was established. > *As should be obvious, I'm talking only about the branding of the services > I'm personally involved in branding: Reviewer 2, the geoengineering Google > group and @geoengineering1. Plainly, I don't get naming rights beyond this. > > As a note of caution, anyone using the geoengineering Google group to > disparage individuals or make false statements about them can expect to be > blocked or banned. > > I will not reply further, and I hope you will not either. > > Andrew Lockley > > On Thu, 2 Feb 2023, 01:20 Michael Hayes, <electrogeoc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > [...] My original message had two purposes > A) to offer a full, citable explanation as to why I'm *not* planning on > rebranding all my scicomm to suit anyone's doublespeak - any more than > Coca-Cola will rebrand, now it's got no cocaine in > B) an appeal to stop the petty politics associated with these attempts to > factionalise academia. [...] > > MH] > > 1) Your single person 'branding' ability over such discussions should be > questioned. No single person should have 'branding' rights to such a large > field of study. > > 2) Academia has already split largely due to the early GE discussion being > 'branded' as only about SAI. Your single person 'branding' of the GE > subject as only being about SAI as the GE group moderator triggered the > formation of a seperate CDR group. Bombarding the stratosphere with sulfur > loaded artillery rounds was your 'hobby horse' for years as the GE group > moderator, and the totality of the early GE discussions within that GE had > to revolve around your personal 'branding' desires. Years were wasted, IMO. > > Channeling expert level discussions through your personal GE 'SAI biased > branding' efforts within the old GE group has now been largely made moot, > the petty personal politics at this expert level of discussion are now > largely over. You're free to object to my historical account and insist > upon your personal 'branding' rights over climate disruption mitigation and > adaptation expert discussions. Please keep it within 3 short paragraphs. > > Best regards > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 1, 2023, 11:02 AM Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Michael, nobody is complaining about hurt feelings. This issue at hand is > the practical problems created by an attempted redefinition of established > terminology - apparently to precipitate a disciplinary schism (as others > have pointed out). This situation has seemingly been manufactured by a > small subset of CDR supporters - apparently to disassociate themselves from > SRM, despite historical, definitional and personnel links between the two > fields. > > While I understand the politics perfectly well, it's absurd to try to > redefine dictionary words to whitewash the politics of a discipline. I'm > far from the only one affected by this, hence the desire to raise the issue > in public - a rare personal message, on my part. > > Let's be clear: CDR *is* geoengineering - and always has been. It's > literally in the dictionary. Just because CDR *isn't* SRM, doesn't mean > that it is free of the same moral hazard issues - as the overshoot > scenarios attest. Any attempt to invoke piety by shunning supposedly > morally-impure colleagues (or their work) is uncivil, unwarranted, and > ultimately unproductive. Let he who is without moral hazard cast the first > stone! 😁 > > My original message had two purposes > A) to offer a full, citable explanation as to why I'm *not* planning on > rebranding all my scicomm to suit anyone's doublespeak - any more than > Coca-Cola will rebrand, now it's got no cocaine in > B) an appeal to stop the petty politics associated with these attempts to > factionalise academia. > > Whether you're working on CDR or SRM, shortwave or longwave, upwelling or > downwelling radiation, we're all on the same team. > > Andrew > > On Wed, 1 Feb 2023, 17:38 Michael Hayes, <electrogeoc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > What is the value of this discussion to the subject of CDR? > > So far: > > 1) Someone reports getting their feelings hurt. > > 2) We've been presented with an odd ball list of largely unsupportable > assumptions and rambling personal views about CDR supporters etc. > > This is not the GE group nor an emotional support group. I don't mean to > be insensitive to those in need of emotional support yet this is a STEM, > policy, and economic space focused upon CDR. What has been presented has > nothing to do with the STEM, policy, or the economics of CDR, that I can > find. > > Best regards > > > > On Wed, Feb 1, 2023, 5:25 AM 'Robert Tulip' via Carbon Dioxide Removal < > carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > Andrew > > As you note, many advocates of CDR are totally opposed to SRM. This is > partly due to the widely held view among the general public that SRM is > playing God, tinkering with nature, a dangerous intervention, whereas CDR > is benign. > > As a result of this context, some CDR proponents tactically distance > themselves from SRM and the associated terminology of geoengineering. This > is either because they really believe the anti-SRM ideology, or just in > order to get investment and support and engagement. > > Some NGOs reportedly oppose SRM because their finance departments believe > supporting it would be bad for their fundraising efforts, due to widespread > opposition among their donor base. They also believe that discussing SRM > confuses their single message of the need to cut emissions. > > This situation reflects the priority of politics over science in the > formation of opinion. It means the united front on climate action is seen > as including CDR, in line with IPCC acceptance, but not SRM, which was > given pariah status in the last IPCC Summary For Policymakers. The > confused moral hazard ideology is a main support for this political line. > > This hostile attitude involves a refusal to see the earth as a single > unified system, an inability to consider that earth system fragility and > sensitivity can only be stabilised by brightening the planet. > > Greta Thunberg’s recent publication, *The Climate Book*, contains the > assertion that “all geoengineering schemes are attempts to manipulate the > Earth with the same domineering mindset that got us into the climate crisis > in the first place.” This quasi-religious hostility to technology commands > broad support among climate activists, producing a refusal to listen to > reason, despite being a recipe for social and economic and ecological > collapse. > > The philosophical and psychological and political blockages to albedo > enhancement as a primary climate objective lead to highly dubious > arguments, such as that accelerated emission reduction and CDR could > prevent tipping points without any action on albedo. > > It is essential to defend the concept of geoengineering, since questioning > it demonstrates an inability to understand the climate problem. > > These concerns ought to be the subject of much more discussion and debate, > as they are actually central to planetary security, with significant moral > implications. Thank you for highlighting the problem. > > Robert Tulip > > *From:* carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com < > carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com>*On Behalf Of *Andrew Lockley > *Sent:* Tuesday, 31 January 2023 11:06 AM > *To:* carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com < > carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com> < > carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering < > geoengineering@googlegroups.com> > *Subject:* [CDR] Tiresome nomenclature squabbles > > Hi Geo/CDR lists, > > I say very little personally - but I feel it's time to confront a problem, > which has been building up for a while. > > I'm noticing increasingly ill-tempered nomenclature egg-throwing in this > community. It's affecting my work - and it's probably harming other > people's work, too. I'm therefore cross-posting, in an attempt to get the > problem under control. > > Most particularly, the eggs are being thrown by a few select CDR folk, who > refuse to cooperate with people/projects describing the field as > geoengineering (or related terms). Sorry if that's blunt, but them's the > facts. I'm declining to name names - but I have the receipts, if > anyone needs them. > > Before addressing the core argument being (incorrectly) made, here's some > background on my scicomm work. This context is relevant, as the scicomm > reaches broadly across this field (2k twitter followers, 10k podcast > downloads, ~3k email readers). > I've always worked on SRM and CDR, in both academic publications and > scicomm. > > As a matter of historical fact, the CDR list (which I don't moderate) was > spun out from the geoengineering Google group (which I do moderate), and as > a matter of convenience the residual list focussed on SRM. This was done to > manage comms in a practical way, not as some ideological schism. Plenty of > people cross both lists, and I've seen no reason to rebrand. > > The other information services I operate (@geoengineering1 twitter, > Reviewer 2 Does Geoengineering podcast) use the same generic geoengineering > branding, and have done for a decade or more. This is partly as a matter of > historic consistency, and partly because the word is being used correctly - > as I'll explain below. I don't therefore feel that this wording choice is > any justification for people to attack me or my work. > > How bad has it got? Well, I'm reliably informed that I've had my CV binned > for at least 1 job because I use the word "geoengineering" to describe the > field. I've recently had several people (without exception CDR types) > refuse to cooperate with my scicomm work - because I use the word > "geoengineering" as a convenient, dictionary-accurate, and > historically-relevant way to describe my work. That's denying their work an > audience, based on a squabble over historic branding. Coca-Cola doesn't > even have cocaine in anymore, but people don't argue with bar staff about > it. So why argue with me, when my work is much more accurately described? > > People are free to use whatever words they like to describe what they do; > my beef isn't with the string of related terms for the same things > (geoengineering vs climate intervention; solar radiation modification vs > solar radiation management; carbon removal vs CDR vs GGR; etc.). The > problem I have is with the petty personal sniping and factionalism that's > increasingly creeping in to the discipline, as a result. > > For the avoidance of doubt: I'm not rebranding everything I do just > because a few CDR fans won't play nicely with their SRM counterparts. And > I'm not going to jump into a silo, just because other people think I > should. > > Notwithstanding the objectionable pettiness of this behaviour, I don't > believe the core argument bears any real scrutiny. So let's get to that. > > With a quick Google I have found both present and historical references to > the term "geoengineering" (relatedly climate engineering/intervention) > being used to encompass CDR. > > Here's the OED > > https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095848469;jsessionid=8F01D3B289E2BB2911C69F51B5050E01#:~:text=Geoengineering%20is%20the%20intentional%20large,of%20reducing%20undesired%20climatic%20. > .. > > NASEM > > https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/18805/climate-intervention-carbon-dioxide-removal-and-reliable-sequestration > > Wikipedia > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_engineering > > Royal Society > > https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/publications/2009/geoengineering-climate/ > > Futurelearn / Adam Smith > > https://www.futurelearn.com/info/courses/climate-change-and-public-policy/0/steps/291219 > > ...I could go on. > > The issue here isn't the use of one word or another, it's the daftness of > people shunning opportunities/people because of the utilisation of a > standard (if not ubiquitous) term to describe the discipline. > > So please, let's not have wars over words reminiscent of the kids' book > "Fatipuffs and Thinnifers" > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fattypuffs_and_Thinifers > ...as even the kids reading that book knew it was stupid. We have all got > much more to lose than to gain from such silly squabbles. Just because we > might not like words that have been used for 15y or more doesn't mean it's > a valid excuse to shun people and opportunities. > > Thanks for listening. And best wishes to all my geoengineering friends - > including both the SRM and CDR ones. > > Andrew > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email tocarbondioxideremoval+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAJ3C-04_FoiiKfqT9ogcapfacZuSU5VJ%3DjwsE5Bn9G1EC5TYCg%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAJ3C-04_FoiiKfqT9ogcapfacZuSU5VJ%3DjwsE5Bn9G1EC5TYCg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email tocarbondioxideremoval+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/046901d93640%24a995bd70%24fcc13850%24%40yahoo.com.au > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/046901d93640%24a995bd70%24fcc13850%24%40yahoo.com.au?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email tocarbondioxideremoval+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAJ3C-0645PTGZBXu3amtFweG-ad7QW-EyvicvSUD_9n2nQMQ3Q%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAJ3C-0645PTGZBXu3amtFweG-ad7QW-EyvicvSUD_9n2nQMQ3Q%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email tocarbondioxideremoval+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAKNUXC0-jt%2B41ORwCqD4ZEXfO2YLWiqPb5JD_kM%3Du3cMr2zemA%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAKNUXC0-jt%2B41ORwCqD4ZEXfO2YLWiqPb5JD_kM%3Du3cMr2zemA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to carbondioxideremoval+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/BL0PR04MB4705E4CEF1FE62A0F8CCE295A4D79%40BL0PR04MB4705.namprd04.prod.outlook.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/BL0PR04MB4705E4CEF1FE62A0F8CCE295A4D79%40BL0PR04MB4705.namprd04.prod.outlook.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to carbondioxideremoval+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/80B9C038-DED2-48BC-A041-8B7D0222E985%40gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/80B9C038-DED2-48BC-A041-8B7D0222E985%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O Oliver Morton Senior Editor, Essays, Briefings and Technology Quarterlies *The Economist* +44 20 7830 7041 My 2019 book, "The Moon: A History for the Future", was listed as a science book of the year by the London Times. You can read more about it here <https://medium.com/@Eaterofsun/the-moon-a-history-for-the-future-e74771f0887d> . My previous book, "The Planet Remade: How Geoengineering Could Change The World" was longlisted for the 2015 Samuel Johnson Prize and shortlisted for the 2016 Royal Society Insight Investment Science Book Prize. All my books are available from Amazon UK <https://www.amazon.co.uk/Oliver-Morton/e/B001HMKDI4>|US <https://www.amazon.com/Oliver-Morton/e/B001HMKDI4>, and of course elsewhere O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O -- *This e-mail may contain confidential material. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies. It may also contain personal views which are not the views of The Economist Group. We may monitor e-mail to and from our network.* * * *Sent by a member of The Economist Group. The Group's parent company is The Economist Newspaper Limited, registered in England with company number 236383 and registered office at The Adelphi, 1-11 John Adam Street, London, WC2N 6HT. For Group company registration details go to http://legal.economistgroup.com <http://legal.economistgroup.com> * -- 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/CAAw1PSXHcbocSMbCYU2dLP5xWK_o9JS9Q9Ah-6JX%3DFhdRBVWXA%40mail.gmail.com.
