advantage of SRM.
>
> > But we need to see ultruistic people with money stepping forward, where
> > governments fear to tread. Has anybody worked on Bill Gates? Here's a
> > chance to save the world!
>
> > Cheers,
>
> > John
>
> > - Original
ar to tread. Has anybody worked on Bill Gates? Here's a
> chance to save the world!
>
> Cheers,
>
> John
>
> - Original Message -
> From: David Schnare
> To: Lane, Lee O.
> Cc: Geoengineering
> Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 7:27 PM
> Subject: [g
] Re: Cap and Trade Haters Recommend Incentivizing Geo
Gentlemen,
Your arguing makes it seem that SRM is terribly expensive. It is peanuts in
relation to its use in saving the Arctic sea ice, which has acted as a global
thermostat throughout the Ice Ages until we just broke it. The signs are
Cc: Geoengineering
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 7:27 PM
Subject: [geo] Re: Cap and Trade Haters Recommend Incentivizing Geo
Lee:
Nicely put. Keep in mind, however, Coase assumes a perfect market for these
tradeoffs. As there is a free-rider problem, I'm not sure the balance
h for raising interesting points.
Best regards,
Lee Lane
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com on behalf of David Schnare
Sent: Fri 12/12/2008 12:26 PM
To: Geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Re: Cap and Trade Haters Recommend Incentivizing Geo
Gents
e neglect of adaptation.
>
>
>
> Thank you both for raising interesting points.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Lee Lane
>
> ________
>
> From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com on behalf of David Schnare
> Sent: Fri 12/12/2008 12:26 PM
>
To: dwschn...@gmail.com ; Alvia Gaskill
<mailto:agask...@nc.rr.com>
Cc: Geoengineering <mailto:Geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 4:22 PM
Subject: [geo] Re: Cap and Trade Haters Recommend Incentivizing
Geo
ges and
> high precipitation floods, living by tidal Thames. Hey, what about the
> former mayor, Ken Livingston? (The new mayor wouldn't be interested.)
>
> Cheers from Chiswick
>
> John
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Mike MacCracken <mailto
l Message -
>>> From: Mike MacCracken <mailto:mmacc...@comcast.net>
>>> To: dwschn...@gmail.com ; Alvia Gaskill <mailto:agask...@nc.rr.com>
>>> Cc: Geoengineering <mailto:Geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
>>> Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 4:22 PM
gt; John
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Mike MacCracken
> *To:* dwschn...@gmail.com ; Alvia Gaskill
> *Cc:* Geoengineering
> *Sent:* Friday, December 12, 2008 4:22 PM
> *Subject:* [geo] Re: Cap and Trade Haters Recommend Incentivizing Geo
>
> Hi David—Y
Re: [geo] Re: Cap and Trade Haters Recommend Incentivizing Geo
Hi Mike,
Perhaps we should try insurance companies, or even better, reinsurance. They
are interested in avoiding disasters, however they are caused. Does anybody
have good contacts?
I have a particular interest in avoiding sea
Mike:
I didn't say incentivizing was a good idea. I simply explained how one
would do it.
David.
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 11:22 AM, Mike MacCracken wrote:
> Hi David—Your proposal is just the reason why there is resistance to
> geoengineering. The idea is to not have geoengineering slow the nee
Hi David‹Your proposal is just the reason why there is resistance to
geoengineering. The idea is to not have geoengineering slow the needed rapid
reduction in GHG emissions, but to be in addition to it‹for given how
rapidly the environment is changing we will need to have geoengineering as
well as
You would link it to carbon emissions , allowing greater emissions in direct
trade with investment on mass scale carbon sequestration and a premium
(lesser but still real emissions allowances) for X years for SRM.
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 7:30 AM, Alvia Gaskill wrote:
> How would you "incenti
14 matches
Mail list logo
