roups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on
behalf of Peter Flynn [peter.fl...@ualberta.ca]
Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2014 10:35 AM
To: andrew.lock...@gmail.com; geoengineering
Subject: RE: [geo] The flawed appeal of unilateral Direct Air Capture programs
to prevent climate change | Deich
.com; geoengineering
Sent: Sunday, 21 December 2014, 5:35
Subject: RE: [geo] The flawed appeal of unilateral Direct Air Capture programs
to prevent climate change | Deich
#yiv2275964106 #yiv2275964106 -- _filtered #yiv2275964106
{font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _fil
Actually, I think the original $ values cited refer to $/tonne CO2.
In addition to the problems discussed in the article, why was DAC singled out
in the APS et al reports for such intense, high-profile scrutiny without any
mention of or comparison to other natural and proposed CDR processes? If
I find it discouraging that so much commentary on climate change and its
subset, geoengineering, is focused on “that won’t work”, with its subset,
“how will we govern that”. I think of World War II, where humans found ways
to take action with a smaller chorus of negativity.
One constant element
