To quote the article's conclusion:"Negative-emission technologies are not an
insurance policy, but rather an unjust and high-stakes gamble. There is a real
risk they will be unable to deliver on the scale of their promise. If the
emphasis on equity and risk aversion embodied in the Paris Agreeme
I agree with Greg. This article's dismissal of negative emissions options
as a moral hazard is very discouraging. Yes, "mitigation obstruction" is a
possible consequence of serious engagement with negative emissions options.
But it is certainly elitist, and possibly unethical, for environmental
sci
I was asked to provide comments to the media about this article. They are
pasted below. I don't know what will actually appear in print.
Mark Barteau
Director, University of Michigan Energy Institute
It is possible to accept the information and many of the assertions in the
*Science
*articl
Hi Folks,
I believe that the misconceptions about carbon negative technologies are
getting so far out of hand in the media, and even in peer reviewed papers,
that a strong statement needs to be made to the press (and or to a peer
reviewed journal) concerning the common errors being cemented int
Michael
You ask: "How can producing enough biofuel to displace FFs to a large
degree, or adjusting the pH of wide areas of the oceans, or moving vast
amounts of sustainable marine carbon into the terrestrial space via 'Blue
Biochar', or producing protein at the most efficient level, or produci
flight is impossible (Lord Kelvin 1895, and many others), and considering the
hazard posed to buggy manufacturers)?
From: Oliver Morton
To: geoengineering
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 3:21 AM
Subject: Re: [geo] The trouble with negative emissions
Michael
You ask: "
hnology, might it also be useful to encourage
> exploring alternative methods, just in case something better emerges (even
> considering that human flight is impossible (Lord Kelvin 1895, and many
> others), and considering the hazard posed to buggy manufacturers)?
>
>
>
solved at the same
>> level of awareness that created them.” Given our rather dire circumstances,
>> isn't it time to encourage rather than discourage thinking that does beyond
>> emissions reduction, in the hope that something else might prove useful if
>> not essential? By analogy, while we can plan a
, October 22, 2016 7:24 PM
*To:* Peter Flynn
*Cc:* RAU greg ; olivermor...@economist.com;
Geoengineering ; Michael Hayes <
voglerl...@gmail.com>; Johannes Lehmann ; Erin M Searcy <
erin.sea...@inl.gov>
*Subject:* Re: [geo] The trouble with negative emissions
Peter and ccs
Schuiling
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Greg Rau
Sent: vrijdag 21 oktober 2016 6:56
To: olivermor...@economist.com; geoengineering
Subject: [***SPAM***] Re: [geo] The trouble with negative emissions
Further musings:
https
10 matches
Mail list logo
