The Positive Case For Global Cooling That Few Seem Willing to Make

[Chris Vivian]

All,

 

See this article - https://www.inevitableandobvious.com/p/the-positive-case-for-global-cooling?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

 

Chris.

 

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Colleagues,

This substack article from the founder of NORI  (that some of us have been engaging with (see comments on this and on Greg Rau et al posts on the CDR and Geo lists) is in my one of the most "on the mark" assessments of the situation and the steps necessary to do the "inevitable" that I have seen to date: https://www.inevitableandobvious.com/p/the-positive-case-for-global-cooling

Thank you Andrew for sharing in the Geoengineering Newsletter!

Best,

Ron

--

Healthy Planet Action Coalition

YouTube Channel

@HPACoalition  (Bluesky and Twitter/X)

 Addressing the Urgent Need for Direct Climate Cooling: Rationale and Options

Baiman et al. 2024. Oxford Open Climate Change

An Open Letter to the IMO Supporting Maritime Transport that Cools the Atmosphere While Preserving Air Quality Benefits. Baiman et al. 2024. Oxford Open Climate Change

[John Nissen]

Hi Ron,

This assessment by Paul Gambill on his "Inevitable and Obvious" blog is certainly one of the most "on the mark" assessments [1].  Particularly revealing is the attitude to SRM at the Tipping Point conference in Exeter recently.  I've extracted his comment about it below [2].  He has reported on the conference in detail here [3].  We have witnessed the reluctance of SAI researchers to advocate deployment or even preparations for deployment: for example Doug MacMartin.  I think Paul has explained that as reluctance to get involved in a fight.  And the fight is partly against those who say that "geoengineering is just cover for the oil and gas industry", put another way, "geoengineering would let the oil and gas industry get out of gaol free" - the moral hazard argument we've heard so often. But the fight is also against those who passionately believe that interference with Nature has to be high risk; and if we stop our pollution of the atmosphere with CO2 and methane, Nature will come to our rescue or (some say) deal us the Armageddon that we deserve for our sins.  These are the "Hands off Mother Nature" folk who are well funded and well organised, successfully influencing the EPA for example.

So Paul has a plea for geoengineering advocacy.  This is what PRAG is focussed on, particularly the advocacy of SAI* for refreezing the Arctic as a prerequisite for reversing climate change and restoring the planet to a safe, sustainable, biodiverse and productive state.  

BTW, Ron, good luck with your submission to AGU 2025.  Assuming it is accepted I hope it gains more recognition that I have obtained for my several presentations to the AGU in the past; I have almost given up trying.

Cheers, John

* I note that Paul has wrongfully dismissed SAI as liable to have a catastrophic effect on ozone; the likely catastrophes are from leaving SAI deployment too late.  Immediate preparations for emergency SAI at scale need to be at the forefront of advocacy.  People need to understand that not only is SAI powerful enough to reverse climate change but it could also be deployed without serious harm to anyone, so long as its deployment is carefully modelled and monitored.

References:

[1] Paul Gambill

The Positive Case For Geoengineering That Few Seem Willing to Make

https://www.inevitableandobvious.com/p/the-positive-case-for-global-cooling 

[2] Quote from [1]:

I experienced this firsthand at the Global Tipping Points conference in Exeter. Four days of scientists describing civilization-threatening catastrophes—Amazon dieback, Atlantic circulation collapse, irreversible ice sheet loss. Yet in all those sessions, cooling interventions got maybe 60 minutes total. When I asked a climate scientist about it, he told me I wouldn't find support there because "geoengineering is just cover for the oil and gas industry."

This was eye-opening for me, and revealed the dynamics at play. The cooling research organizations doing excellent work have made strategic choices to maintain neutrality on whether or not we should eventually deploy—and I understand why. Advocacy would invite fierce criticism from the broader climate community, the kind I witnessed at Exeter. It's rational to focus on research and avoid that fight. The pattern mirrors early carbon removal resistance, when speaking positively about removal drew accusations of enabling fossil fuel companies.

[3] https://www.inevitableandobvious.com/p/the-global-tipping-points-conference

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAPhUB9AA7a%2B4fnu3wr_qAPUrh_kmJeMKMMyZUm%3D-m4yEWVoPQA%40mail.gmail.com.