Doug,
You can submit a letter to Nature to go in the Correspondence/Letters to the Editor – see https://www.nature.com/nature/for-authors/other-subs. Probably not that easy to get published though.
Chris.
From: 'Douglas Grandt' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2023 7:08 PM
To: Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>; Herb Simmens <hsim...@gmail.com>; Michael Routh <mwr...@gmail.com>; Peter Fiekowsky <pfi...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [prag] ‘Nature’ | David T. Ho | “Carbon dioxide removal is not a current climate solution — we need to change the narrative”
All -
My choice of words was not precise:
Anybody have ideas how to comment or otherwise publicly respond to the author of this?
By “how” I did not mean content, rather avenue or vehicle to convey a reply.
apologies for the vague wording
Also, apologies to PeterF for inadvertently selecting HCA’s address when I intended to address HPAC
(HPAC -please see my initial request below
Best regards,
Doug
Sent from my iPhone (audio texting)
On Apr 4, 2023, at 11:41 AM, Michael Routh <mwr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Doug,
It seems his premise is to “let nature do the cleaning up”. I wonder if it has ever occurred to him that humans can use creative ways to optimize and accelerate nature’s scale and processes by, for example, facilitating CO2 uptake by EHUX through providing nutrients, controlling competition, managing bloom cycles, and enabling sinking to the ocean floor? Of course it’s not simple, but to imply natural processes cannot be facilitated is incredibly short-sighted.
Michael Routh
On Apr 4, 2023, at 9:29 AM, 'Doug Grandt' via Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Anybody have ideas how to comment or otherwise publicly respond to the author of this?
<d41586-023-00953-x_25201486.jpg>
- WORLD VIEW
- 04 April 2023
Carbon dioxide removal is not a current climate solution — we need to change the narrative
Drastically reduce emissions first, or carbon dioxide removal will be next to useless.
• https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00953-x
The concluding four paragraphs:
In the meantime, research is needed to seek CDR methods that minimize land use and energy consumption, and can be scaled up rapidly and cheaply. Doing that now is essential, so that we have the technology available in the future, when it will be effective, and when it can be used to remove legacy emissions to address intergenerational justice.
Not all techniques that work in the laboratory will work in the real world. Some might come with heavy costs for biodiversity and the environment. Developing methods to verify that CDR works is a major challenge. It will be many years before we have the science to tell us which methods work and whether they harm or benefit the environment.
Humanity has never removed an atmospheric pollutant at a global, continental or, even, regional scale — we have only ever shut down the source and let nature do the clearing up. This is the case for chlorofluorocarbons and stratospheric ozone destruction, for sulfur dioxide and acid rain, and for sulfur and nitrogen oxides and photochemical smog. We must be prepared for CDR to be a failure, leaving us to rely on the environment to stabilize atmospheric CO2 over thousands of years. This is another argument for rapid decarbonization.
The scale of the challenge is immense. We must slow the carbon clock to a crawl before we can turn it back.
Doug Grandt
Sent from my iPhone (audio texting)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/90576650-3592-4D40-807D-3A6A15358107%40mac.com.
--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/6085D240-B67B-450B-994D-18E500B2C4B3%40mac.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
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 CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/000501d967ae%24087906a0%24196b13e0%24%40btinternet.com.
Yes, moral hazard territory.
I outlined a public rebuttal thread
https://twitter.com/safiume/status/1643476835471331328. I believe
I've been muted by him and due to his large following. My view
counts are about 70% down. Peter, I put a link to your book in the
thead. I also copied a few of the DAC and CDR companies at the end
of the thread.
I've also submitted a comment to Nature Briefing as this is
showing up in the Nature Briefing and Apple News via Nature. In it
I said, 'I can't look anyone in the eye with children and say,
"No, I'm sorry it was mine and your parents' generation that
decided it was too hard to figure out how to reverse as much of
climate damages as possible, and collectively we humans just gave
up." ', added in my more scholarly argument as to why Nature
should not be amplifying an opinion that future CDR will fail.
Aside, other atmospheric pollutants aren't in the gigatonne or ppm range, of course removing them post-facto is going to be excessively expensive. Yes, stopping them at the source was and still is the right way to go.
Regards,
~~sa
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/222071123.48139.1680720960530%40mail.yahoo.com.
-- Shannon A. Fiume sha...@autofracture.com http://www.autofracture.com/research | http://www.autofracture.com/opencarbon https://linkedin.com/in/safiume | Go Carbon Negative!
Greg,
See these follow up comments on David Ho’s article on Twitter - https://twitter.com/safiume/status/1643476835471331328
Chris.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/222071123.48139.1680720960530%40mail.yahoo.com.