"Extrapolations" TV Show seems like a must watch!

19 views
Skip to first unread message

Ron Baiman

unread,
Mar 18, 2023, 2:44:44 PM3/18/23
to healthy-planet-action-coalition, geoengineering, 'Eelco Rohling' via NOAC Meetings, Planetary Restoration, Healthy Climate Alliance, Michael MacCracken
Dear Colleagues,

I haven't seen it yet, but based on this article:
It appears to be a must watch!

Thanks to Mike MacCracken for flagging this!

Best,
Ron


Ron Baiman

unread,
Mar 18, 2023, 3:51:05 PM3/18/23
to David Schwartz, healthy-planet-action-coalition, geoengineering, 'Eelco Rohling' via NOAC Meetings, Planetary Restoration, Healthy Climate Alliance, Michael MacCracken
Agree David.  Though I haven't watched the show yet, the "strategy that critics say could go horribly wrong" line seems over the top.  But I don't think we can expect Hollywood to present climate intervention much differently than our "expert" critics who persist in framing "climate intervention" as extremely high risk.Here's my recent response to this framing in a recent discussion of the two recent SRM research supporting letters (see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DvAolo5DgK-QxhbXpFg0UzZNDTrJ7UQm/edit)

"Cautious to a fault on quick or gradual piloting and deployment (depending on method see below), given the urgency of triggering irreversible tipping points potential to prevent or reduce increased catastrophic harm to humans and the fact that (mentioned by some participants) that the Mt. Pinatubo volcano for example lofted about 17 million tons of SO2 to the stratosphere (far more at one time than any SAI planned deployment that I am aware of) and cooled the globe by roughly 0.6 C for 15 months without any (at least prominently publicised) adverse impacts."

My understanding is that a common reply to this is that volcanoes are "one shot" events, whereas SAI deployment (though probably of a lower magnitude) would be continuous over a long period of time. But here again for example, from modeling, the Montreal Protocol report did not find anything like "catastrophic risks" (see this thread: https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#sent/QgrcJHsNnjqBJRQXpRWfqzCKMtqkXxVcQgb ). Certainly not anything like the risks of continuing to pursue the present course of emissions reduction and drawdown only policy that the show (again from the article) attempts to depict.

Best,

Ron



On Sat, Mar 18, 2023 at 2:23 PM David Schwartz <davidas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hopefully the episode on geoengineering is more balanced than this:

"I also asked him about his decision to devote an entire episode to geoengineering, the controversial idea of spraying chemicals into the atmosphere to try to cool the planet. It’s a strategy that critics say could go horribly wrong, abruptly altering the climate with unpredictable and irreversible consequences. Was Burns at all worried about lending credence to geoengineering as a one-stop climate solution just by giving it so much airtime, even as some of his characters decry the potential dangers?


Burns told me he’s personally frightened of geoengineering and felt the need to sound an alarm bell, working with writer Dave Eggers to craft the episode. He also said the high-stakes storyline offered a key source of drama — and if he wants more film and TV producers to follow his lead on climate, he needs to show that these stories can be entertaining, not just educational."

David

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NOAC Meetings" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to noac-meeting...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/CAPhUB9Bc1zA7UhWjv2sY_rmHCb4kQeRVGkWNrjG%2BmBxUfBX5pg%40mail.gmail.com.

Adrian Hindes

unread,
Mar 19, 2023, 9:14:43 PM3/19/23
to geoengineering
Hopefully it's not like a Spider-Man 2 moment for nuclear fusion, where a relatively safe technology is depicted as potentially destroying the entirety of NYC.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages