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.
--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-coolingThank you Andrew for sharing in the Geoengineering Newsletter!Best,Ron
--@HPACoalition (Bluesky and Twitter/X)Baiman et al. 2024. Oxford Open Climate ChangeAn 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
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.