Why do actors oppose the development and use of solar Geoengineering technologies
H simmens
“Why do actors oppose the development and potential future use of solar geoengineering technologies? This article maps and analyzes growing opposition to the development of planetary-scale solar geoengineering technologies among three actor groups—govern-
ments, civil society and academics.
While much social science research on such technolo-
gies has addressed questions of feasibility, acceptance, legality, the desirability of more research or hypothetical governance designs, hardly any empirical analyses exist of the opposition to these technologies.
Drawing on numerous policy documents, civil society
declarations and academic statements, this article identifies eight diverse rationales that underpin current opposition from governments, intergovernmental bodies, civil society
and academic communities to solar geoengineering.
These rationales include:
concerns about:
risks and uncertainties of potential solar geoengineering schemes,
their failure to address the root causes of climate change,
risks of delaying mitigation,
likely violations of international law,
entrenchment of unjust power relations,
presumed ungovernability,
technological hubris, and the
violation of the Earth’s integrity.
Our analysis also finds evi-
dence of cross-fertilization among these rationales and a gradual normalization of a global‘non-use’ discourse.
Overall, these critical perspectives increasingly shape the normative and political terrain within which solar geoengineering is being deliberated.”
rob...@rtulip.net
Hi Herb
Thanks for sharing this. I was listening today to Nate Hagen’s latest podcast, on Human Exceptionalism, where these arguments against geoengineering came up. I have attached a comment I made at the YouTube link.
The problem with this paper by Biermann et al is that these ideological opponents of geoengineering have seriously confused ideas about ethics and science. Many just fail to recognise that if we do not restore albedo we face inevitable collapse. And as Eliot Jacobson explained in my illuminating conversation with him, many think collapse would be a good thing, so don’t want to delay it by reflecting sunlight. None of their arguments stack up as a case to ban testing. They are literally condemning the world to a new dark age. What this all means is that these opponents are outside the frame of effective constituencies for climate action. As such, it may be best to ignore them, and focus instead on allying with people who want to achieve a realistic path to stabilising the planetary climate. The strong influence of these anti-cooling ideas means what is needed is to construct a well-funded advocacy program that can combat the disinformation they spread in the public domain.
Regards
Robert Tulip
--
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/35734EAD-B6FF-4761-B42B-54282A33D6DC%40gmail.com.
robert...@gmail.com
Hi Herb & RobertT
Interestingly, while I might take issue, Robert, with some of your arguments, I couldn't agree more with your conclusion. This is a classic case of many paths leading to the same destination!
I've included Herb here because when Robert says 'what is needed is to construct a well-funded advocacy program that can combat the disinformation they spread in the public domain', you'll recognise that we reached the same conclusion about three years ago. Sadly that initiative didn't lead anywhere.
Robert, on the comment you make that 'many think collapse would be a good thing', I wonder whether such people, or those dismissing them, are confusing ends with means. It seems incomprehensible that anyone would see collapse in and of itself 'a good thing'. Are they suggesting that being in a permanent state of collapse would bring some benefits? Surely, the point they're making, or should be making, is that the collapse has become a necessary stage in delivering whatever the 'good thing' is that they're seeking. The argument would be that the current system is irretrievably broken and increasingly malignant, and crucially, no longer amenable to an orderly transition to whatever that 'good thing' might be. It would follow that the time has come to let it collapse under the weight of its own internal contradictions, and thereby create the conditions for a regeneration. Of course, there's no guarantee that the phoenix that rises from the ashes wouldn't be as ghastly as what we've got now, but if you believe in the indefatigability and indomitable spirit of humans as a species, sooner or later we'd get it more or less right and the march of progress and increasing wellbeing will once again dominanate.
It is possible to cloak this in a moral and ethical framing but it is also possible to see it totally amorally as the natural cycle of complex adaptive systems.
My own position is that I draw a distinction between the five (or possibly six) generations that I have a personal connection with - from my grandparents to my grandchildren. That span is the temporal limit of my ethical and moral concerns. The rest, those that died a long time ago, and those that won't be born for a another hundred years or more, are just intellectual concepts. I can think about them, but I don't have any moral or ethical connection with them (again, I'd refer you to Parfit's Non Identity Problem). Crucially, there is no rational way in which anything my generation might do that can be reasonably assessed to be good or bad for those distant future people. There's no guarantee that anything we do that might have been beneficial for them won't be undermined by a subsequent generation, and similarly that anything bad we might do, won't be put right by a subsequent generation. Indeed, it may be that mistakes we make might serendipitously lead to great advances that would not otherwise have arisen. Moreover, apart from the basic animal necessities of life, we can have little idea of what their changing needs will be through time. These future people are not a homogenous bunch of folk just like us (whoever 'us' is.)
I can hear you screaming 'What about global warming!!!' Absolutely, that's something new and radically different. Homo sapiens has never in all its several hundred thousands of years been confronted by a problem like global warming. That's why we're making such a mess of dealing with it - we're making our responses up on the fly. There are no precedents. Our institutions weren't designed to cope with a problem like climate change (the UNFCCC is a perfect example of an institution set up to fail in its primary task). Yet climate change does have the capacity seriously negatively to impact humans and life more generally, for generations to come.
The moral response to this is understandable. But the crucial question is whether it's effective. So far the signs don't look too promising We can debate why this might be. My own view is that consciously or not, most people are like me and feel any moral or ethical responsibility they might have to all those future people is either zero or is overwhelmed by the ethical and moral responsibilities they have to those in the here and now; those five generations. My guess is that concern for future people is subject to discounting, just like a financial instrument.
A good start might be to get the idea of 'sustainability' deeply entrenched into our culture. It's not a new idea but its most recent affirmation has been in the Brundtland Report from 1987. It underpins the 'planetary boundaries' concept that Rockström has championed. This notion removes the object of moral concern from future people and places it on the planet itself. If we look after the planet, the planet will look after the life it supports. It's close to Lovelock and Margulis' notion of Gaia. Sadly, even that idea is not yet a dominant driver of the global economy, and doesn't look like being so any time soon.
So, I come back to those who think collapse might be a good thing. The central question is one about the practical politics of addressing climate change. Change always creates winners and losers. Rapid change makes this process more painful because the losers don't have time to adapt and so lessen the impacts of change. The doctrinal arguments for change are largely irrelevant here. Whether they are religious, moral, economic or whatever, has minimal impact on the nature and scale of change needed. The argument for change is that Earth is heating. That not only needs to stop, it also needs to be reversed. If that doesn't happen in pretty short order, widespread unpleasant changes will be forced on all life on Earth. Evidence suggests this is now likely to become unstoppable within the lifetime of much of today's population. That's the argument for change - let's do it!
On the other hand, if you consider that the reason we're in this mess to be the current socioeconomic system being seriously dysfunctional and the major reason for our despoliation of the planet, then it is perfectly logical to argue that that system must radically change to become consonant with planetary resources. If you also believe that the system has lost the capacity to make such a change in an orderly manner, then you will be receptive to it being done in a disorderly one, that being the price to be paid for putting things right.
It follows that the appropriate response to those wanting the system to collapse is to show them evidence of it changing in an orderly and timely manner, to something that is sustainable. There's a lot of people, including me, that are still looking for that evidence and not finding it.
We now need to be riding two horses at once. The first is to deploy whatever arguments are effective with different audiences to get across the risk management case for urgent action. Use doctrinal arguments if that's likely to turn you audience on. Use secular arguments where they are more likely to be compelling. Simultaneously we need to be planning for failure. Failure is no longer a remote possibility. Elon will be fine. He'll be on his rocket to Mars. What about the rest of life on Earth? Seriously planning for failure is more likely to galvanise efforts to avoid it, than it is to drive apathy and resignation.
In closing, my expectation is that we'll continue to do too little too late and 21st century humanity will unwittingly commit itself to the collapse phase of its adaptive cycle. Unfortunate, but don't fret too much, there will be a phoenix. Regeneration is also part of the cycle. If you want to put a positive spin on it, think of it as a catharsis.
RobertC
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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/00ec01dcb1c4%248b080fe0%24a1182fa0%24%40rtulip.net.
Michael MacCracken
Hi Herb--The paper seems to mainly be expressing views on geoengineering applicable to proposals for geoengineering back in the 1950s and 1960s that were aimed at changing the climate back then in ways to gain access to needed resources and take on projects thought to be beneficial to society. As it turned out, such projects did not go forward, in part due to reasons of hubris and the other issues raised in the article. Melting of the Arctic to get at its presumed resources was, for example, an idea goes back to the 1870s, and there were a number of other such ideas. Now, 60 or so years later, these critical views of using geoengineering to alter the world away from its natural state are now being applied to geoengineering's proposed use to keep the world as close as possible to what it naturally was (so the reverse of the situation when the arguments were first assembled). In addition, with mitigation chosen as the preferred approach for dealing with climate change, the notion that this will not be sufficient and that the world will also need to resort to geoengineering is, in my view, being seen as a personal failure of those who had taken that position rather than a situation caused by the massiveness of the transition that is needed and the significant resources, technologies, and economical and political commitment needed to make it happen.
With so many locked in to their position that mitigation must be the only approach used, there has been a blizzard of articles opposed to geoengineering that has created a momentum of opposition that is now drowning out dissenting views. Those who are creating the blizzard seem to persist in part because they are getting credit for being in the mainstream that got its start 60 years ago, all without noting the different purpose of geoengineering applicable to the present situation. In few of these articles is there acceptance and accountability taken of what lies ahead without intervention if geoengineering is not tried--what will be their answers then.
Your fundamental question of the past several years, Herb, remains valid. I'll augment, however, with an insert in brackets for clarity: "If not now [after three decades of the UNFCCC international agreement calling for avoiding dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system and with global emissions still rising and nowhere near to being on a timely path to net zero that will avoid of order a doubling, if not more, of the current increase in global average temperature], then when [will the seriousness of the consequences be enough to stimulate a reconsideration of the 60 year old view that the authors of the article are arguing}?" None of those writing the articles of opposition to geoengineering seem willing to consider anything other than the mitigation-only approach that is failing, and, even with CDR and adaptation, seems to be getting closer and closer to failing to a disastrous degree.
As I recall, the talk that I gave at the DC Climate Week last year addressed most, if possibly not all, of the stated objections and concerns that the authors found were motivating the opposition. I'll see if I can briefly respond to each of the concerns that were identified. We do need to get a response out there, and perhaps you can help in preparing it. I would also note that the Open Letter Ron Baiman has been leading already addresses a number of the points.
Best, Mike MacCracken
--
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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/35734EAD-B6FF-4761-B42B-54282A33D6DC%40gmail.com.
Herb
Herb Simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future
“A wonderful achievement, a SciencePoem, an Inspiration, a Prophecy, also hilarious, Dive in and see"
Kim Stanley Robinson
@herbsimmens
--
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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/35734EAD-B6FF-4761-B42B-54282A33D6DC%40gmail.com.
John Nissen
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/69bc4e26-4dcc-46fc-ab46-d52076d4553d%40comcast.net.
robert...@gmail.com
Hi John
I know I'm the resident party pooper so you'll hopefully forgive me if I ask how much weight you think the moral arguments will have when set against Russia and China (and probably US) economic interests in an Arctic East/West sea route and in exploiting its mineral wealth? Might they not see refreezing the Arctic as a bad idea?
RobertC
John Nissen
Sev Clarke
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/d40cbe7c-869d-42fd-9cc8-52bec0e8b1be%40gmail.com.
Michael MacCracken
Dear Robert C and John N--I would note that a new effort has been started between universities and the Vatican to push moral, ethical, and other approaches to communicate the urgency of climate change. See https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2026-03/global-alliance-laudato-si-village-university-of-notre-dame.html
Along with Robert C, I'm also a bit skeptical that moral and ethical arguments will work (so environmental justice and care for future generations), but if they perhaps combine the argument that transformation of the global energy system will have many environmental benefits (limiting climate change, less air and water pollution and associated health benefits, etc.) and can even lower the cost of electricity over time, perhaps the combined set of reasons and the availability of the clean technologies that can make it happen, perhaps there is hope getting acceleration of efforts to reduce emissions, etc.
By the way, the US Bishops Conference put forth a statement in 2002 on global climate change that focused on ethics and being good stewards that I think has pretty well stood the test of time on such reasoning, even if, along with all other types of approaches, global emissions and global warming are still continuing. For their statement, see https://www.usccb.org/resources/global-climate-change-plea-dialogue-prudence-and-common-good [just to note, though not a Catholic, I was the scientist they recruited to be on the panel that prepared the statement, reviewing something like two dozen drafts and encouraged them to focus on reasoning for which the bishops would be recognized and respected--so moral and ethical basis for taking action].
Best, Mike
Paul Klinkman
Dear Restorers,
I see climate change advocacy as a large bunch of individualists fighting over climate crumbs. This fighting over crumbs attitude eventually leads to even smaller remaining crumbs.
The Old Testament prophets railed against the rich who didn't help out society's widows and orphans. If the poor were helping rebuild Jerusalem's city walls against invasion and the rich were only driving them deeper into poverty and enslavement, that wouldn't work. The prophets understood that when the rich oppressed the poor and indulged in infighting, a foreign king would soon enough swoop in, give the land to the nation's poor because they'd be docile and grateful, carry the upper class off as slaves to Babylon and kill off all of the royal family members. That's what kept happening. In C.E. 60 the Romans cleared almost everybody off of Israel and awarded the cleared land to the poorest Jews or to outsiders.
Know that if you're a tenured professor with a good retirement plan, you're currently in the world's 1% but not in the 0.01%. Billions of people subsist on perhaps $2/day and live under sheets of tin or plastic. Near-slave labor sews your pants and harvests your bananas, as did their grandfathers for your grandfathers. Our many oil wars that gradually bankrupt the USA's treasury are extensions of this extractive behavior, for the benefit of the few.
I first call for an understanding that if the world descends into paroxysms of massive starvation, worse troubles even than we recently saw in the Horn of Africa, many nations are now armed to the teeth and already several nations can launch 100 nuclear weapons or more. So, my first message is that the coming pyrocene and the climate mass species extinction event could in the end bite into the wealthy and their supporters at least as hard as it bites the poor. Various Horn of Africa governments have recently crumbled away in response to desperate regional starvation. Imagine billionaires in coffins being buried under six feet of their own dollar coins and one gravedigger says to the other, “Now that's living!”
We need more wise billionaires who want climate change to be fully funded, not funded with crumbs. It's all about their own long-term self-interest.
Having written all of that, most or all of the climate activists need to come to a collective decision about how we, the living, the thinking, are going to respond to our planet's several climate problems. Demanding that one particular avenue get funded, as opposed to all of them getting funded, is a shortsighted squabbling over the crumbs that the billionaires, their bought governments and all of their bought media have thrown out for us. I don't want crumbs. I want to see rational climate activists sitting down with each other. I don't want people screaming “My single option alone” at each other, but I want real decisionmaking. We, the living, must figure it out now.
I advise you to bring your SAI proposals into the wider arena of climate problems and ideas. Part of what we want is temporary air temperature stabilization in various regions of the planet. We all also definitely want less methane, CO2 and NO2 in the atmosphere long-term. We want both of these goals, not one or the other, and we have to slice the pie, either a large pie or a niggardly tiny pie from some governments, for our common needs.
In addition we worry about polar ice sheet collapse eventially flooding all of the planet's coastal cities. We worry about hundreds of gigatons of additional greenhouse gases coming up from the thawing permafrost. We worry about the world's forests getting sick because it's no longer healthy for trees where they are now, and we're sure that generations of trees can't migrate 1000 km north or east very fast at all. So, we expect to live in the pyrocene and then have relatively few forests worldwide. This will usually lead to megadroughts, which will typically lead to chronic worldwide crop failure problems. Next, we worry about superrapid intensification of hurricanes eventually destroying all coastal buildings and the wild future flooding of most river bottoms. In all of this, half of God's Creation is going extinct forever.
Every one of these problems has longer term partial solutions, partial remediations and temporary fixes until we can get a handle on more permanent solutions. The smart thing is for us, the living, the aware, the conscious, to start focusing on how we would apportion the available money.
We're still going to get rogue billionaires who want vast amounts of money spent on relative non-solutions. At least we will have separated ourselves from these grafters.
Some people want to sell “nuclear power” as a cure-all elixer. We need to call out these salespeople as scientific and economic frauds who don't worry about the long-term disasters and other side effects of placing vastly expensive weapons-grade plutonium producing machines in suburban areas.
If USA corn ethanol is expensive and if it doesn't actually save much fuel at all, the program needs to be cashiered. We're not here to run a welfare club that only benefits absentee billionaire farmland landlords.
You might make an economic and environmental case for adding salt particles and/or adding sulfur in regions of the planet's atmosphere. Your arguments would be strengthened if you recognized what every other climate activist group is proposing, what each solution costs and what the solution hopes to achieve. Surely this would be smarter than praying for your own billionaire-funded army of lobbyists to buy off Congress (or the equivalent in other nations) who then gives you a blank check for your plans. That won't happen, sorry, no magic lamps for you to rub. You'll have to make a real case and not hand-wave the climate competition's proposals away like some fast-talking salesman on a small TV channel.
Sorry if this doesn't give you everything you want on a platter. I'm only trying to explain that organizing larger groups of climate activists is more of a road to victory than advocating for your tiny crumb alone.
Tom Jackson
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/00ec01dcb1c4%248b080fe0%24a1182fa0%24%40rtulip.net.
Veli Albert Kallio
-
The religious establishments are important stakeholders on their own just like businesses, government, indigenous people, genders and age groups and serve different constituent parts of the human population - independently each other.
-
The religious establishments usually (normally) cannot be bought out with a big money the same way I saw EPA guidance for US Supreme Court ruling shepherded to try to find - somehow find - some evidence that Carbon Dioxide is not a greenhouse gas (!) and therefore if so, will fall outside the environmental regulatable emissions. Only way is them to "bribe" religion is with generous 'charitable' donations. When I was working for ADRA International Development Agency as Project Coordinator for Yemen, the President Saleh of the Republic of Yemen was receiving handouts under the table. His own interior minister was pleading me (behind this autocratic President's back) that if I could put on stop for ADRA Yemen NOT to receive this experimental food stuff that had been already rejected by the European Union and even Zimbabwe in Africa. He did not want 150,000 Yemeni school children being provided by experimental foodstuff (there was neither a war or a famine back in 2002, or so, in Yemen). The only reason was the agricultural firm to give that experimental food to the church charity very generously - they accepted it to show of big numbers of "performance" of feeding 150,000 kids (but with what kind of food?) As a result of listening secretly the Interior Minister on the President's own government, via my old friend Matti Huhanantti who knew the minister in question, I was dismissed from the job by the church charity - rather than following the conscious Yemeni minister worried about his country's school children being made as test subjects for US agrobusinesses to try out food stuff when no one else wanted. But by large and far, it is very rare for denominational organisations accept "gifts" or at least direct personal bribes this way. Dishonesty is an anomaly in religious establishments - not every pastor is a child rapist like the media tries to portray them, by far not, even the Catholic ones. So, the churches and religions are moral organisations that are usually difficult to target by shrewd or stupid businessmen often only thinking about lining up their pockets with money and material goods. Unless they can find a way to mislead, by lying, like in my case underplaying the dangers and overstating the benefits of that experimental food delivery, you need both a bit of luck and plenty of incompetence to break into religious fortresses calling for repentance from any moral evil like harming the children. The perverts lie far and between in the woods of religious forests.
-
The third point where religious establishment can be pressed most efficiently for the climate actionis often by their own religious world views reasoning where this can be usefully combined to science that fits to their own perspective - to advance the scientific case. For example, if one does not believe in evolution or in millions of years time scales (i.e. the Antarctic glaciations being 42,000,000 years old, or first glaciations in Greenland going back to the Oligocene period 23,000,000, or that the present cycle of glaciations Quaternary began 2,500,000 years ago, pr that the current glaciations began there after the Eemian 128,000 years ago, or that the ice ages peaked 21,000 years ago (the Last Glacial Maximum) and them melting then taking that long as in one's view the world was created, say, only 6,000 years ago, - so as many still believe. Yet, the majority see the Ice Ages as a fact, then isn't the danger of the glaciers collapsing that much greater if your time scales are shorter? This is an extremely powerful, it does not mean that you need to believe what they believe, but just remind them of their own belief which makes the danger to appear that much bigger. It is not necessary to agree on everything, if you both agree in the Ice Ages coming and going. It is no shame to accept that another person believes or thinks differently, you both can disagree and see that the danger from climate change is enormous as causes the ice sheets to collapse if temperatures sustainably stay high. You can even find more ground by referring them to John Mercer or other research pointing those aspects that show sudden collapses of ice sheets, risks of East-West Antarctic growing ice sheet mass balance disequilibrium driving subglacial pressures and liquids to move beneath Antarctic and potentially lead to runaway subglacial volcanism and other large scale ice - volcano coupling like at the end of the ice ages.
President Donald Trump performing excellently in combining different supporter bases for his mission to get all fossil fuels out of ground before the international pressure will force legacy oil and coal and gas to be left on the ground. I do not understand his logic on this - nor with the US Republican Party that rather solidly support him. I understand that the Christian Coalition turned to the Moral Majority turned to the Tea Party movement turned to Q-Anon and Ku Klux Klan supporters, Bohemian Grove, Skull and Bone Jewish and other groups solidly supports Trumps political agenda — diametrically opposed to softness on drugs and crime, pro-LBTQ, gun controls, evolution teaching, Sunday business openings, vaccinations, government "propaganda" schooling, and free health care - all Democratic Party values if not at the very core of it. In climate change we need to build similar broad coalitions to be against scrupulous businesses and their powerful, rich owners who do not care. Indigenous people, religious people and organisations who believe that the ice ages ended almost yesterday (if compared to scientific time scales) need to be supported against climate change denialism and those aligning themselves against sustainable development, equality and moral standards. We do not need to fight orthodoxy at the expense of losing some important advocates on climate change if we can made them to believe of the ice sheets suddenly collapsing as their own believe of them having happened yesterday - it is enough to agree that I do not agree you on that point but I do agree that the problem is there and it is a cause to be fighting for. Indeed, even scientist can be wrong - but not usually and not in everything like i.e. anti-vaxxers claim.
Sent: 13 March 2026 00:47
To: John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>; Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com>
Cc: Sir David King <d...@camkas.co.uk>; H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [geo] Re: [prag] Why do actors oppose the development and use of solar Geoengineering technologies
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/66090bb7-5563-4bca-b199-aa09d73047db%40comcast.net.
rob...@rtulip.net
Thank you Tom. Your suggestion here to write a paper replying to this sociology piece is excellent. I would be happy to help.
As your point implies, if it is established that sunlight reflection is required to avoid tipping points, arguments against geoengineering become arguments in favour of allowing the catastrophic destruction involved in tipping points. That is a matter of high moral seriousness in terms of planning action to minimise future suffering and biodiversity loss. The motives and reasons for such destructive opinions really need to be analysed more vigorously.
Given the role of albedo loss in enabling tipping points, rejecting action to rebrighten the Earth by restoring albedo constitutes support for a new Dark Age. I am interested in how this Dark Age perspective has evolved as a form of neo-Marxism, in the context of apocalyptic tribal psychology and the hypocritical rejection of rationality from people whose religious mantra is ‘follow the science’.
Regards
Robert Tulip
--
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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CADCoCqg0VyK9EZ2T%3DoBNzOBPCT88BDy%3D8SpUEGnEfe%3D1BxyPWw%40mail.gmail.com.
Clive Elsworth
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/017201dcb46e%2433e35150%249ba9f3f0%24%40rtulip.net.