Hi Mike and Dave,
I think there has suddenly emerged a moral imperative for
refreezing the Arctic. The climate community advocating for
emissions reduction have assumed that SAI was a last resort. They
had not done the engineering calculations for preventing the
Arctic tipping processes reaching a point of no return. When
they examine and confirm our calculations, we can point out the
absolute moral imperative for ramping up SAI as quickly as
possible to cool the Arctic, while confirming other research
which shows that side effects are manageable.
SAI has moved from last resort to first resort. This is a
necessary paradigm shift for government advisers and advisory
groups who have hitherto advised for delay or even a moratorium
on SAI.
Nobody should be ashamed of changing their position: the facts
have changed due to overlooked engineering considerations and
unexpected speed of events, such as albedo loss and
atlantification in the Arctic.
We are in an unprecedented situation which demands unprecedented
action.
Cheers John
On Thu, 12 Mar 2026, 6:27 pm 'Michael MacCracken' via Planetary
Restoration, <[email protected]> wrote:
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
On 3/11/26 11:56 AM, H simmens wrote:
A recently published paper describes eight reasons why the
authors claim that opposition to solar geoengineering is
growing.
Unless those supportive of direct cooling can mount
convincing arguments against these concerns supporters of
cooling will remain on the defensive.
I am not aware of any paper or article that attempts to
systematically respond to each of these concerns.
“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.”
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10584-026-04131-6.pdf
--
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
[email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/35734EAD-B6FF-4761-B42B-54282A33D6DC%40gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/35734EAD-B6FF-4761-B42B-54282A33D6DC%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
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
[email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/35734EAD-B6FF-4761-B42B-54282A33D6DC%40gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/35734EAD-B6FF-4761-B42B-54282A33D6DC%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
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
[email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/69bc4e26-4dcc-46fc-ab46-d52076d4553d%40comcast.net
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/69bc4e26-4dcc-46fc-ab46-d52076d4553d%40comcast.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
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 [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CACS_FxrGzSYsSzBBoAOC9WuzZYOCUe3a%2BKgzLOXAJiQ%2BRf2e-A%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CACS_FxrGzSYsSzBBoAOC9WuzZYOCUe3a%2BKgzLOXAJiQ%2BRf2e-A%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
