The limited information now in circulation about negative emissions technologies (NETs) threatens to lead policy makers and other decision makers down the wrong path. IPCC models and state mitigation pledges under the Paris agreement assume widespread use of NETs. However, there is great uncertainty about these technologies’ feasibility and cost. Further, environmental NGOs and climate advocates are largely absent from the growing conversation on NETs, as they consider how to fit this new category of climate response into their communications strategies.
The Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment (FCEA) works to close these gaps, to give policymakers the knowledge of NETs that they need to make informed decisions about mitigation policy and to encourage climate advocates to participate in critical assessment of NETs.
No silver bullet: why geoengineering alone won’t save the planet – Guest Post – David Morrow, Institute for Philosophy & Public Policy at George Mason UniversityDecember 10, 2014
Keuntungan & Kerugian main-main Judi Bola88 Online di InternetDecember 1, 2014
New study assesses potential challenges to BECCS deployment – Wil BurnsNovember 30, 2014
Forum – Where does the climate geoengineering conversation go from here?November 13, 2014
‘Uncertainties’ is an understatement, when it comes to BECCS – Guest Post – Rachel Smolker, BiofuelwatchNovember 10, 2014
“Schrödinger’s SRM”- Guest Post- Duncan McLaren -University of LancasterJuly 29, 2014
Is CDR ‘geoengineering’? Guest Post- Noah Deich, MBA candidate, UC BerkeleyJuly 16, 2014
Ocean Iron Fertilization and the Southern Ocean- Hype or hope? Wil BurnsMay 19, 2014
Wil Burns – Bioenergy CCS and Potential Tradeoffs with Food ProductionMay 4, 2014
Wil Burns – Biochar could exacerbate existing inequalitiesApril 21, 2014
Guest post – Bob Olson, Senior Fellow, Institute for Alternative Futures – A Venture Into GeoengineeringApril 8, 2014
Wil Burns- Carbon Dioxide Removal Approaches: Long-Term Implications And Requisite Societal CommitmentsMarch 24, 2014