Field experiment on SRM-climate engineering with giant pipe and balloon to pump water into the sky.
Monat: August 2011
Gassensmith, J. J., Furukawa, H., Smaldone, R. A. et al. (2011), ‘Strong and Reversible Binding of Carbon Dioxide in a Green Metal–Organic Framework’
Gassensmith, J. J., Furukawa, H., Smaldone, R. A. et al. (2011), ‘Strong and Reversible Binding of Carbon Dioxide in a Green Metal–Organic Framework’, J. Am. Chem. Soc, 133 (39), pp 15312–15315; 2011.
„The efficient capture and storage of gaseous CO2 is a pressing environmental problem. Although porous metal–organic frameworks (MOFs) have been shown to be very effective at adsorbing CO2 selectively by dint of dipole–quadruple interactions and/or ligation to open metal sites, the gas is not usually trapped covalently. Furthermore, the vast majority of these MOFs are fabricated from nonrenewable materials, often in the presence of harmful solvents, most of which are derived from petrochemical sources. Herein we report the highly selective adsorption of CO2 by CD-MOF-2, a recently described green MOF consisting of the renewable cyclic oligosaccharide γ-cyclodextrin and RbOH, by what is believed to be reversible carbon fixation involving carbonate formation and decomposition at room temperature. The process was monitored by solid-state 13C NMR spectroscopy as well as colorimetrically after a pH indicator was incorporated into CD-MOF-2 to signal the formation of carbonic acid functions within the nanoporous extended framework.“
Betz, G. (2011), ‘The case for climate engineering research: an analysis of the “arm the future” argument’
Betz, G. (2011), ‘The case for climate engineering research: an analysis of the “arm the future” argument’, Climatic Change, 2011. DOI 10.1007/s10584-011-0207-5
„In order to do so, we analyse what seems to be the major argument in favour of research into climate engineering: the lesser evil-, or, as Stephen Gardiner has called it, the arm the futureargument—in short: the AF-argument (Gardiner 2010). Such an argumentative analysis makes explicit the normative and descriptive assumptions which underlie the reasoning, without ascertaining or denying them, and thus enables one to assess the overall strength of the argument as well as to determine which objections do, and which don’t undermine it.“.
Poumadère, Marc; Bertoldo, Raquel; Samadi, Jaleh (2011): Public perceptions and governance of controversial technologies to tackle climate change: nuclear power, carbon capture and storage, wind, and geoengineering
Poumadère, Marc; Bertoldo, Raquel; Samadi, Jaleh (2011): Public perceptions and governance of controversial technologies to tackle climate change: nuclear power, carbon capture and storage, wind, and geoengineering. In: WIREs Clim Change 2 (5), S. 712–727. DOI: 10.1002/wcc.134
Paper on public perception of energy and climate technologies with specieal interest in risistance and risks perception.
TAB (Hg.) (2011): TAB-Rundbrief. Schwerpunkt: Hope-, Hype- und Fear-Technologien. Büro für Technikfolgen-Abschätzung beim Deutschen Bundestag (39), zuletzt geprüft am 24.10.2011.
EN TA-Newsletter of the German Parliament with priority on CE.
DE Rundbrief des Technikfolgenabschätzungsbüros des Dt. Bundestages mit einen Schwerpunkt auf CE.
Understanding Risk Research Group: Public Engagement on Geoengineering Research: Preliminary Report on the SPICE Deliberative Workshops
„IAGP has three core objectives:
1) To evaluate the effectiveness and side effects of a broad range of geoengineering proposals
2) To evaluate the controllability of global climate using these proposals
3) To elicit and include stakeholder and public values into the evaluation“