And agree - alignment protocols are important. But then we are in the weeds. Demanding that the working language is interpretable is crude - but at least it's binary and (perhaps) enforceable.

Excellent points, all. I guess my concern is that any significant performance improvement might require a sacrifice of that 1:1 mapping that you describe, especially in terms of representing the connectivity between concepts.

Total lost international aviation fuel tax revenue for the EU is in the tens of billions per year.

www.transportenvironment.org/articles/eve...

It's particularly acute in Oslo, and in certain parts of Oslo - probably because of congestion charges which are much higher for petrol cars

Agreed - depends where in town. I cycle in from the west - and it's a pretty high fraction EVs that I pass. Car parks e.g. in røa are eerily quiet.

So - calling for international agreements to limit SRM to 'safe levels' is like an alcoholic saying they are only going to have one drink. As soon as you start, you've already lost. /End

We're not lacking in technological tools to fix climate change. It's increasingly feasible to decarbonise our infrastructure. We need to invest in CDR to reverse the damage we've already done - but SRM is different. It provides a distraction that only makes the world more dangerous and unstable. /5

And however well intentioned the original agreement, introducing SRM into your climate toolbox changes the landscape of futures - our descendents will care little about agreements we make today - who are we to tell them that they have to limit and ramp down? /4

SRM management is a century-scale problem where even a temporary fuck-up could lead to rates of climate change which vastly exceed anything we've seen so far, where lone actors can have instant global scale effects. /3

Calls for responsible governance of SRM imagine a reality which is vastly distant from that we're living in. In an age where international institutions are crumbling, this is not the time to propose that they should take on an even more difficult climate management problem. /2

They should formally decide at the end of October. But it will be before WG1 LAM4, which is July 2027. Question is how much before (ar6 timing got messed around with COVID)
www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/...