Greetings, Eugene, I didn't say anything about morality, as the topic of this discussion is finance.
If I was a atmospheric scientist, I'd want to invest a small part of my $10 million in networking with scientists in developing countries, because that's where capacity and interest might be in a few decades. The US is a leader in scientific research in part because previous generations invested in developing science & technology capacity. Unfortunately, we don't see that same type of committment from today's leaders on the Hill. Meanwhile, China plans to invest 2.5% of its GDP in science research by 2020, India is increasing capacity, and Brazil is an emerging leader in biosciences. Moreover, many of these countries will face greater hardship from climate change than the US will, and may have stronger political will to support geoengineering research. A small investment in research cooperation now could have great benefits in the future-- funding-wise and scientific, as a wider community may generate stronger ideas. And if it turns out that the BRIC countries actually are open to geoengineering, and they frame it positively, that could very well change the tenor of the Euro-American discourse. But a "formal vehicle" based in the US and funded by the USG is unlikely, as it would be a PR mess. Geopolitics and geoengineering science are not one and the same, but neither can they be separated. The practice of science always takes place in a social and political context. I'd bet Galileo didn't think being a scientist was "simple". If I was a scientist, I'd do my best to work with those social and political nuances to secure a sympathetic funding climate for my research. Best, Holly On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 5:20 AM, Eugene I. Gordon <euggor...@comcast.net>wrote: > Thank you Holly Jean Buck*. You apparently totally miss the point; > morality is not the current issue in geoengineering nor should it be. I am a > simple scientist trying to help people who are interested in doing R&D in > Geoengineering to have a formal vehicle for exchanging technical > information, interacting, and obtaining funding for their R&D work; the same > way that other scientific/engineering disciplines have at their disposal. > Currently it does not. ONE DOES NOT, -- NOT DO GEOENGINEERING BECAUSE ITS > ULTIMATE APPLICATION RAISES POTENTIAL MORAL AND POLITICAL ISSUES. > > > > You embroider the concept with all sorts of political/moral implications > that were not suggested or implied. If you currently wanted to do R&D in > geoengineering you most likely would not get funding, not have an official > place to publish or get invited to meetings to present your work. Too many > are afraid geoengineering will mess up their cozy R&D funding for > conventional climate science or their plans for making lots of money > managing CO2 emissions. (I am not suggesting you are.) I did not suggest > that the proposed Geoengineering Society would engage in political activity > or that geoengineers would run around trying to convince the world to > actually employ geoengineering. Do microbiologist have to contend with > governments interested in deploying germ warfare, and people like yourself > who would view the possibility as a moral threat? Is this another stem cell > threat to religious moralists? > > > > Rather this group would develop the science and engineering principles that > would allow intelligent discussion of the options by government, business > interests and moralists when there is a solid science and engineering basis > to discuss. You mentioned data and international cooperation for going > forward. You mentioned the developing world and its attitude. Spoken like a > true citizen of the world, not meant to be derogatory, but I am sorry to > say, who apparently has not a clue concerning what I am talking about. > Geopolitics and the science of geoengineering are not the same and one does > not stop geoengineering R&D because it ultimately has political and moral > implications. Galileo!!!!!! > > > > Gene Gordon > > > > *Holly Jean Buck is a geography student at Lund University in Sweden, > working on both a Master of Social Science in Human Ecology and a Master in > Geographic Information Systems. She also holds a bachelor's degree in > English, and has worked in teaching writing, journalism, science education, > and radar mapping. Her research interests include the political economy of > oil, geographies of financialization, narratives of modernity, and > representations of climate engineering in the media. *website: > http://www.charting-sustainability.org* > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto: > geoengineering@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Holly Buck > *Sent:* Monday, April 18, 2011 4:07 PM > *To:* wf...@utk.edu > *Cc:* kcalde...@gmail.com; Google Group > *Subject:* Re: [geo] How would you allocate US$10 million per year to most > reduce climate risk? > > > > Greetings, > > > > If I wanted to research geoengineering, I wouldn’t form an formal > geoengineering society, because the press releases it would trigger would > likely be counter-productive to my research. Plus, my sense here in DC is > that the USG is still not really ready to have geoengineering officially on > the table. An official, federally-funded geoengineering board would have > foreign policy implications that no one really wants. > > I would, however, give a small portion, say 10%, to social science research > investigating sentiment and knowledge about how people and institutions in > developing countries feel about geoengineering. It would be particularly > interesting to know how people in Brazil, Turkey, Indonesia, China, India, > and other key regional players are approaching the topic. I would also put > funding into cross-border collaboration efforts. > > Both of these might not seem important compared to test-scale deployments > and modeling. But done right, the social science research and collaboration > would pay off, because no amount of good natural science research will > likely be actualized if the political climate is hostile to it. We don’t > actually know whether the developing world would dismiss geoengineering as a > first-world cop-out of mitigating emissions, or embrace it as a humanitarian > intervention that will benefit them locally and allow them to keep > developing. Solid data on this, and international cooperation, would be key > in going forward with any actual deployment, should the worst-case scenarios > materialize. > > > > Best, > > Holly Buck > > > > > > Holly Jean Buck / 410.227.3316 (home) / holly.jean.b...@gmail.com > > Note: The opinions expressed are personal and do not represent the views of > any institutions or organizations of affiliation. > > > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Fulkerson, William <wf...@utk.edu> wrote: > > Dear Ken et al. > Good question. > I would allocate the money to the Arctic. The loss of summer sea ice is > real and happening rapidly (within a century from linear extrapolations). I > would devote half the money to finding out how serious the loss of summer > sea ice would be for the ecology of > the region and the other half on research to evaluate the negatives of > regional SRM techniques including tropospheric sulfates. The SRM evaluation > should include analysis of the difficulty of getting permission to do > something: i.e. From the UN or by agreement from the countries of the > region. The first step would be to find out how much money is presently > being spent on R&D in the region, e.g. on clathrates. > With best regards, > Bill > > Bill Fulkerson, Senior Fellow and LERDWG Chair > Institute for a Secure and Sustainable Environment > University of Tennessee > 311 Conference Center Bldg. > Knoxville, TN 37996-4138 > wf...@utk.edu <mailto:wf...@utk.edu <wf...@utk.edu>> > 865-974-9221, -1838 FAX > Home > 865-988-8084; 865-680-0937 CELL > 2781 Wheat Road, Lenoir City, TN 37771 > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From: *Ken Caldeira <kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu> > *Reply-To: *<kcalde...@gmail.com> > *Date: *Mon, 18 Apr 2011 08:08:25 -0700 > *To: *Google Group <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> > *Subject: *[geo] How would you allocate US$10 million per year to most > reduce climate risk? > > > > Folks, > > There is some discussion in DC about making some small amount of public > funds available to support SRM and CDR research. > > In today's funding climate, it is much more likely that someone might be > given authority to re-allocate existing budgets than that they would > actually be given significantly more money for this effort. Thus, the modest > scale. > > If you were doing strategic planning for a US federal agency, and you were > told that you had a budget of $10 million per year and that you should > maximize the amount of climate risk reduction obtainable with that $10 > million, what would you allocate it to and why? > > Best, > > Ken > > ___________________________________________________ > Ken Caldeira > > Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu > http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
