Here's an interesting perspective on this from James Wilsdon in the Guardian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/may/17/geoengineering-spice-project-research?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter Don't dismiss geoengineering – we may need it one day Though the Spice project has been dealt a blow, more research is needed to assess our options for mitigating global warming Opponents of geoengineering<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/geoengineering> will no doubt seize upon this week's cancellation of the fieldwork element of the Spice project<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/16/geoengineering-experiment-cancelled> as a significant victory in their campaign to outlaw research in this area. There are important lessons to draw from the problems encountered by the project, which planned to investigate the feasibility of spraying particles into the stratosphere to mitigate global warming. But a hastily imposed moratorium on geoengineering research is not one of them. As the Royal Society argued in its influential 2009 report<http://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2009/geoengineering-climate/>, more research is needed if we are to assess the feasibility, risks and uncertainties of different geoengineering options. This research needs to be carried out in a safe, transparent and socially responsible way. But without more knowledge of what might be involved, the dilemmas of geoengineering will remain impossible to debate and resolve. Spice, which stands for Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering <http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~hemh/SPICE/SPICE.htm>, involves a team of scientists from several UK universities. Their proposed experiment was environmentally benign, and involved using a hose to pump two bath loads of water into the atmosphere over a deserted field. But this didn't stop one environmental group from dubbing it a "trojan hose"<http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/5280>, for moving the world one step closer to large-scale deployment of geoengineering. This element of the Spice project has now been cancelled, but the rest of the research will continue as planned. Jack Stilgoe, a social scientist at Exeter University who has been working with the Spice team, notes that: "Spice was always going to be a social experiment as well as a scientific one." As the work moves cautiously forward, two lessons stand out for the future of geoengineering research. First, the role of intellectual property and the private sector in geoengineering needs attention, and may need direct regulation. The project was set up in line with the "Oxford Principles" of geoengineering<http://www.geoengineering.ox.ac.uk/oxford-principles/principles/>, which state that it should be treated as a public good. Other prominent scientists working in the field, such as David Keith at Harvard University,have argued that patents for techniques of solar radiation management should be banned<http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=researcher-ban-patents-on-geoengineering-technology&page=1> . But this model, however ideal, is already under strain. The problems with Spice arose in part from conflicts of interest over a patent application filed by a private consultant, Peter Davidson, who participated in an early workshop that gave rise to the project. Matt Watson, the lead researcher on Spice writes in his blog that<http://thereluctantgeoengineer.blogspot.de/2012/05/testbed-news.html>: "The details of this application were only reported to the project team a year into the project and caused many members, including me, significant discomfort." Regulators need to look at this issue with some urgency and design frameworks that allow responsible research to proceed, while ensuring that any resulting technologies stay in the public domain, protected from commercial interests. Second, scientific and environmental bodies need to intensify efforts to establish better frameworks for the governance of geoengineering. Projects like the Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative<http://www.srmgi.org/>have made a strong start in this regard. Colleagues at my own university, Sussex, are involved in a new Oxford University-led project<http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/news/201205-news-GeoengineeingGrant>that aims to build on these initial efforts. However much we may recoil at the prospect, if the world refuses to respond to climate change <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change> with sufficient urgency, geoengineering may one day be needed. The worst outcome would be for it to be deployed in unregulated or reckless ways by corporations or individual nations. Responsible research, ethical reflection and careful regulation must go hand-in-hand as we move reluctantly down this path. • James Wilsdon <http://twitter.com/jameswilsdon> is professor of science and democracy at SPRU (Science & Technology Policy Research) at the University of Sussex <http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/universityofsussex>. From 2008-2011, he was director of science policy at the Royal Society. On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 12:53:24 PM UTC-4, Stephen Salter wrote: > > Hi All > > This does not make sense on at least five grounds. > > 1.� A patent allows you to stop other people making a profit from your > ideas but does not stop them doing reseach. > > 2.� The patent mentions 'dispersing solid particles into the Earth's > atmosphere by balloon.'� The SPICE project was going to use a liquid. > > 3.� The team would have learned lots of good things about balloons and > hoses by pumping water up to the balloon but not letting it come out of the > nozzle at the end of the hose. > > 4.� The holder of a patent would be delighted to have somebody test it > and would give a free licence for this purpose, maybe even chip in some of > the cost. > > 5. Lowell Wood was talking about this many years ago so the basic idea is > already in the public domain. > > On Tuesday Peter Davidson did webinar for our Institute of Chemical > Engineers.� He is keen on Titanium dioxide rather than SO2.� You can > get a set of slides, an article and a replay from > www.tcetoday.com/webinars > > Stephen > > > > On 16/05/2012 13:10, O Morton wrote: > > http://thereluctantgeoengineer.blogspot.de/2012/05/testbed-news.html > > SPICE personal statement. > > It is with some regret that today the SPICE team has announced we�ve > decided to call off the outdoor �1km testbed� experiment that was > scheduled for later this year. The reasons for this are complex and I will > try to explain the decision here. It should be noted that these views are > my own and do not necessarily imply consensus within SPICE. Where a range > of opinions exist I will try to make that clear. Importantly however, the > decision to call of the experiment was made by all the project partners in > agreement. > > Firstly, there are issues of�*governance*. Despite receiving > considerable attention no international agreements exist. Whilst it is hard > to imagine a more environmentally benign experiment, which sought to only > pump 150 litres (2 bath loads) of pure water into the atmosphere to a > height of one kilometre over a deserted field, in terms of SRMGI > nomenclature, it represented a transition from stage 2 to stage 3 research. > Most experts agree that governance architecture is needed and, to me > personally, a technology demonstrator, even a benign 1/20 scale model, > feels somewhat premature, though many in SPICE would disagree. Counter to > my personal feelings is the argument that technologies that could inject SO > 2�into the stratosphere, particularly aircraft, already exist and that > process could, but obviously should not, begin tomorrow. It is therefore > wrong to consider the tested experiment as an enabling technology and that > various delivery mechanisms should be tested given there is minimal, well > managed proximal (e.g. health and safety) risk and no impacts on climate or > biodiversity.� > > Secondly, there are issues of�*intellectual property*. SPICE, as a > team, is committed to researching climate engineering carefully with the > profound belief that all such research should be done, as per the Oxford > Principles, for the greater good. We have all agreed, through a > partner-wide collaboration agreement to (a) put all results into the public > domain in a timely manner and (b) not to exploit (i.e. profit from or > patent) results from the SPICE project. However, a patent application > exists that was filed prior to the SPICE project being proposed, describing > the delivery technology, presenting a potentially significant conflict of > interest. The details of this application were only reported to the project > team a year into the project and caused many members, including me, > significant discomfort. Information regarding the patent application was > immediately reported to the research councils, who have initiated an > external investigation. Efforts are underway to make the patent > application�s intentions unambiguous: to protect intellectual property > and not for commercial purposes. > > Thirdly, it will take time to explore these issues through�* > deliberation*�and�*stakeholder engagement*. This means that any > postponement of the 1km tested would be a�*de facto*cancellation as the > experiment�s value, to elucidate balloon and tether dynamics to inform > computer models, diminishes over the project lifetime. The SPICE team > sincerely hopes that this decision will facilitate rational, unrushed > discussion on issues that include both governance and intellectual property > but span broader issues surrounding SRM. > Posted by�matt > watson�<http://www.blogger.com/profile/14583012320357403299> > at�00:43<http://thereluctantgeoengineer.blogspot.de/2012/05/testbed-news.html> > > On Wednesday, 16 May 2012 03:13:47 UTC+1, Sam Carana wrote: >> >> Nature News - 15 May 2012 - by Daniel Cressey >> Geoengineering experiment cancelled amid patent row. >> Balloon-based �testbed� for climate-change mitigation abandoned. >> >> http://www.nature.com/news/geoengineering-experiment-cancelled-amid-patent-row-1.10645 >> >> >> Let me also repeat my April 2012 contribution to this discussion, >> which one of the moderators of this group didn't want groupmembers to >> read: >> >> David Keith, a Harvard University professor and an adviser on energy >> to Microsoft founder Bill Gates, said he and his colleagues are >> researching whether the federal government could ban patents in the >> field of solar radiation, according to a report in Scientific >> American. >> >> Some of his colleagues last week traveled to Washington, D.C., where >> they discussed whether the U.S. Patent Office could ban patents on the >> technology, Keith said. >> >> "We think it's very dangerous for these solar radiation technologies, >> it's dangerous to have it be privatized," Keith said. "The core >> technologies need to be public domain." >> >> As suggested by Sam Carana, a declaration of emergency, as called for >> by the Arctic Methane Emergency Group (AMEG), could be another way to >> deal with this issue. >> >> A declaration of Emergency could give governments the power to >> overrule patents, where they stand in the way of fast-tracking geo- >> engineering projects proposed under emergency rules.Thus, patents >> don't need to be banned, prohibited or taken away; instead, patent >> will continue to apply in all situations other than the emergency >> situation, while new patents could also continue to be lodged during >> the emergency period. >> >> Even where patent are directly applicable to proposed projects, patent >> law would still continue to apply, the emergency rules would merely >> allow governments to proceed in specific situations, avoiding that >> projects are being held up by legal action, exorbitant prices or >> withholding of crucial information. >> >> A declaration of emergency could also speed up projects by removing >> the need to comply with all kinds of time-consuming bureaucratic >> procedures, such as the need to get formal approvals and permits from >> various departments, etc. This brings us to the need to comply with >> international protocols and agreements. If declared internationally, a >> declaration of emergency could overrule parts of such agreements where >> they pose unacceptable delays and cannot be resolved through >> diplomacy. >> >> Cheers, >> Sam Carana > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/VGZplsYC_voJ. > 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. > > > > -- > Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering University > of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland s.sal...@ed.ac.ukTel > +44 (0)131 650 5704 Cell 07795 203 195 > WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/2B31ZlVXtH8J. 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.
