Folks, I think we are coming to a point where there is near-consensus that we need research into climate intervention.
However, I think there are very real differences over the scale, scope, emphasis, and structure of a proposed research program (or programs). Furthermore, there has been almost no discussion on the criteria by which program areas,or proposed activities within those program areas, would be prioritized. I would like to open this discussion: ============ With regard to structure, I would suggest that there are several independent or quasi-independent research programs: A. Approaches to remove carbon dioxide (and perhaps other radiatively active gases) from the atmosphere (i.e., Carbon Dioxide Removal methods) A.1. Approaches that involve biological organisms to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere A.2. Approaches that use chemical engineering methods to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere B. Approaches to directly intervene in Earth's energy flows or storage that do not work primarily through changing greenhouse gas concentrations (i.e., Solar Radiation Management methods) ------------ Program segments A and B are organized around tools that can be used to address problems. One could imagine another program element that is organized around assessing potential threats and possible responses: C. Threat and response assessment C.1. Ice sheet stability C.2. Permafrost methane degassing C.3. Changes in weather patterns that might disrupt agricultural productivity C.4. etc ------------ I see little reason to link A, B, and C closely together and think they should be independent (or largely independent) programs. It is not clear that A.1 needs to be closely linked to A.2. =============== Regarding criteria for funding proposals or program elements within A, B, and C, some initial comments: I think the criteria for funding under program element A (carbon dioxide removal and related approaches) should center on scalability, cost, and environmental consequences. I think the criteria for funding under program element B (solar radiation management and related approaches) should center on scalability, rapidity of possible deployment, affordability, and environmental consequences. I distinguish *cost *from *affordability *in that program elements A will, at least in the near term, compete with emissions avoidance, thus marginal cost is critical. However, program elements B might be used in an emergency situation where cost is secondary and, if it works, people might be in a bad enough situation that they might be willing to spend a large fraction of GDP on deployment. ============== Does anybody else want to weigh in on scale, scope, emphasis, and structure of climate intervention research programs (or program)? ============== Best, Ken ___________________________________________________ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA [email protected]; [email protected] http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
