Dan, as you know, I am also an entrepreneur in the technology sector, and, as such, I appreciate the business achievement represented by herculean efforts you and Margaret made in capitalizing and operating a company to pursue geoengineering commercially. I am also fond of you personally, and enjoy the many insights you both bring to bear in the field. But, I think there is a great deal more to the issues surrounding Climos, CRF and commercialization in geoengineering than personal criticism, or any failure to appreciate the role of commerce and markets in fostering all manner of activities.
The primary issue, in my view, is the influence of commercial interests on both scientific research and policy in areas where benefits and risks to the public are not well understood. Critics of geoengineering, and near-term commercialized efforts in geoengineering, raise very legitimate issues in questioning the influence of commercial entities that form to capitalize in a typical investment time-horizon (5 years; 10 years at the outside) on as-yet- unproven science that includes very high potential known and unknown risks. In fact, the fossil fuel industry’s activities reinforce a serious skepticism, as they have been very motivated to influence both scientific research and policy in a way that is not objective, and which disproportionately endangers the environment and individuals in favor of near term financial gains for their investors. As the officer of a company, you have a fiduciary interest in maximizing returns (just as fossil fuel companies do). Not specifically accurate science, not minimizing risks to the environment, not even in selling something that works in the long term, but in maximizing returns. The science is very early, so investors in Climos are taking a gamble as to whether there is something viable there, and your structural obligation as a corporate officer includes a built-in need to manage against research that points to the risks or drawbacks of the method. Commercial influence on policy (such as your role in influencing the IMO) and on research (such as Climos establishing the Climate Response Fund) is problematic because the risks and benefits are not well understood. We are all victims of the outcomes of this in the financial services sector, fossil fuel industry and parts of the pharmaceutical industry. Policy makers, and critics, are rational when they seek objective research from uninterested parties to inform what we do in this space. We are wise to respect this. The less objective we appear, and the more ready to pursue profits before we know what is in the best interests of the environment, specific ecosystems and human populations, the tougher it is going to be. When we don't know enough to regulate what could be a dangerous activity, reaction to proposed scaled commercial efforts is very rational. The danger in geoengineering is that the activities of commercial companies like Climos (and any efforts affiliated with commercial entities, irrespective of their trappings) will raise sufficient rational concern to impede progress for objective research. This is not to say that various commercial entities may not exist, but the harder they drive policy and research that supports their business interests, the more rational resistance there is likely to be. My view is that it is important to let academic scientists and objective bodies take the lead on researching and promoting promising approaches, and to do so fairly rapidly. We have a limited period of time, and an almost incalculable set of comparative risks to study and assess. We haven’t much capacity to absorb the typical injection of short-term profiteering that can occur before fundamentals are understood (Internet bubble, housing market, biofuels etc.), and the subsequent damage, confusion and distrust that tends to disrupt progress for a decade or so before advancement resumes. It is very early for private companies to attempt to realize return on capital for specific geoengineering approaches, and, without a governance framework, it is concerning that they may influence both research and policy. In the case of the Asilomar event, as interesting and substantive as it is, it is also concerning that commercial interests might be perceived to leading the course of geoengineering governance. Kelly Wanser Director Silver Lining -- Kelly Wanser CEO eCert, Inc. One Market Street, Suite 3600 San Francisco, California 94105 p. +1 (415) 734-6790 f. +1 (415) 651-8932 e. [email protected] eCert - Trust the Message http://www.ecertsystems.com On Mar 21, 8:23 pm, Dan Whaley <[email protected]> wrote: > Ken-- > > I really have to object to the tenor and the nature of your comments. > I have never treated you with this kind of disrespect, though clearly > on many points we may disagree. I do not understand the tone of voice > you are taking with me. > > The "equivalent of scientific whaling"? > > First, being a "Whaley" and quite fond of whales, I resent that. > > Secondly, we did not "operate" at the LC, any more than you "operated" > there. We participated, fully, honestly and with the goal of > achieving permission for OIF projects to move forward. I continue to > participate under the framing now of the Oct 08 resolution, i.e. > "legitimate scientific research". My goal is to simply see the > research be able to move forward. I have been to 6 sessions now of > the London Convention over the last two years (and will be there in > April again) and I ask you to point out any comment or intervention I > made that in your opinion was disingenuous, improper or otherwise-- in > particular any comment we ever made that would have led to a > "weakening" of proper regulation. Quite the opposite in fact-- > without regulation the field will never move forward. > > Third, carbon projects worldwide are financed by the carbon market. I > did not choose this. Tens of thousands of well-intentioned people > make their livelihoods there. New expansions of this market, such as > REDD, are still being proposed. It is quite conceivable that this > global market may not survive. It is possible that carbon taxes are > better than cap and trade. It is possible that some actors in this > market do not have the well-being of the planet in mind--- in fact, it > is a virtual certainty. I do not take an ideological point of view on > the question of mechanism-- though I think it is important to hold > open the financing structure for quality projects, at such a time as > the related technologies are fit for deployment. But to question my > moral character for imagining that this system might provide long term > financing of this technique--when it is deemed to be appropriate and > mature, if that ever happens---is I think quite unfair. I do > understand and appreciate that it is not helpful to use carbon credits > to finance the projects now, but I would make the following > observation: anyone that proposes any carbon technique, and works to > design it, to test it, to file for IP on it, which many in this > community are, is betting that long term there may be some economic > system which might fund its deployment. Are they morally bankrupt for > doing so? Should Lackner be dressed down in public because perhaps > offsets, or taxes, might pay for plastic trees? I hope the answer is > no. > > Regards, > > Dan > > On Mar 21, 5:22 pm, Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Folks, > > > Up to this point I have been adamant about not permitting *ad hominim* posts > > to this email group. Some have asked me why I have apparently broken my own > > rules. > > > --- > > > I have seen Margaret Leinen and her son, Dan Whaley, operate at negotiations > > over ocean iron fertilization under the London Convention and London > > Protocol. I got the distinct impression that both Margaret Leinen and Dan > > Whaley, then both formally associated with Climos, were working hard to keep > > open the possibility of an ocean fertilization equivalent of "scientific > > whaling" -- the ability of for-profit ventures to profit from nominally > > scientific experiments -- threatening a profit-driven scale-up. Climos > > seemed ready to profit from such an outcome. > > > It appeared to me that in the episode, Margaret Leinen was seeking both to > > weaken governance of a geoengineering technique and put herself and/or her > > family members in a position to profit from such weakening. > > > Since that time, as I understand it, Climos set up the Climate Response > > Fund, and Margaret Leinen left Climos to lead this new organization. > > > After this history, it was somewhat disconcerting that Margaret Leinen > > appeared to be attempting to place herself and an organization with > > questionable provenance at the center of a process to develop governance for > > geoengineering experiments. This is especially odd because there is no > > shortage of well-established organizations willing to address this issue, > > including the Council on Foreign Relations, the International Risk > > Governance Council, the Royal Society of London, and so on. > > >http://www.cfr.org/project/1364/geoengineering.htmlhttp://www.irgc.or...... > > > These sorts of organizations do not raise the same sorts of alarm bells as > > do organizations created by Climos. > > > --- > > > Earlier, I wrote that: > > > *Margaret Leinen can obviate my concerns by stating clearly > > > (1) that the Fund will not support geoengineering field tests and > > > (2) that the Fund would not directly or indirectly transfer resources to > > for-profit geoengineering companies like Climos (or other for-profit > > companies with significant financial participation by members of Margaret > > Leinen's family). > > > *The Climate Response Fund board issued a statement of 19 March 2010 > > stating:* > > > To be absolutely clear, Climate Response Fund will not fund field > > experiments for any climate intervention technique now or in the future > > including, but not limited to, ocean fertilization, solar radiation > > management by stratospheric aerosols, tropospheric aerosols, adding > > alkalinity to the ocean or any other particular climate mitigation > > techniques. > > *http://www.climateresponsefund.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=... > > > This addresses concern (1).* *The board statement does not address concern > > (2), but if the Climate Response Fund is not funding climate intervention > > field experiments then it is really no concern of mine how they spend their > > money.* > > > *If my comments helped to motivate the issuance of this statement, then I > > accomplished my primary goal. > > > *--- > > > *Both the Scientific Organizing Committee and the attendees of the upcoming > > Asilomar meeting are truly stellar groups of people and the meeting will be > > a wonderful meeting. > > > While I do not think it will be possible to acheive substantive consensus > > among a broad group on such controversial matters, I could be proven wrong > > and it will nevertheless be an important continuation and broadening of an > > important ongoing conversation. > > * > > --- > > > *I am not a Christian, but I do believe in the redemption. > > > I don't pray, but I do hope. > > > I hope Margaret Leinen and the Climate Response Fund have committed > > themselves to playing a positive role in this discussion, working in a > > disinterested manner for the greater good. > > > If this is the case, and I hope it is, then I wish Margaret Leinen the best > > of luck and apologize for any pain I may have caused. > > > Regards, > > > Ken Caldeira > > > * > > * > > ___________________________________________________ > > Ken Caldeira > > > Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology > > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > > > [email protected]http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab > > +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968 > > > On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Jane Long <[email protected]> wrote: > > > excellent news > > > j > > > > On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 3:57 PM, David Keith <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Margaret, > > > >> The board statement clarifies the goals of CRF. These goals seem > > >> admirable > > >> and entirely appropriate for an organization sponsoring a meeting like > > >> Asilomar. For my part, they answer the questions central I raised in my > > >> correspondence with Joe Romm. > > > >> This relieves my concerns about attending the meeting. > > > >> Thank you very much for this. > > > >> I look forward to seeing you tomorrow. > > > >> Yours, > > >> David > > > >> From: [email protected] [mailto: > > >> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Margaret Leinen > > >> Sent: March 21, 2010 1:08 PM > > >> To: Ken Caldeira; geoengineering > > >> Subject: Re: [geo] Joe Romm post and comment on attending the Asilomar > > >> meeting > > > >> Some have speculated to this group about my motivation and that of the > > >> Climate Response Fund in sponsoring the upcoming Asilomar International > > >> Conference on Climate Intervention Technologies. > > > >> Recently the Board of Directors of the Climate Response Fund (and I am a > > >> member of the Board) posted a statement explicitly stating that we will > > >> not > > >> fund climate intervention experiments now or in the future. The > > >> statement > > >> also addresses other concerns that have been raised in blogs. > > > >> The statement is located at: > > > >> http://*www.* > > >> climateresponsefund.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=147&Itemid=87 > > > >> Margaret Leinen > > >> -- > > >> Margaret Leinen, PhD. > > >> Climate Response Fund > > >> 211 N. Union Street > > >> Suite 100 > > >> Alexandria, VA 22314 > > >> P 202-415-6545 > > >> F 703-842-8031 > > >> [email protected] > > > >> > From: Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> > > >> > Reply-To: Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> > > >> > Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:38:58 -0700 > > >> > To: geoengineering <[email protected]> > > >> > Subject: [geo] Joe Romm post and comment on attending the Asilomar > > >> meeting > > > >> > http://* > > >> climateprogress.org/2010/03/18/exclusive-chief-sponsor-of-landmark-clim > > > >> ate-manipulation-conference-maintains-close-financial-ties-to-controversial-ge > > >> > o-engineering-company/ > > > >> > A part that quotes me: > > > >> > -- > > > >> > *I have learned that the Asilomar geoengineering meeting is expected to > > >> play > > >> > an important role in legitimizing and helping raise funds for Margaret > > >> > Leinen's Climate Response Fund.* > > > >> > *I have not seen any statement from Margaret Leinen or her Fund saying > > >> that > > >> > the Fund will not support geoengineering field tests nor have I seen a > > >> > statement saying that the Fund would not directly or indirectly > > >> > transfer > > >> > resources to > > ... > > read more » -- 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.
