Thank you, yes, I appreciate the mutually respectful approach too. I think your efforts are pioneering and represent an unusual achievement, even if I do not agree with the timing or nature of some of them.
I am not in pursuit of skewering, I actually concur with your comments about time horizons and do';t fault anyone for pursuing their interests generally. But, I do think the structural considerations of investment horizons for companies are very relevant with regard to businesses engaged in activities that have large potential risks to others, and long research cycles to quantify their benefits. Unfortunately, time horizons for adequate safety and efficacy research may not match with the time horizons desired or required by investors. Where they don't, investment-driven businesses tend to seek to influence research or policy or in a way that supports their fiduciary mission to generate returns but displaces safety and efficacy considerations. I see this as sort of a structural reality that we all have to try to figure out how to manage. We haven't done this well regarding the environment at all. We have done this increasingly less well in financial services. We have build a fairly extensive framework in pharmaceuticals and medical research to try to manage it, to a greater degree of success (though not a perfect one). Regarding addressing deployment versus research, I think commercial geoengineering entities, particularly those looking to yield carbon credits, produce returns when they scale, so policy makers tend to have to treat commercialized activities in the context of scaling within a typical investment horizon (say, 5-10 years) which is daunting in the face of the amount of knowledge available, relative to the risks, within that time. My view is that it is that it is that concern that creates rational policy and activist backlash against early commercial proposals. Time to market does not match the research path for understanding the risks. Companies also have a structural imperative to produce or influence favorable research findings, so their role in early research can be as much a complicating factor as an accelerating one. Finally, some scientific researchers may build careers working on particular theories, but the nature of the academic community makes it somewhat as likely to build a career debunking them, if that follows the science. In the end, it appears to me that it is more difficult for resources to mass, or a critical mass of economic benefit, to accrue in a biased direction (though not impossible). Great dialogue. Thanks, Dan. On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Dan Whaley <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for your considerate tone Kelly, I really appreciate it. I don't > mind a lively debate, I just think it's important that we can be civil with > each other. > > Again, to my last point, anyone working with a potential financial > gain--even providing services to further research efforts (which is our > current configuration at Climos)-- on carbon or SRM techniques is in the > same position. If the research (let alone the future deployment) moves > forward, then they personally benefit. This is true of scientists that file > patents on techniques (which I have no problem with)--which seems to include > nearly everyone in this field. All of the sudden, the long term commercial > benefit is (somewhat) captive, and their near term activities, the research > findings they may publish, or the governance efforts they may participate > in, are *potentially* conflicted as a result. Are the folks at > Intellectual Ventures and those collaborating with them distorting this > field? Some argue to me that they are... they have responsibilities to > investors and all the complications you discuss. But I have no real problem > with them (provided they do not squat on IP and disincentivise entrepreneurs > who otherwise would develop it), and I think as long as the process is > transparent that they can be an important part of the landscape. Instead of > discouraging their capital from entering this space-- and potentially > funding some efforts-- I think we should be encouraging it. We're all here > because we think time is of the essence, right? > > Rather than skewer anyone who imagines a future gain (financial or > psychic--or both) in return for their near term efforts (which we all do to > some degree, this is something of a biological phenomenon), I think it is > more important to ensure that the process is open, thoughtful and > transparent as possible, that appropriate regulations are in place, that > results are peer-reviewed and independently assessed, that models are fully > utilized, that the best minds are involved and that we move deliberately and > openly through the various stages from concept to modeling, engineering, > testing, time series analysis and, eventually, perhaps deployment. > > You argue that the timeframe of expected returns on capital (5-10 years) > somehow drives more short term pressure and thus potentially short term > conflict on those charged with its investment. I would argue in return that > this is a simple human phenomenon: life is short. Few of us invest our time > and energy in things that we do not expect to see bear fruit within these > timeframes. Utility patents are only valid for 20 years after all, design > patents for 14. The economist in each of us places more net present value > on near term accomplishments and diminishing returns on those far off. > > Also-- I think there is a distinction between selling deployment and > supporting research. Your points seem to tend towards the former. > > D > > > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Kelly Wanser <[email protected]>wrote: > >> 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]:// >> 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]<geoengineering%[email protected]> >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. >> >> > -- -- 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 -- 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.
