Thanks Kelly... Just as a point of clarification, I think we see ourselves as working with scientists that are independently funded to do their science. Clearly the tendency to produce favorable research findings is prevalent in science itself--it may in fact be a necessary and positive element of the creative process, obviously it also has a downside that everyone has to be cognizant of. We'd like to stay out of the path of that. An open and transparent approach to making all the data available immediately from these projects is one important antidote to that, as are a number of other strategies. I think we can provide help in terms of project management, logistics, distributing iron, regulatory and permitting assistance for what will be large efforts over years.
D On Mar 22, 4:03 pm, Kelly Wanser <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > 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.
