Greetings,
If I wanted to research geoengineering, I wouldn’t form an formal geoengineering society, because the press releases it would trigger would likely be counter-productive to my research. Plus, my sense here in DC is that the USG is still not really ready to have geoengineering officially on the table. An official, federally-funded geoengineering board would have foreign policy implications that no one really wants. I would, however, give a small portion, say 10%, to social science research investigating sentiment and knowledge about how people and institutions in developing countries feel about geoengineering. It would be particularly interesting to know how people in Brazil, Turkey, Indonesia, China, India, and other key regional players are approaching the topic. I would also put funding into cross-border collaboration efforts. Both of these might not seem important compared to test-scale deployments and modeling. But done right, the social science research and collaboration would pay off, because no amount of good natural science research will likely be actualized if the political climate is hostile to it. We don’t actually know whether the developing world would dismiss geoengineering as a first-world cop-out of mitigating emissions, or embrace it as a humanitarian intervention that will benefit them locally and allow them to keep developing. Solid data on this, and international cooperation, would be key in going forward with any actual deployment, should the worst-case scenarios materialize. Best, Holly Buck Holly Jean Buck / 410.227.3316 (home) / [email protected] Note: The opinions expressed are personal and do not represent the views of any institutions or organizations of affiliation. On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Fulkerson, William <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Ken et al. > Good question. > I would allocate the money to the Arctic. The loss of summer sea ice is > real and happening rapidly (within a century from linear extrapolations). I > would devote half the money to finding out how serious the loss of summer > sea ice would be for the ecology of > the region and the other half on research to evaluate the negatives of > regional SRM techniques including tropospheric sulfates. The SRM evaluation > should include analysis of the difficulty of getting permission to do > something: i.e. From the UN or by agreement from the countries of the > region. The first step would be to find out how much money is presently > being spent on R&D in the region, e.g. on clathrates. > With best regards, > Bill > > Bill Fulkerson, Senior Fellow and LERDWG Chair > Institute for a Secure and Sustainable Environment > University of Tennessee > 311 Conference Center Bldg. > Knoxville, TN 37996-4138 > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>> > 865-974-9221, -1838 FAX > Home > 865-988-8084; 865-680-0937 CELL > 2781 Wheat Road, Lenoir City, TN 37771 > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From: *Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> > *Reply-To: *<[email protected]> > *Date: *Mon, 18 Apr 2011 08:08:25 -0700 > *To: *Google Group <[email protected]> > *Subject: *[geo] How would you allocate US$10 million per year to most > reduce climate risk? > > > Folks, > > There is some discussion in DC about making some small amount of public > funds available to support SRM and CDR research. > > In today's funding climate, it is much more likely that someone might be > given authority to re-allocate existing budgets than that they would > actually be given significantly more money for this effort. Thus, the modest > scale. > > If you were doing strategic planning for a US federal agency, and you were > told that you had a budget of $10 million per year and that you should > maximize the amount of climate risk reduction obtainable with that $10 > million, what would you allocate it to and why? > > Best, > > Ken > > ___________________________________________________ > Ken Caldeira > > Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > +1 650 704 7212 [email protected] > http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira > > -- > 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. > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
