Broad RFPs for multi-year consortia -- maybe four three-year $5million grants to begin with. Define the goals that the research should support -- eg development and assessment of a 1W/m^2 (global average) SRM technology -- not the technologies that should be used. Provide a way for the scoring process to reward breadth of approach and ambition as well as (but not in place of) technical excellence. Appoint a program manager with a proven track and leadership record. (This is a bit Darpa-like -- not such a bad thing)
In parallel, some two year single investigator grants, given on the basis that can roll them into a consortium if you think that's wise. Some focus here on generics eg modelling of scenarios. Include social sciences and humanities here. Budget for an intensive workshop stage for all grantees 18 months in. Issue a new RFP at the two-year mark for two new consortia. Extension for two best performing of the original consortia at three years, perhaps forcing some refugees form the salon des refuses onto the winning teams. (Program managers earn their keep that way) A specific protected budget for single investigators or small collaborations working on technologies and approaches with a so-far non-existent or at least minimal publication record. Favourite example -- systems for stopping glaciers. Cirrus management of outgoing IR might also fit. There are various geoengineering technologies that don't fit into CDR/SRM, such as those that seek to reallocate energy flows within the system. At the moment they are largely ignored. Expanding the universe of discourse this way should be a priority. Always, in general, define the questions, not the technologies you already see as the answers. o On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Ken Caldeira < [email protected]> wrote: > 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. > -- O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O Oliver Morton Energy and Environment Editor The Economist +44 7971 064 059 O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O -- 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.
