I think giving the whole thing to Darpa would be a great mistake. The symbolism of the D in Darpa would not be lost on international politicians and potential participants (to say nothing of Greenpeace). And I think designing policy specifically to be Anthony-Watts proof is a mug's game. Much better to innovate in another context than to take a Darpa program architecture, and the baggage of the pentgon connections, off the shelf.
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 5:06 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Ken with few ccs > > 1. Thanks for reporting this $10 M news (and probably for scouting it > up) > > 2. Oliver's note (below) comes closest to my own of the ideas so far > put forth. It may be presumptive to assume multi year funding (and anything > over $10 million in the first year), but why not assume a continuing > effort? I endorse the idea of three parallel SRM efforts. I hope one would > be "Bright Water" - as it has been more on this list recently ((and > positively) than any other - and it seems to have special relevance to the > Arctic. Oliver's call for some independent efforts is also worthy. > > 3. Oliver didn't mention the Arctic. I put in my vote for limiting > activities to the Alaskan portion of the Arctic. Rationale - Alaska is way > ahead of the rest of the country in recognizing something is happening. We > can probably do almost nothing soon in Canada, Russia, Greenland, Iceland > and Norway - but we should try immediately to get parallel efforts going in > all. Some funds should be reserved to encourage their attendance at events. > > 4. Oliver calls out CDR in the context of some possibilities that are > neither CDR or SRM. I would lump these possibilities with CDR and reserve > perhaps 15-20% for those. Rationale - need for low cost and speed, but > also need buy-in from CDR-folk. Any big activity will suffer politically > .if CDR is not coupled with SRM, and if there is not a darn good reason for > leaving something out. One option alone would be a disaster, especially if > theri effects can be shown to be additive and not duplicative. > > 5. Oliver mentions DARPA. I think it would (stronger than "might") be > wise to ask them to lead. Rationale - politics. Few AGW critics (eg > Watts) are going to say anything negative about DARPA. In this regard, I > see that DARPA met at Stanford in 2009 on this topic - so you should be in a > position to know if they would be interested (as a favor to the actual > agency with funds). > [ > http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/03/exclusive-milit.html ] > > 6. Carrying politics further, I hope you or someone can soon alert > Alaska's 2 R's and 1 D in the Congress. This whole package should not be > sold as having anything to do with AGW. All three of the elected > representatives seem to agree that temperaures are rising rapidly. in Alaska > and they must have some appreciation of pending methane release. None want > to talk about causality - and we don't need to either. I believe they would > not object strongly to money being spent primarily in Alaska. Your project > (everything discussed on this list) needs political cover. If you can get > the idea attributed to Rush or Glenn, all the better. Mitt Romney, Tim > Pawlenty and Newt Gingrich might even find it politically expedient to weigh > in; we are not talking taxes here. > > 7. Native Americans may/could/should have a role in this - especially > as regards CDR use of dead/fallen trees and re-vegetation with high > reflectivity biomass. They make up the population most impacted. More > political cover. > > 8. Last is the issue of speed. I hope you are talking about this > fiscal year's funding - and it would be great if you/DARPA could have some > experimental results by the end of FY11. This will only be possible with > something autocratic - and DARPA seems to know how to do that. But they > will certainly listen to informal proposals - presumably from teams. One > month to do that should be enough - being informal. > > 9. Re speed and expertise I urge giving the modeling task (mentioned by > several) to Prof. Wieslaw Maslowski. I think he is the only modeler (and he > has a big team) who has been correctly predicting the timing of an ice-free > Arctic (now apparently at 2016 +/- 3 years). See > http://www.oc.nps.edu/NAME/Maslowski_CV.htm and > http://www.oc.nps.edu/NAME/name.html > Having a connection with the US Navy has some other advantages - but > those are not the reason for pushing his involvement. He knows the Arctic > intimately. > > > Again, thanks for very welcome news (and your behind the scenes > searching?). > > Ron > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Oliver Morton" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: "geoengineering" <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 5:36:33 PM > Subject: Re: [geo] How would you allocate US$10 million per year to most > reduce climate risk? > > 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. > -- 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.
