On Apr 19, 3:39 am, Oliver Morton [email protected]> wrote:
> 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=OO=C=OO=C=OO=C=OO=C=O
>
> > Oliver Morton
> > Energy and Environment Editor
> > The Economist
>
> > +44 7971 064 059
>
> > O=C=OO=C=OO=C=OO=C=OO=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=OO=C=OO=C=OO=C=OO=C=O
>
> Oliver Morton
> Energy and Environment Editor
> The Economist
>
> +44 7971 064 059
>
> O=C=OO=C=OO=C=OO=C=OO=C=O- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
