Dr. MacCracken, Thank you for the feedback. What I have clumsily tried to say is that with such a small budget, finding innovative ways to bring more funding to the table should be the top priority. Attracting follow on funding may be the best means of securing a long term federal commitment. The original post on this thread indicated that this will be set up under a single department and thus this proposed program budget will be subject to the overall needs of that department. If you're going to be the red headed stepchild sitting at the dinner table, it is best that you find a way to help buy the food.
This train of thought is similar to the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) programs offered by all federal departments. They look for an ability within a proposal to become self supporting. I believe you are correct in that surface and tropospheric methods need serious attention. But, can they generate external financial interest? Can they help feed themselves at an early stage? The tether option does have uses other than SRM, unlike any other proposal. I believe this first funding department would welcome the funding cooperation from other departments. But, you have to give the other departments something that is firm and fits their mission. The commercial side of the investment equation will need the same. We have a number of promising SRM methods and more will be put on the table. It is, however, the development of a secure and dependable means of funding that is fundamentally needed. The High Tether Option can be inclusive of other projects. No other SRM options has that quality. I proposed the JASON model for reasons that you point out. They should, however, consider the broader issues of budget restraints, public perception and issues of governance. The broader community can and will make their views known. But, some entity has to make the go...no go... call (eventually). There will never be an over ridding consensus on most of the issues at hand. It will be interesting to see how this initial funding offer is decided as it will set the tone for future offers from both public and private concerns. If this turns into a nasty and confused feeding frenzy, it may put an end to any future funding considerations. Being able to show focus, self reliance and a willingness to take well considered risks is the best that we can do. Let's hope that this can be done. Thanks again for taking the time to respond. On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Mike MacCracken <[email protected]>wrote: > While a tether may be a useful way to do stratospheric aerosol injection, > it is not at all clear to me that that is the next step to be taking with a > limited amount of research funding. Instead, as I indicated in my earlier > message, I think there are a number of impacts than global average warming > to determine if we can limit in starting out using techniques in the > troposphere or surface. So, it seems to me the first thing to be done is to > figure out our objective and why rather than to focus on a tool that may not > be useful in dealing with the problem to be addressed. On deciding what the > objective should be, it seems to be a more broadly based group than JASON is > needed—unless what they are going to do is put forth several options of what > the physics (and chemistry and biology) could be worked to accomplish, and > then the broader group decides among options. > > Mike MacCracken > > > On 4/19/11 2:22 PM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > > The mission statement which started this thread, 'maximize the amount of > climate risk reduction obtainable with that $10" is deceptively simple. It > does not ask how to build a consensus. It does not ask how to build a > foundation for the field of GE. It does not ask how to support multiple > approaches to climate risk reduction. Nor does it ask how the effort should > be organized and who should do the work. It simply seeks to "maximize" risk > reduction with a $10m yearly budget. > > My read on that mission statement (and the possible back story prompting > it) is that this may be an effort to cut through the tangled Gordian Knot > this issue has become. All of the responses offered in this thread have > admiral merit and will need to be addressed...... eventually! The question > at hand, however, is not that broad. It simply asks "How" and "Why". > > To maximize such a small budget will require extreme focus and leveraging > the investment in creative ways. The JASON Advisory Group is an example of > such an effort (big bang for little bucks). If you are not familiar with > it's history, I highly recommend a quick Google search. We may not have the > luxury of time to sort out all that can be done or should be done. We may be > lucky just to have the time to choose the most likely method of climate > intervention and get a system prepared and tested for eventual deployment. > > Leveraging the investment will be important. A seed capital investment of > $10m can not float, for long, a start up internet company selling bubble > gum. By choosing an SRM method which lends itself to other uses, that seed > money can be amplified. Only one SRM method has that potential, Direct > Injection. A High Tether can be deployed and made operational without > actually using it for SRM. It can be made operational and financially self > supporting through meeting the needs of potential "customers" (as I pointed > out in my first post on this thread). Having the hardware operational is > essential!!! The actual use of the hardware for SRM will be decided in due > course by the progression of Global Warming. > > If this innovative approach to maximizing the amount of climate risk > reduction is to succeed, it will need to be....yes....highly innovative. > Innovation is never without risk, it is never without controversy, it is > never without setbacks and it is never without winners and losers. We may > have a chance to build an emergency life line, let's not drown while > debating on how best to tie the anchoring knot. > > The High Tether method my not be the best solution in the long run, no > climate intervention method is as they all are emergency methods at best. > The tether option, however, is our best starting point for this limited > budget. If the High Tether Option can be focused upon, it may potentially > generate both public confidence in Geoengineering, as well as, future > funding for continued R&D. I would have no problem with the USG > owning/operating the hardware as a pure research tool. I would also have no > problem with the USG supporting a JASON like round table on further R&D. I > would have a problem with the USG sitting on the sidelines when so much can > be done for so little of an investment. It is time to take that deep breath, > lean into the storm winds and take that first step. > > > > On Apr 19, 2011 9:21am, "Lane, Lee O." <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I too, worry about the factors that you and Oliver cite, but the choice > seems more ambiguous than you make it sound. DARPA is at least competent. I > am not sure that the same can be said of any of the climate related > civilian R&D entities. Many of course have able people, but the > congressional tendency to use them as sources of pork barrel politics is a > problem. DARPA has not entirely escaped this disease, but it has suffered > less than the civilian agencies. > > > > > > > > Prior questions: > > > > > > > > > > Does anybody on this group actually have a say about what agency controls > the money? That seems doubtful to me. > > > > > > Would DARPA want to do the job? They do actually have serious work of > their own, and SRM might be a no-win situation for them. > > > > > > Is China willing to commit to the principle that the PLA have nothing to > do with China's own climate engineering research -- when they decide to > undertake such an effort -- if they are not already embarked on it? Would we > want them to make such a commitment? Would we believe them if they did? > > > > > > Is there any chance of placating Greenpeace and their ilk, and, if not, > why bother trying? > > > > > > > > I am not sure, but I tend to suspect that the answers to all these > questions might be negative. In that case, the point might be moot. > > > > Lee > > > > > > > > > > > > From: [email protected] on behalf of Josh Horton > > Sent: Tue 4/19/2011 11:36 AM > > To: geoengineering > > Subject: [geo] Re: How would you allocate US$10 million per year to most > reduce climate risk? > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree, this would be a grave mistake. There would be no surer way > > of firing up international political opposition to geoengineering, > > mobilizing civil society, encouraging suspicion and hostility, even > > dragging in ENMOD. Imagine how China would react! Whether or not the > > military has the appropriate capacity, handing it to DARPA would be > > hugely counterproductive. > > > > Josh > > > > > > 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=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- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > -- > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > -- *Michael Hayes* *360-708-4976* http://www.wix.com/voglerlake/vogler-lake-web-site -- 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.
