Hi, Ken – I guess I’d add to the many posts on this thread – don’t forget to think both defensively and offensively, and since the amount of money is small, ways in which some of it might be able to act like seed money should be of interest. In the worst case, what could happen in a few years? Arctic ice will be getting much worse than now and there will be more significant methane escape from the ESAS, some of the taliks starting to let out really significant and dense methane plumes. While most on this site probably wouldn’t even deign to call it geoengineering, various kinds of ‘methane suckers’ and ‘trappers’ would be a very good thing to have in such a case, since even if a ‘true’ geoengineering approach were developed, it might be hard to get any world body willing to let it be used, which wouldn’t at all be true of the ‘methane suckers.’ I don’t think there’s been much work on this, and I know it could easily get forgotten altogether.
I’m certainly aware that you can’t really control climate effectively at all in such a manner, but it might be one the most helpful things for a short while, and funds could perhaps be leveraged to develop this. That is, you could possibly with a little bit of your research funds convene a cooperative panel and program of engineers from the prime fossil fuel interests (Exxon, BP, Gazprom, Chevron Canada, etc.) who would then collaboratively design various forms of equipment for getting as much methane as rapidly as possible, and a plan and a set of rules for then equally sharing their spoils amongst themselves in case of an emergency. It could possibly pay for itself for the corporations, would appear good for their corporate images, and it would create a line of defense for us all, if things start to get worse more quickly than they already are. That’s what I mean by defensive thinking. On Apr 19, 2:47 pm, "Lane, Lee O." <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, Josh, I think that you are right. We are all going to have mixed civil > military programs, i.e. those few countries that have militaries capable > enough to play a useful role in SRM will use them for this purpose. BTW, > those are pretty much the only ones to which we need pay real attention. > > So, if the US wants to involve DARPA, what business is it of China, and if > China wants to involve the PLA, as they certainly will, the US quite simply > has no say in the matter. The whole notion of weaponization of SRM is > nonsense; so we shouldn't let it drive our organizational choices -- or our > attitudes to other countries' efforts. > > That said, I am not arguing that DARPA is the right place to center SRM, but > categorically ruling out the participation of our best R&D shop on the > grounds that including them might offend China, or Greenpeace, or some Third > World kleptocracy goes too far. I attach a recent piece on the governance > issues. > > Lee > > ________________________________ > > From: Joshua Horton [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tue 4/19/2011 1:43 PM > To: Lane, Lee O. > Cc: geoengineering > Subject: Re: [geo] Re: How would you allocate US$10 million per year to most > reduce climate risk? > > Hi Lee, > > Here's an attempt: > > * > Does anybody on this group actually have a say about what agency > controls the money? That seems doubtful to me. probably not (certainly not > 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. maybe, they've done > it before > -http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/03/exclusive-milit.html > * > 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? > China probably could not make a credible commitment of this sort, but it > certainly could not if the US entrusted geoengineering to the Defense > Department. Assigning climate engineering to DARPA would virtually invite > China to securitize geoengineering, as opposed to supporting a mixed > civilian/military program that would be preferable for all - I think a mixed > Chinese program is entirely plausible. > * > Is there any chance of placating Greenpeace and their ilk, and, if > not, why bother trying? Probably not, but why needlessly antagonize? It's > worth trying because these groups help shape the overarching political > environment. > > Here's some additional text I wrote for SMRGI: "Similarly, military > involvement in SRM research is deeply controversial and liable to fracture > any international consensus in support of geoengineering. The > "weaponization" of advanced technologies is a familiar phenomenon in research > and development, and many scientists, policymakers, and other observers have > raised serious concerns about the consequences of military participation in > SRM research activities. The involvement of defense ministries could reduce > transparency, create mistrust, destabilize regional security architectures, > and possibly violate provisions of the Convention on the Prohibition of > Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques > (ENMOD). Military participation would promote a climate of suspicion, > wariness, and doubt certain to impede attempts at fostering international > collaboration. Again, in order to ensure a broad consensus behind any > eventual decision to deploy SRM, research governance arrangements should > prohibit military establishments and related defense agencies from taking > part in SRM research." > > Josh > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 12:21 PM, 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 > ... > > read more » > > LeeLane--USNationalInterest--411.pdf > 760KViewDownload -- 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.
