I understand the conceptual and tactical reasons Ken cites for dropping talk of a geoengineering research program, but Eugene is on to something with his stinkweed analogy. Fairly or unfairly, disaggregating "geoengineering" into more conventional research categories will be viewed by many as an attempt at obfuscation, and this is an important political consideration. It also tends to obscure the unique nature of the geoengineering enterprise as a deliberate attempt to intervene in the climate system, something which should not be overlooked.
Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com On Aug 5, 9:48 pm, "Rau, Greg" <r...@llnl.gov> wrote: > Good luck.... -G > > ______________________________ > Science And The Debt Deal > Politics: Compromise includes cuts that will hit science agencies over the > next decade > Susan R. Morrissey, Glenn Hess and Raj Mukhopadhyay > Legislation signed by President Barack Obama this week to raise the debt > ceiling and avoid a default on government loans presents a mixed bag for > science. The deal includes more than $900 billion in cuts over the next > decade to federal discretionary funds—money that includes support for science > agencies. > In terms of an immediate impact, the Budget Control Act of 2011 sets the > discretionary spending limit for fiscal 2012 at $1.04 trillion. This is the > amount of money Congress can dole out to agencies for the next fiscal year. > It is actually $24 million above the amount the House of Representatives set > for its 2012 spending limit. > Having this essentially flat cap on spending in place provides agencies with > some certainty that there will not be huge across-the-board cuts in 2012, a > White House official says. As a result, agencies can begin making preliminary > spending decisions for 2012. > Business leaders also appreciate the certainty the measure provides. Thomas > J. Donohue, president and chief executive of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, > the nation’s largest business lobby, says the agreement, “while far from > perfect, ... begins the process of getting America’s fiscal house in order > and was necessary to avoid a default that would have resulted in an economic > catastrophe.” > But all federal agencies will face cuts over the long term. Congress will > need to make tough spending decisions to comply with the legislation. The > impact on science funding remains unclear. > “Everything is subject to being cut,” noted Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) at a > press briefing last week. A bipartisan, bicameral “supercommittee,” said > Whitfield, chairman of a House Energy & Commerce subcommittee, will closely > scrutinize all federal spending. > As Congress irons out the details, the science community will be watching > closely. “Budgets for fiscal 2012 and future years will be impacted by > mandated reductions in the debt-ceiling deal,” notes Glenn S. Ruskin, > director of the Office of Public Affairs at the American Chemical Society. > “But how those reductions will be spread out over the agencies is not at all > clear right now. ACS will continue to advocate on behalf of predictable and > sustained funding for key R&D agencies.” > Chemical & Engineering News > ISSN 0009-2347 > Copyright © 2011 American Chemical Society > ________________________________________ > From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On > Behalf Of Ken Caldeira [kcalde...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 4:37 PM > To: Stuart Strand > Cc: xbenf...@gmail.com; mmacc...@comcast.net; Geoengineering@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: [geo] My AGU abstract: We Don¹t Need a ³Geoengineering² Research > Program > > If something is not now in the mission of an agency, Congress can cause it to > be in the mission. > > DOE managed to find the Human Genome Project within their domain even though > it didn't fit with their energy mission: http://genomics.energy.gov/ > > If Congress allocates money to an agency to do something, most agencies will > take the money and do it. > > Congress decides what agencies do, not the agencies themselves (although > agencies can influence congressional decisions). > > ___________________________________________________ > Ken Caldeira > > Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > +1 650 704 7212 > kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu<mailto:kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu>http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira > > On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Stuart Strand > <sstr...@u.washington.edu<mailto:sstr...@u.washington.edu>> wrote: > The problem is that geoengineering doesn't really fit with the missions of > any of the national scientific funding agencies as far as I can tell. As an > example, when I talked to the Department of Energy about ways to remove > methane and nitrous oxide from the atmosphere they said that it wasn't in > their mission because those gases did not relate to energy production. > Although this argument was flawed in addition to being somewhat boneheaded, > you hear this type of thinking a lot when you bring new ideas to old > agencies. There are gaps between disciplines and missions and they can be > quite large. A "geoengineering program" need not be a monolithic program but > instead could be a cooperation between agencies along the lines of NIEHS > Superfund or SERDP. > > = Stuart = > > Stuart E. Strand > 490 Ben Hall IDR Bldg. > Box 355014, Univ. Washington > Seattle, WA 98105 > voice 206-543-5350<tel:206-543-5350>, fax 206-685-9996<tel:206-685-9996> > skype: stuartestrandhttp://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/ > > From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> > [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>] > On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira > Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 9:24 PM > > To: xbenf...@gmail.com<mailto:xbenf...@gmail.com> > Cc: mmacc...@comcast.net<mailto:mmacc...@comcast.net>; > Geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:Geoengineering@googlegroups.com> > Subject: Re: [geo] My AGU abstract: We Don¹t Need a ³Geoengineering² Research > Program > > I think we need to be vigorously investigating every option that can > plausibly reduce risk from climate change. > > So, I very much think we need to be investigating many things that have been > called "geoengineering". > > I do not think that it is helpful, however, to think of this as "a > geoengineering program". There are a disparate set of activities that need > to be done that do not need close coordination. > > It makes no sense to me to have a single program covering diverse strategies > such as industrialized CO2 capture from air, whitening of clouds, biochar, > stratospheric aerosols, biomass cofiring of power plants with carbon capture > and storage, etc, etc. These things are just too different to want to place > them in something called "a geoengineering research program". > > Not only is "geoengineering" a vague and ambiguous term, it has also become a > pejorative term in many circles. For example, many people who like a > particular option, such as reforestation, search for reasons not to call it > "geoengineering" -- fearing that that label will make it harder to find > funding. > > I do not think the determination of whether something constitutes > "geoengineering" should be relevant to whether research and development funds > are allocated to that activity. > > -- > > Furthermore, I think that setting "geoengineering" research apart in its own > overarching program is a tactical error. In a zero-sum world, people will see > "a geoengineering research" program as a threat to their own budgets, and "a > geoengineering research program" will become an easy target. > > I think it much more sensible to recognize that most of what has been called > "geoengineering research" is in fact uncontroversial research that most > sensible people should think we would want to undertake. And the people who > would be doing this research are the same people who are now doing allied > scientific and engineering research. > > Rather than trying to build a big new program that existing programs will see > as a threat, we should be working to expand the scope and funding of existing > programs so that, for example > > -- programs that now study transport of fate of particles in the stratosphere > would be expanded and directed to consider higher concentrations and a > broader range of types of particles > -- programs that now study clouds in the lower atmosphere would be expanded > and directed to consider effects of introduced cloud-condensation nucleii > -- programs that now study the fate of organic carbon in soils would be > expanded and directed to consider the fate of biochar > -- programs that now study the capture of CO2 from power plant flue gases > would be expanded and directed to consider CO2 extraction from much more > dilute sources such as the atmosphere > -- programs that now study the global and regional climate impacts of natural > and inadvertently released aerosols would be expanded and directed to > consider intentionally released aerosols > -- etc, etc > > By saying "we don't need a geoengineering research program", I mean to say > that research into options that are commonly labeled "geoengineering" should > permeate all research programs that aim to understand or reduce risks from > climate change. Rather than a separate program, research into these options > should be closely integrated into the broader effort to understand and reduce > climate risk. > > -- > > Greg's point about engineering development is a good one. We do need > proof-of-principle engineering studies so that we can filter out the > potentially feasible options from the non-starters. > > For some of these options, we can or should have plans for deployment. At the > point that we decide that an option looks promising enough that we want to > develop a deployable system, then targeted development programs will be > necessary. > > ___________________________________________________ > Ken Caldeira > > Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > +1 650 704 7212<tel:%2B1%20650%20704%207212> > kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu<mailto:kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu>http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira > > On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Gregory Benford > <xbenf...@gmail.com<mailto:xbenf...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > When developing the A-bomb, the US realized that the plausible size of > plutonium bombs (Fat Man) demanded bigger planes to deliver them. This and > other needs drove development of the B-29s, which in fact delivered Fat Man. > No other airplane could. > > When time counts, carving R away from D is generally a mistake. Especially > when you don't know the real timescale when you'll need the technology. > > Gregory Benford > On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 8:17 PM, Mike MacCracken ... > > read more » -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
