I posted this to the Guardian blog this morning:
* KenCaldeira <http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/user/KenCaldeira>* *6 October 2011 7:02PM* * * *I'm not sure what planet John Vidal is writing from, but here on Earth people with visions of making 'vast potential profits' do not spend long hours in windowless meeting rooms arguing about how non-existent federal research programs might be structured.* *One can never convince the conspiracy theorists among us, but some of us are actually concerned about the potential for a climate catastrophe --- greenhouse gas emissions are not being cut fast enough or deeply enough to make us feel sanguine about the future.* *In the event of a climate catastrophe, some of the technologies discussed in the BPC report may be able to save lives, reduce human suffering, and diminish environmental damage. It may be that this view is mistaken, but that can only be established through scientific and technical research and not by armchair pontification.* *---* *On a personal note, I am an academic research scientist who has long ago given up dreams of amassing great personal wealth.* *I am listed as an inventor on patents related to vertically pumping water in the ocean and related to storing carbon dioxide in the ocean by dissolving carbonate minerals. I have repeatedly stated that in the unlikely event that any of these patents are ever used for climate modification purposes, I will donate my share of the proceeds to non-profit charities and NGOs.* *---* *I am somewhat loathe to respond to this blog post, because I know the nutters among us will read even this text and find in it evidence for subterfuge and nefarious intent that simply does not exist.* Since posting this, I have become more sensitive to some nuances of the English language: *loath*/lōTH/ Adjective: Reluctant; unwilling: "I was loath to leave". *loathe*/lōT͟H/ Verb:Feel intense dislike or disgust for. There is also an issue of when to use "any are" and when to use "any is", but that's what happens when you respond quickly to something. _______________ 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 See our *YouTube:* Sensitivity of temperature and precipitation to frequency of climate forcing: Ken Caldeira <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDRYM_5S0AE> Her lab, mules, and carbon capture and storage: Sally Benson speaks to Near Zero <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMJJn6eP8J0> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Hawkins, Dave <[email protected]> wrote: > Come on Ken and David, when are you going to stop being evil? > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rau, Greg > Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 10:12 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [geo] UK Guardian blogger weighs in > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/oct/06/us-push-geoengine > ering/print > > Big names behind US push for geoengineering > Posted by > John Vidal Thursday 6 October 2011 07.04 EDT > > A coalition representing the most powerful academic, military, > scientific and corporate interests has set its sights on vast potential > profits > > British scientists have pulled back from geoengineering projects but the > US is forging ahead. Photograph: Gallo Images/Getty Images > UK scientists last week "postponed" one of the world's first attempts to > physically manipulate the upper atmosphere to cool the planet. Okay, so > the Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering project > wasn't actually going to spray thousands of tonnes of reflective > particles into the air to replicate a volcano, but the plan to send a > balloon with a hose attached 1km into the sky above Norfolk was an > important step towards the ultimate techno-fix for climate change. > > The reason the British scientists gave for pulling back was that more > time was needed for consultation. In retrospect, it seems bizarre that > they had only talked to a few members of the public. It was only when 60 > global groups wrote to the UK government and the resarch groups behind > the project requesting cancellation that they paid any attention to > critics. > > Over the Atlantic, though, the geoengineers are more gung-ho. Just days > after the British got cold feet, the Washington-based thinktank the > Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) published a major report calling for the > United States and other likeminded countries to move towards large-scale > climate change experimentation. Trying to rebrand geoengineering as > "climate remediation", the BPC report is full of precautionary rhetoric, > but its bottom line is that there should be presidential leadership for > the nascent technologies, a "coalition of willing" countries to > experiment together, large-scale testing and big government funding. > > So what is the BPC and should we take this non-profit group seriously? > For a start these guys - and they are indeed mostly men - are not > bipartisan in any sense that the British would understand. The operation > is part-funded by big oil, pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, > and while it claims to "represent a consensus among what have > historically been divergent views," it appears to actually represent the > most powerful US academic, military, scientific and corporate interests. > It lobbies for free trade, US military supremacy and corporate power and > was described recently as a "collection of neo-conservatives, hawks, and > neoliberal interventionists who want to make war on Iran". > > Their specially convened taskforce is, in fact, the cream of the > emerging science and military-led geoengineering lobby with a few > neutrals chucked in to give it an air of political sobriety. It includes > former ambassadors, an assistant secretary of state, academics, and a > chief US climate negotiator. > > Notable among the group is David Whelan, a man who spent years in the US > defence department working on the stealth bomber and nuclear weapons and > who now leads a group of people as Boeing's chief scientist working on > "ways to find new solutions to world's most challenging problems". > > There are signs of cross US-UK pollination - one member of the taskforce > is John Shepherd, who recently wrote for the Guardian: "I've concluded > that geoengineering research - and I emphasise the term research - is, > sadly, necessary." But he cautioned: "what we really need is more and > better information. The only way to get that information is through > appropriate research." > > It also includes several of geoengineering's most powerful academic > cheerleaders. Atmosphere scientist Ken Caldeira, from Stanford > University, used to work at the National laboratory at Livermore with > the people who developed the ill-fated "star wars" weapons. Together > with David Keith, a researcher at the University of Calgary in Canada, > who is also on the BPC panel, Caldeira manages billionaire Bill Gates's > geoengineering research budget. Both scientists have patents pending on > geoengineering processes and both were members of of the UK Royal > Society's working group on geoengineering which in 2009 recommended more > research. Meanwhile, Keith has a company developing a machine to suck > CO2 out of the year and Caldeira has patented ideas to stop hurricanes > forming. > > In sum, this coalition of US expertise is a group of people which smell > vast potential future profits for their institutions and companies in > geo-engineering. > > Watch out. This could be the start of the next climate wars. > > -- > 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. > > -- 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.
