Hi All
Does this mean that anyone can put any amount of any substance into the
common atmosphere, even substances which are known to be dangerous, if
this increases world temperatures but not substances which reduce them?
Or does it mean that you can do what you like if you are ignorant of the
effects but not if you have studied then as carefully as you can?
Or does it mean that you can emit nasty stuff if it makes money for you
and hurts a majority of people but you cannot emit harmless stuff which
costs you money but helps a majority?
Stephen
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
Institute for Energy Systems
School of Engineering
Mayfield Road
University of Edinburgh EH9 3JL
Scotland
Tel +44 131 650 5704
Mobile 07795 203 195
www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs
On 18/04/2012 17:13, Rau, Greg wrote:
Should/could this logic extend to CDR? Why (not)? - Greg
Researchers warn that technology that could stop global warming must stay out
of private hands
Anne C. Mulkern, E&E reporter
Published: Wednesday, April 18, 2012
LAGUNA NIGUEL, Calif. -- Researchers working on a technology they say could
stop global warming want the government to keep it out of private hands, a lead
investigator said this week.
David Keith, a Harvard University professor and an adviser on energy to
Microsoft founder Bill Gates, said he and his colleagues are researching
whether the federal government could ban patents in the field of solar
radiation.
The technology, also known as geoengineering, involves a kind of manipulation
of the climate. Shooting sulfur -- a reflective material -- into the
stratosphere could compensate for the warming effect of carbon dioxide and cool
the planet, Keith said.
It could be very effective but also has the potential to provoke conflict
between nations, Keith said.
"This is technology that allows any country to affect the whole climate in gigantic ways,
which has literally potential to lead to wars," Keith said. "It has this sort of giant
and frightening leverage."
Keith spoke about the technology and his work on climate and energy Monday at
Fortune magazine's Brainstorm Green conference. The Harvard professor of
applied physics and public policy runs the philanthropic Fund for Innovative
Energy and Climate Research.
Gates began funding that group out of his personal wealth after meeting with
Keith and other advisers on climate. The fund, which has spent $4.6 million
since 2007, is bankrolling the research into solar radiation.
Keith began studying solar radiation about 20 years ago, "when no one else was working on
it," he said. Now others are investigating it, "the taboo has been broken and there's
suddenly a fair amount of research happening and people are beginning to think more seriously about
it."
Could the government ban patents?
With people talking about it more openly, some researchers believe it's time to
make sure precautions are taken to prevent international conflict. Some of his
colleagues last week traveled to Washington, D.C., where they discussed whether
the U.S. Patent Office could ban patents on the technology, Keith said.
"We think it's very dangerous for these solar radiation technologies, it's dangerous to have
it be privatized," Keith said. "The core technologies need to be public domain."
Those familiar with patent rules, he said, described it as mostly uncharted territory.
"There's not much legal precedent," Keith said. "Nuclear weapons are a partial
precedent." The United States could not ban patents in other countries but has influence, he
explained.
"Patents are mostly symbolic in this area anyways," he said. "The issue is to try
and find ways to lower potential tensions between countries around these technologies by sending
signals that it's going to be as transparent as possible."
In addition to potentially stoking international political problems, the
technology carries other risks. The particles could hold the Earth's
temperatures constant, Keith said, but that has side effects.
"If you keep increasing the amount of carbon dioxide, and you keep also increasing the
amount of sulfur in the stratosphere, you can hold the surface temperature constant,"
Keith said. "All sorts of other things begin to go more and more wrong as you have more
and more CO2 in the atmosphere.
"So this is not a perfect substitute," Keith said, "but it might be a very effective
way to reduce risk over the next half-century."
The work on solar radiation is one part of energy research Keith is involved
in. He also runs a startup called Carbon Engineering, which is trying to build
the hardware to capture carbon out of the air. The company has received about
$3.5 million from Gates and has spent about $6 million total.
Lack of a broad social consensus
At the conference, where many are talking about innovations, Keith warned that
those won't be enough on their own to stop climate change from becoming a
severe problem.
"No technical fix solves this problem without some sort of broad, social consensus that
the problem is worth solving," Keith said. "I don't think we're there yet.
"It's not a question of if the politicians are screwing up," he added. "Yes, they
are, but really, we have not convinced enough of our fellow citizens that they really should take
this problem seriously."
That involves getting people to think about their great-grandchildren as well
as people in other countries, he said.
Keith also spoke critically about what the country has done so far on climate.
People are involved in symbolic actions instead of meaningful ones, he said,
like focusing on producing better plastic instead of looking at the really big
sources of carbon emissions, like airplane travel.
In the United States, about $260 billion in public and private dollars was spent last
year on clean energy, which is about 0.4 percent of gross domestic product, Keith said.
With that kind of spending, "you should expect to really see the brakes go on"
greenhouse gas levels.
"Except emissions were up 7 percent in 2010 and almost certainly more last
year," Keith said.
That means either that the view that cutting emissions should be easy is wrong, or that
the way the money has been spent is not effective, he said, "or both."
--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
--
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.
