A key difference is the ability of a small number of actors to make a big difference.
Many think that a primary risk with SRM is a small number of rogue actors acting without a broad consensus. With emissions reduction and most forms of CO2 removal from the atmosphere, the main concern is that nobody is acting sufficiently. Direct Air Capture does not present a significant "rogue actor risk". On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Rau, Greg <[email protected]> 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." > > -- > 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.
