Andrew, It is helpful. However, the argument *against* seems weak and overblown, while the argument *for* seems relevant and largely accurate. Scientific research by *governments*, even democratic ones, has often unleashed "a chain of events which affects the future of humanity by the very existence of the knowledge revealed" - in potentially negative, possibly cataclysmic ways, and also in highly beneficial, positive ways, and sometimes both together. Consider the development of nuclear technology, biotechnology, even the development of the mining technology, transport technology such as railways, and engineering that has allowed us to burn vast quantities of fossil fuels. None of those were "crowd funded", and yet all three have the potential to either destroy the environment and/or wipe out the human race. Democratic government control of scientific development funding does not ensure safety. Hence the argument that crowd-sourced funding would be more dangerous doesn't seem to hold water.
I'm not aware of the costs to fully deploy the range of geoengineering solutions that have been proposed. Some of them may be quite expensive, others relatively cheap. But in general, it seems to me that the availability of funds will always act as a significant restraining moderator. To me, crowdfunding seems completely safe for projects where there is no danger to the environment as a whole and/or where full deployment would cost significant sums of money. That may include the majority of proposals out there. One argument against that has not been mentioned is that the organization managing a geoengineering crowdfunding initiative may likely become a target for both criticism and legal action. The only mitigating response I can think of would be to fill the board with lawyers with a passion for the environment that are willing to defend the organization without pay. Are such people difficult to find? Either that, or be prepared to commit a significant amount of the funds raised to legal fees - or avoid potentially controversial projects (but then we are undermining one of the main purposes of crowdfunding to begin with). Just because an experiment is "safe" in the natural world does not mean it is safe from legal attack. So I don't think we can get around opposition with crowdfunding. In fact, I'm sure we can't. Hence, the statement in the argument *for* - "With many small, safe geoengineering experiments available, both in the lab and outdoors, researchers can sidestep the quangos and get on with the science" - seems too naive to me, broadly applied to any organization that might have a bone to pick, rational or not, with an environmental initiative. Sometimes these bone pickers are well monied and organized. Actually *funding* of geoengineering research would draw them out of the woodwork. I would very much appreciate any feedback as to specific types of geoengineering experiments that would be environmentally dangerous to undertake *and* cheap, ones that would not be constrained by limited funding. Again, I broadly assume that anything that would actually affect the climate would require *significant *funding, billions to trillions of dollars. Kickstarter projects have sometimes raise a few million bucks, so my assumption would be that this would be the upper limit we might be looking at crowdfunding geoengineering research, to put a reasonable number on it. The argument *against* above seems to state that there are experiments which could potentially negatively affect climate that would be much cheaper to undertake than billions or trillions. Is a few million dollars enough to negatively affect climate in a geoengineering experiment gone wrong? If so, specifically what type of experiment might that be? Science has *already* opened Pandora's box. I'm sure a few million dollars is enough to open it a little wider, but if we argue against that, then we are arguing against all scientific research. To me, the only way to close Pandora's box is to eliminate all research and all scientific advances from the world - live like the Amish, at least. That's not going to happen by * choice*, so practically, I think we should leave the "Pandora's box" matter out of the the reasoning here, because it applies to all of scientific advancement, and confine ourselves to a narrower question: Is a few million dollars enough to negatively affect climate in a geoengineering experiment gone wrong? If so, specifically what type of experiment might that be? Any feedback about how to legally protect an organization managing a geoengineering crowdfunding initiative would also be very much appreciated. Kind regards, Nando On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 1:17 AM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]>wrote: > Members may be interested in http://www.petridish.org/ - a service to > invite 'crowdsourced' public funding for research projects. > Geoengineering is often in the public eye, and the small sums required > for research may be available from the crowd. I'm sure that group > members have their own ideas on projects, but some which spring to my > mind are the testing of 'Brightwater' and the measurement of the > effect of ocean iron fertilization on sea surface albedo. > > I am sure that crowdfunding of geoengineering will attract a degree of > controversy. To aid debate, I've set out a draft 'for' and 'against' > argument below. > > FOR > Geoengineering offers the opportunity to take radical action to tackle > climate change. It is also controversial. The electoral cycle of > democratic states, which tend to be the leaders in science, cause > politicians to shy away from tough decisions which risk popular > backlash. Likewise, wealthy individuals and institutions which may > seek to fund such research remain concerned by this potential public > disapproval. Sadly, geoengineering research is therefore trapped in a > politically inconvenient hole. Despite the promise of the technology > to control the worst effects of climate change, funding is minimal, > and mired in controversy at every stage. Even experiments which have > no effect on the climate system, such as SPICE, have been pushed onto > the back burner by a bureaucracy more focussed on avoiding > career-ending clashes than in preparing for a climate disaster. The > risk of the current impasse is that politicians will deploy > geoengineering in a panic, with inadequate research, or may miss the > opportunity to prevent an otherwise certain disaster. Crowdfunding > allows early action to depoliticise the situation. With many small, > safe geoengineering experiments available, both in the lab and > outdoors, researchers can sidestep the quangos and get on with the > science. This will help ensure that any future decision to deploy or > not is taken with the benefit of the best possible science, giving > mankind the greatest possible change of avoiding a climate disaster. > Oversight will always be available through the legal system, and > ultimate decisions on deployment will remain in the hands of > governments. We have nothing to lose but our ignorance. > > AGAINST > If ever there was a poster child for avoiding crowdfunding in science, > then geoengineering is it. Research into this technology sets in > place a chain of events which affects the future of humanity by the > very existence of the knowledge revealed. Adam cannot un-eat the > apple. Keanu Reeves cannot forget the Matrix. We fund science > publicly because we wish to regulate its excesses as surely as we wish > to capture its benefits. Science is not inherently good or bad, and > thus there is a degree of democratic control in the current funding > system. Whilst imperfect, the research councils perform two crucial > democratic functions: to control science, and to appear to control > science. Both are vital in a democracy. We cannot allow scientists > to develop powerful technologies, potentially useful to maverick > individuals, rogue states or terrorists, without proper control. > Research which is based on a funding pool attracted from fanatics and > radicals flies in the face of this control. When funding is denied, > it is because the democratic system makes a willful and specific > decision not to fund such research. We should not allow scientists to > appeal to naive private funders, and the positively malevolent, to > fund unsavoury projects. This is especially so where the research > hands the keys to the climate system to the highest bidder, or when > the research itself threatens the stability of the climate system. We > cannot even be sure that the knowledge and control afforded by this > experimentation would make it into the public domain. Even if we had > such unattainable transparency, we must still insist that research > which sets humanity on a specific path remains firmly constrained by > the accountability to institutional funders. Whilst some > geoengineering research is currently aided by benefactors, the > traceability and public position of these supporters is at least a > poor analogue of democratic oversight. With crowdfunding, we enter a > research agenda which is no better controlled than a street fight. > Regardless of the desires of the individuals involved, society rightly > does not allow men to fight in the street. If geoengineers wish to > develop their discipline, they must do so in the boxing ring, and must > submit to the authority of the referee. > > I hope that's helpful. > > A > > -- > 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. > > -- Nando Breiter *Aria Media via Rompada 40 6987 Caslano Switzerland * -- 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.
