Hi all, More than two years ago, I submitted a message that was blocked by Andrew. FYI, I've added the original message below.
My question is, how can we best prevent that potentially important messages fail to reach group members? Cheers, Sam Carana ============ start message submitted April 2011 ============= [geo] How would you allocate US$10 million per year to most reduce climate risk? Given the scary situation in the Arctic, I would apportion parts of the $10 million to methods that promise immediate results: 1. Testing of SRM such as sulfur aerosols, bright water and marine cloud brightening. 2. Testing ways to ignite or break down methane from the sky, i.e. from airplanes or satellites. Laser beams spring to mind. Short, amplified pulses of light could be focused on hydrogen peroxide or ozone, in efforts to produce hydroxyl and oxidize as much methane as possible. 3. Building on the outcome of 2., equipping small aircraft with such technology, as well as autopilot software, GPS, LiPo batteries and with solar thin film mounted both on top of and underneath the wings. One such plane could in the first year navigate to the north of Canada and Alaska at the start of summer. In subsequent years, numerous such planes could follow, also going to other parts of the Arctic. At the end of summer, the planes could return home for a check-up and possible upgrade of the technology, to be launched again early summer the next year. There are many self-financed clubs where members build and fly remote controlled aircraft. Even a small financial incentive would give them a goal, while the publicity would make people more aware of the problems we face in the Arctic. Cheers! Sam Carana for background on above, also see: http://geo-engineering.blogspot.com/2011/04/runaway-global-warming.html >> From: Ken Caldeira [email protected]> >> Reply-To: [email protected]> >> >> Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 08:08:25 -0700 >> To: Google Group [email protected]> >> Subject: [geo] How would you allocate US$10 million per year to most >> reduce climate risk? >> >> >> >> >> >> Folks, >> >> There is some discussion in DC about making some small amount of public >> funds available to support SRM and CDR research. >> >> In today's funding climate, it is much more likely that someone might be >> given authority to re-allocate existing budgets than that they would >> actually be given significantly more money for this effort. Thus, the modest >> scale. >> >> >> If you were doing strategic planning for a US federal agency, and you were >> told that you had a budget of $10 million per year and that you should >> maximize the amount of climate risk reduction obtainable with that $10 >> million, what would you allocate it to and why? >> >> >> Best, >> >> Ken >> >> ___________________________________________________ >> 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 ============ end message submitted April 2011 ============= -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
