Ken and List
This is to try to put a CDR twist onto your questions. (Actually
arguing here only for afforestation/reforestation and biochar - but probably
can include some others.)
Inserts below.
On Aug 21, 2014, at 3:00 AM, Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> wrote:
> I heard much more talk at CEC14 about reducing risk posed by attempts to
> reduce risk from climate change than I heard about attempts to reduce risk
> from climate change.
[RWL: Possibly this is because this was predominantly an SRM, not CDR
conference. Risk "posed by attempts" is not a theme at biochar conferences.
The biochar risk is and should be with the user - who can easily take
precautions.
>
> There was what seemed to me to be a dangerous meme of geoengineering
> exceptionalism, that for some reason geoengineering research should be
> treated differently than other forms of research.
[RWL: I can understand "exceptionalism" - as I can't think of any
bigger global problem than temperature rise. Again concern for use of the word
"geoengineering"- not "SRM".
>
> With rare exception, shouldn't all research, especially publicly funded
> research, be open and transparent, make underlying data available, be
> sensitive to social needs and concerns, seek to minimize risk, seek
> appropriate public input, etc? There is nothing exceptional about
> geoengineering research.
[RWL: Corporate (and some university and government) researchers
practice a good bit of secrecy - to gain economic or other advantage. There
are plenty of patent applications in the biochar world (maybe some in
afforestation/reforestation). It is Intellectual Property which is going to
get us out of this mess - at least on the CDR side of geoengineering. So I
believe it probably best to keep the global patent system in place.
Good corporate research will include the last three items in your list
- while mostly, I believe, ignoring the first two.
I recently heard Dean Kamen (Segway, etc) plead (House Science
Committee on strengthening STEM education) for stronger patent law.
You are correct on the desirability of handling SRM research in an open
(patent-free?) manner - especially (as you point out) when Government funded.
But will we really get corporate buy-in that way? Is your recommendation
practical? I worked for a Government funding group once - and regularly heard
that the best ideas would avoid Government funding.
So, I am saying openness in R&D is not needed for at least some CDR
approaches. Definitely openness is needed for proof of performance.
Commercial entities, driven by profit motives, seem our best bet - at least in
CDR areas. And Government funding should be encouraged for all forms of
Geoengineering. I am only saying that all geoengineering research need not be
open. That some CDR (biochar) progress will be hindered by such a
demand/requirement.
>
> I started out the meeting asking two questions:
>
> 1. What is the problem?
> 2. What is so special?
>
> My answer to the first question is that the problem is how to reduce risk
> from climate change.
[RWL: As argued above, I vote for reducing climate change (attacking
the root cause: excess anthropogenic atmospheric carbon) - not just reducing
the risk (indemnification?, insurance?) Yes, risk emphasis is appropriate for
SRM, but not necessarily CDR.
>
> My answer to the second question is that there is nothing special about
> geoengineering research -- let's see an end to 'geoengineering
> exceptionalism'.
RWL: Again, I mostly answered above in the negative. Geoengineering
research seems special because no problem is more serious and we are going in
exactly the wrong direction. We agree on how to handle most global problems,
even if not being done; population issues are even getting better - a plateau
is happening. But not how to stop global warming. Your calling for
(presumably patent-free) open SRM (which I think you meant) research is
therefore special. It becomes special for CDR when you use the term
"geoengineering". I can't think of any other area of public concern (Ebola
virus being a current scare example, where future profits has likely been
behind the limited research) where openness in R&D is recommended and rapid
progress is also being made.
Ron
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> _______________
> Ken Caldeira
>
> Carnegie Institution for Science
> Dept of Global Ecology
> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
> +1 650 704 7212 [email protected]
> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab
> https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira
>
> Assistant: Dawn Ross <[email protected]>
>
>
>
> --
> 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.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
