In the light of Ron's comments, I should amend my statment: With rare exception, all publicly funded research should be open and transparent, make underlying data available, be sensitive to social needs and concerns, seek to minimize risk, seek appropriate public input, etc. In this regard, there is nothing exceptional about geoengineering research.
On Thursday, August 21, 2014, Ronal W. Larson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[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. > S**o 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; p**opulation 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] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab > https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira > > Assistant: Dawn Ross <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[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] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','geoengineering%[email protected]');> > . > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > -- _______________ 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.
