Folks,

On Wednesday, I got an email from the Guardian's business section asking if
I could knock out 800 words on business opportunities in geoengineering on
a tight deadline.

So, I spent about 45 minutes writing something I thought they could use,
and then about 15 minutes the next morning going over their edit.

My main points were that there is no obvious substantial pot of money to be
made in solar geoengineering, and the near-term profit opportunities for
industrialized direct air capture probably have little to do with reducing
climate risk, and probably a lot to do with helping oil companies pump more
oil or helping powerful military organizations to drop more bombs.

Somehow this got put under the headline of "Geoengineering: It could be a
money-making opportunity for business" which does not really reflect the
main thrust of my comments.  People who don't bother to try to understand
what I actually say don't get that I am saying that there is little
near-term profit potential in the forms of geoengineering I consider.

Given only 800 words, one cannot hope to be comprehensive, so please do not
tell me all the things I failed to say.

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/feb/11/climate-engineering-money-opportunity-business

If carbon prices get high enough and the cost of carbon dioxide removal
from the atmosphere could be made low enough, there may be potential for
profit in the business of removing carbon dioxide. In contrast, it is hard
to see how substantial profits can be made from global-scale albedo
modification efforts.

...

If we think society will get serious about the climate problem soon, then
investing in near-zero emission energy technologies could be the winning
ticket. Unfortunately, the global community is not terribly serious about
reducing emissions, and much venture capital has been lost on creative new
start-ups in the energy sector. The longer we take to transform our energy
system so it no longer uses the sky as a waste dump, the more likely that
we will have to rely on climate intervention technologies.

Best,

Ken

_______________
Ken Caldeira

Carnegie Institution for Science
Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
+1 650 704 7212 [email protected]
http://kencaldeira.com
https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira

My assistant is Dawn Ross <[email protected]>, with access to
incoming emails.

-- 
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.

Reply via email to