To be fair to Clive, all investors see themselves winning from ventures, or they wouldn't make them. What's perhaps more unfair from his statement is the implicit criticism of those profiting from disaster and misery.
Strange that nobody levels that criticism at investors in makers of ambulances, airliner black boxes, computer security software, locksmiths, etc. Geoengineering is just another service, procured by the government, from profit making companies, to keep society ticking along nicely. They all need patents, profits, and other benefits of the rule of law in a mercantile society. Nothing unusual or worthy of criticism,here. Our moral panic would be misguided if it were focussed on this aspect of geoengineering. Furthermore, the criticism of a perceived conflict of interest is replicated in many other public service contracts. For example: in the UK, prison and probation services can be run by the same firm. Do companies in such positions really try to fail at probation so they can fill prisons? I'm not convinced, even though I can see the theoretical risk. My guess is that firms are far more interested in retaining contracts than in deceptively inflating their value by a small amount - much like a village shop owner doesn't gain anything by short-changing customers. A On 18 Feb 2015 00:42, "Ken Caldeira" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Also, it is bad form for Clive to be discussing how specific people > 'perhaps see themselves' when he has absolutely no idea how they see > themselves. > > How would Clive like it if people wrote about how Clive Hamilton 'perhaps > sees himself'? > > > On Tuesday, February 17, 2015, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Poster's note : I rarely find myself in agreement with Clive, and this >> piece is no exception. I don't see why there can't be a market in SRM >> services, just like there's a market for train operators or fighter jets. >> In fact, it's hard for me to see why the state would be a natural choice to >> operate geoengineering machinery at all. The fuel and mining firms >> cautioned against here would seem a natural set of partners for CDR - with >> the right scale, expertise, and financial clout to get the job done >> reliably and safely. >> >> Geoengineering is no place for corporate profit making >> >> http://gu.com/p/45pq8 >> >> Clive Hamilton >> Published: 14:36 GMT Tue 17 February 2015 >> >> If you want to make money out of global warming invest in energy >> efficiency and renewable energy companies, says Clive Hamilton >> >> Geoengineering: it could be a money-making opportunity for business >> >> “Save the world and make a little cash on the side.” That’s the motto of >> Russ George, the colourful entrepreneur behind Planktos Science who wants >> to put geoengineering into practice now. George is convinced that by adding >> iron sulphate to the oceans, he can stimulate plankton blooms and so suck >> enough carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere to offset human emissions from >> burning coal and oil. >> >> In 2007, backed by a Canadian real estate developer, the Planktos ship >> set sail from San Francisco bound for the Galapagos Islands and loaded up >> with iron sulphate. George was going to make a killing by selling carbon >> offsets to whoever wanted them. >> >> George believed, and told whoever asked, that ocean fertilization could >> become a $100bn business and hinted to journalist Jeff Goodell that >> America’s biggest coal-burning utility was interested in buying his carbon >> credits. >> >> US businessman defends controversial geoengineering experiment >> The venture soon collapsed, leaving a cloud of mistrust hanging over all >> research into iron fertilisation. Not long after Russ George set the >> regulatory alarm bells ringing, the London Convention, which regulates >> ocean dumping, and the Convention on Biological Diversity both passed >> resolutions banning iron fertilisation experiments except under restrictive >> conditions. >> >> Rogue geoengineers like Russ George drive respectable researchers crazy, >> not to mention those business people who think there really are profits to >> be had from a plan B. On this question, last week’s report by the US >> National Research Council (NRC) stresses that carbon dioxide removal is >> expensive and limited by “technical immaturity”. >> >> A range of companies have identified business opportunities in >> technologies designed to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and >> store it somewhere more or less permanently. Those who believe they can >> profit from carbon credits because polluters with emission caps will pay >> for them point to the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism, which >> allows parties to meet their emission reduction obligations by paying >> developing countries to grow forests onto land cleared long ago. >> >> More trees means more carbon dioxide soaked up in vegetation rather than >> in the air, at least for a time. However, worried about the verifiability >> and permanency of carbon dioxide stored in trees, the European Union does >> not allow credits generated that way to be traded in its emissions trading >> scheme. >> >> Geoengineering: it could be a money-making opportunity for business >> And the commercial promise of other methods of carbon dioxide removal is >> likely to be very limited. Credits for using giant machines to remove the >> gas are not likely to be accepted internationally for a long time, if at >> all, not least because the industrial infrastructure needed for extraction >> would need to be about as big as the infrastructure that puts it there – >> oil wells, coal mines, railways, pipelines, power plants, refineries and so >> on. >> >> Neverthless “air capture” technologies are being developed by firms like >> Carbon Engineering, a Canadian company founded by Harvard physicist and >> geoengineering enthusiast David Keith. They are ventures looking for a >> rationale, but that has not stopped Alberta oil sands billionaire N Murray >> Edwards and Bill Gates from investing in the company. >> >> The prospects are awful when fossil fuel companies play both sides of the >> fence – oil companies such as Shell and ConocoPhillips have also put money >> into geoengineering. Is it ethical for the polluters to promote >> technologies that may allow them to continue to pollute? >> >> If the promises made by geoengineering erode the political incentives >> requiring polluters to cut their emissions, will we see fossil fuel >> corporations begin lobbying to get political endorsement for climate >> modification? >> >> The ethical and political difficulties deepen when we get to the other >> kind of geoengineering scheme reviewed in the NRC report, “albedo >> modification” – formerly known as solar radiation management – schemes to >> reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. >> >> No one will ever make money out of trading emission reduction credits in >> global dimming. But some commercial outfits can envisage a desperate world >> paying them princely sums for access to the technology for doing it. >> >> There have been a flurry of patents being issued, 28 at the last count, >> including one for a hose suspended by blimps in the sky that would spray >> sulphate aerosols. Branded the StratoShield it’s owned by a firm named >> Intellectual Ventures, which markets the device as “a practical, low-cost >> way to reverse catastrophic warming of the Arctic – or the entire planet.” >> >> Among the investors in Intellectual Ventures who perhaps see themselves >> making a motza from planetary catastrophe are Nathan Myhrvold, formerly >> chief technology officer at Microsoft, and Bill Gates himself. If the >> future of the world comes to depend on the Stratoshield, will they play >> hardball? >> >> So here’s the bottom line: if you want to make money out of global >> warming invest in energy efficiency and renewable energy companies. They >> are guaranteed winners and your children will not hate you for it.. >> >> -- >> 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. >> > > > -- > _______________ > Ken Caldeira > > Carnegie Institution for Science > Dept of Global Ecology > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > +1 650 704 7212 [email protected] > website: http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/ > blog: http://kencaldeira.org > @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.
