Relatedly, does this mean that Clive is not himself profiting from his anti-geoengineering crusade? G
>________________________________ > From: Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> >To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >Cc: geoengineering <[email protected]> >Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 4:42 PM >Subject: Re: [geo] Geoengineering is no place for corporate profit making. >Hamilton. Guardian. > > > > >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. > > > -- 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.
