In all fairness, you might add to your list the notion that neoliberal economics has social and philosophical elements as well as the profit motive; in the last four decades the combination of the three has greatly amplified the problem we find ourselves in. While it is true that the profit motive can reasonably be assigned a lot of the shorter term credit for the global rises in living standards during the industrial revolution, it has little or no credit for developments that since the mid-19th century were sponsored by governments to exercise some amelioration of the worst excesses. Recently, the Montreal Protocol has successfully counteracted the loss of stratospheric ozone. It was contested all the way by the chemical industry until it dawned on the better managed companies that the money was in replacements and not in maintaining a nearly saturated market at steady state. The evidence was clear, too. It’s an interesting development that leaders who implemented neoliberal economic policies (Thatcher, Reagan, Bush41 etc.) in the 1980s signed up to the Montreal Protocol. Of course the warming/fossil fuels problem is at least two orders of magnitude greater economically, but surely there’s more to the sea change than just that. What, though? The evidence for man made warming via fossil fuels is as clear as the ozone loss was in the period 1987 onwards, so it’s not the scientific uncertainty.
Adrian Tuck 'ATMOSPHERIC TURBULENCE: A Molecular Dynamics Perspective'. Oxford University Press, 2008. ISBN 978-0-19-923653-4. http://www.oup.com/uk/catalogue/?ci=9780199236534 *************************************************** On 20 Feb 2015, at 12:44, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote: > My apologies to anyone who perceived a specific or general ad hominem attack. > > However, I do feel that it's important to have a rational discussion about > the role of private profit in geoengineering. > > It is notable that (in all likelihood) the majority of people in this debate > are paid in some way by the public/3rd sector purse. There's a risk that > private sector perspectives and experiences are therefore lacking. Diversity > in economic and organisational models is as important as gender or country > diversity. We should actively try to encourage fresh voices. > > To further debate, I've listed a set of statements which people can evidence > or attack. All of these are written from neo-liberal perspective. They do not > necessarily represent my personal view. > > 1) The pace of geoengineering innovation will be faster with strong IP and a > profit motive > 2) Competition between firms will ensure that several alternative > geoengineering systems will be commercially available, keeping pricing > competitive and quality high. > 3) Regulation of geoengineering will be more robust when there's a clear > division between client (the state) and contractor (eg Lockheed Martin). > 4) Private firms will quickly make geoengineering technology available at > scale once they know a potential client exists. This will be faster than any > state deployment could be. > 5) Shareholder pressure for stable profits will ensure ongoing pressure on > quality/reliability, to avoid litigation and scandal. > 6) Separation between the academic community and contractors will ensure a > creative tension between execution and modelling/monitoring functions. > > I look forward to a robust debate. > > A > On 20 Feb 2015 12:10, "J.L. Reynolds" <[email protected]> wrote: > Andrew and I had an off-list exchange about his comment that “Far too much of > this debate strikes me as hand wringing socialist rhetoric, not actual > analysis of how successful innovation occurs.” Andrew wrote that this was not > about me per se, and asked me to share my thoughts on the list. My sense is > that (somewhat echoing Ken here) if we do not want others to make presumptive > statements about our underlying motives, then we should follow the same > practice ourselves. Yes, I generally believe that much (but not all) of the > controversy about climate engineering is echoes underlying and divergent > worldviews, but I will try to focus on the facts and evidence at hand. > > > > -Jesse > > > > ----------------------------------------- > > Jesse L. Reynolds, PhD > > Postdoctoral researcher > > Research funding coordinator, sustainability and climate > > European and International Public Law > > Tilburg Sustainability Center > > Tilburg University, The Netherlands > > Book review editor, Law, Innovation, and Technology > > email: [email protected] > > http://works.bepress.com/jessreyn/ > > > > From: Andrew Lockley [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 18 February 2015 11:13 > To: J.L. Reynolds > Cc: geoengineering > Subject: RE: [geo] Geoengineering is no place for corporate profit making. > Hamilton. Guardian. > > > > Again, I don't agree that there's a clear case for prohibition/reduction of > private ownership of IP in geoengineering. One can imagine all manner of > distribution and monitoring equipment that may be needed, and the profit > motive is important for their development. > > Take Salter's ships as an example. He currently develops them without > personal gain AFAIK, but what if this were not the case? Can we properly say > to someone that they should give up paid work to toil on geoengineering for > free? What if they are only scraping by in low paid employment, and trying to > raise a family? I believe that's a nonsense argument. We may want to have a > world free of geoengineering IP, but in practice that may mean slow, > expensive development (80's NASA) at the expense of cheap, nimble, focussed > innovation (Space X). > > Far too much of this debate strikes me as hand wringing socialist rhetoric, > not actual analysis of how successful innovation occurs. > > When the world tried public control of innovation with cars, we got the > trabant. When we allowed private profit, we got the tesla. > > I'll take the tesla. > > On 18 Feb 2015 08:46, "J.L. Reynolds" <[email protected]> wrote: > > There are good reasons why society should (to some degree) prohibit private > enterprise from profiting from solar climate engineering. Granted, as a > general rule, private actors are more efficient that the state. Thus, even > when the overall endeavor in question is the provision of a non-excludable > good or service (which typically are and should be provided by the state), > such as defense or police protection or flood protection, then private > contractors are often involved in the actual delivery of certain goods or > services essential to that overall endeavor (military equipment or police > cars or levee construction). However, when the costs of decisions which > unduly favor particular private actors at the expense of the public interest > are widely spread (via higher taxes and poorer services) and the benefits are > tightly concentrated (via lucrative contracts), then public decision makers > are susceptible to capture by private actors. For example, in Andrew’s other > email, he pointed toward private prisons, which in the US have influenced > policy making in order to increase incarceration. > > > > Solar climate engineering would be such a non-excludable service. Here, the > stakes for the public’s welfare are very high (on the order of trillions of > dollars) whereas those of the potential private contractors (e.g. the > hypothetical Stratospheric Injection services Inc) are much lower (still, on > the order of tens of billions) but still quite significant. One could argue > that the former are great enough that democratic mechanisms, despite their > flaws, would prevent this sort of regulatory capture. However, the potential > inefficiencies from a state-operated or managed enterprise are much lower > than the potential social welfare losses which would result from either (1) > undue influence and capture by the private contractors, or (2) the widespread > perception of such influence and capture preventing the research, > development, and implementation of solar climate engineering, assuming this > path would be warranted. This is why private patents in SRM be prohibited. > > > > Of course, at some level private industry will benefit. If the state operates > the machinery, then it must by the machines. If the states builds the > machines, it must buy the materials. Etc. > > > > -Jesse > > > > ----------------------------------------- > > Jesse L. Reynolds, PhD > > Postdoctoral researcher > > Research funding coordinator, sustainability and climate > > European and International Public Law > > Tilburg Sustainability Center > > Tilburg University, The Netherlands > > Book review editor, Law, Innovation, and Technology > > email: [email protected] > > http://works.bepress.com/jessreyn/ > > > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley > Sent: 17 February 2015 22:38 > To: geoengineering > Subject: [geo] Geoengineering is no place for corporate profit making. > Hamilton. Guardian. > > > > 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. > > > -- > 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.
