Wow, what a depressing paper! I thought geo-engineers truly had the
survival of humankind in mind with the employment of geo-engeneering as
the very last straw to try to save us from catastrophe in case we are
just too stupid to change in time (which we seem to be, unfortunately).
I am interested what the community here says to that paper. Is it true
that the main interest is to prolong the time to go on as usual?
Thanks!
Maiken
Am 31.10.2022 um 16:26 schrieb Andrew Lockley:
https://www.solargeoeng.org/economic-interests-and-ideologies-behind-solar-geoengineering-research-in-the-united-states/
Economic interests and ideologies behind solar geoengineering
research in the United States
* KEVIN SURPRISE AND J.P. SAPINSKI
<https://www.solargeoeng.org/author/kevinandjp/>
* October 27, 2022
/Solar geoengineering research – also discussed as solar radiation
management or stratospheric aerosol injection – is often thought of as
a futuristic climate emergency measure, or as a tool of the fossil
fuel industry to push back energy transitions as much as possible. In
this post, we show that solar geoengineering is mostly now supported
by interests aligned with technology and financial sectors, and
advanced by researchers as a key part of near-term climate policy.
This blog is based on a recent paper by the authors, which can be
found here
<https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/03098168221114386>, with
pdf here: Whose climate intervention? Solar geoengineering, fractions
of capital, and hegemonic strategy.
<https://www.academia.edu/89265578/Whose_climate_intervention_Solar_geoengineering_fractions_of_capital_and_hegemonic_strategy>/
There is a persistent false dichotomy animating the politics of solar
geoengineering. On one hand, proponents of research and development
argue that solar geoengineering could serve as both a near-term
intervention to reduce climate impacts for the most vulnerable, and a
way to “buy time” for mitigation, adaptation, and carbon removal to
take effect. On the other hand, critics tend to couch solar
geoengineering as nothing but a smokescreen to perpetuate fossil
fueled
<https://www.ciel.org/reports/fuel-to-the-fire-how-geoengineering-threatens-to-entrench-fossil-fuels-and-accelerate-the-climate-crisis-feb-2019/#:~:text=Click%20to%20read.-,Fuel%20to%20the%20Fire%3A%20How%20Geoengineering%20Threatens%20to%20Entrench%20Fossil,and%20promoting%20key%20geoengineering%20technologies.> business-as-usual
<http://www.etcgroup.org/content/big-bad-fix>. The truth lies
somewhere in between (though critics are much closer to the mark).
That is, solar geoengineering is not a humanitarian endeavor, nor is
it a direct ploy by the fossil fuel industry. It is being advanced –
funded, researched, and governed – by institutions and individuals
broadly aligned with or connected to Silicon Valley and Wall Street,
so-called green capitalists within the technology and financial
industries operating under ideologies of philanthrocapitalism
<https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/may/24/the-trouble-with-charitable-billionaires-philanthrocapitalism> (or
effective altruism) and ecomodernism <http://www.ecomodernism.org/>.
Solar geoengineering is being advanced by these interests as a way to
“buy time” for the same staid, gradual, neoliberal climate policies
that have failed for decades
<https://www.openbookpublishers.com/books/10.11647/obp.0265>: market
mechanisms, policy tweaks, and technological innovations. There
appears to be a faction within climate politics willing to push for
extreme, potentially dangerous, likely centuries-long technological
interventions to alter the climate system so that we can ultimately
change…nothing at all. Or, more accurately, to actively save
capitalism from a climate crisis of its own making
<https://www.resilience.org/stories/2021-10-13/solving-the-climate-crisis-requires-the-end-of-capitalism/>.
We explore this paradox in a recent
<https://doi.org/10.1177/03098168221114386> paper
<https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/ebwqn> examining the funding sources,
political-economic alignments, and ideologies driving the development
of solar geoengineering in the United States. Between 2008 and 2018,
total global funding for solar geoengineering remained relatively low,
with European governments (e.g. the EU, Germany, and the UK) spending
US$ 31.3 million on early research efforts, and private funding
(primarily in the U.S.) reaching approximately US$ 20 million in this
time frame (growing in the last several years with the expansion of
the Harvard Solar Geoengineering Research Program
<https://geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu/home> (HSGRP), new
federal funding, and recent grants from the NGO SilverLining
<https://www.silverlining.ngo/home->). We note a marked shift in the
geographical center of research beginning in 2016 with the U.S. coming
to dominate the field, and with it a proliferation of funding from
private, philanthropic, and venture capital sources (Figure 1). This
constitutes a shift not just internationally, but within the U.S.
solar geoengineering landscape as well. Whereas early
/political/ interest in solar geoengineering emanated from
climate-denying think tanks and politicians backed by the fossil fuel
industry, recent funding and support derives from foundations and
individuals with ties to technology and financial firms, many of which
have a demonstrated record of environmental philanthropy.
Philanthropic funding for solar geoengineering in the U.S. revolves
around a core group of seven organizations that have funded two or
more solar geoengineering research projects in recent years. Table 1
lists these seven organizations, their key corporate connections, and
solar geoengineering initiatives they fund.
/Figure 1. The global network of solar geoengineering funding/
//
/Color key: Blue = United States, Red = Canada, Orange = United
Kingdom, Green = Germany, Yellow = India, Pink = China, White =
undetermined.
Shapes key: Circle = solar geoengineering research project, Diamond =
philanthropic foundation, Up triangle = private firm, Down triangle =
think tank, Hourglass = NGO or university research center, Square =
state, Box = individual.
Shape size: Number of projects funded.
Sources: Necheles et al.
<https://geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu/blog/funding-solar-geoengineering> and
authors’ data./
/Table 1. Leading private funders of solar geoengineering/
Funding organization Description/Background Solar geoengineering
initiatives fundeda
Open Philanthropy Project Founded by Dustin Moskovitz (billionaire
co-founder of Facebook) with partner Cari Tuna, and Holden Karnofsky,
formerly of hedge fund Bridgewater Associates. Board includes Divesh
Mahkan, founder of ICONIQ Capital, formerly of Goldman Sachs and
Morgan Stanley – Forum on Climate Engineering Assessment (FCEA)
– HSGRP ($4.5M 2016-17)
– Solar Radiation Management – Governance Initiative (SRMGI)
– DECIMALS Fund
– UCLA Emmett Institute
Total amount: $5.76M
SilverLining Funded by venture capital firms LowerCarbon Capital and
First Round Capital; staff and board include former executives from
Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase Co. – GLENS (NCAR)
– Marine Cloud Brightening Project (MCB
– Cornell Climate Engineering
– GeoMIP
– SRMGI
Total amount: $3M
Bill Gates/ FICER FICER is Bill Gates’ personal fund for energy and
geoengineering research, administered by geoengineering researchers
Ken Caldeira and David Keith – HSGRP ($7.65M 2013-18)
– MCB ($150K)
– SRMGI ($100K)
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) Environmental NGO, many corporate
ties on board; corporate partnerships, e.g. Citigroup, GE, McDonald’s,
Shell, Tyson, Walmart – Cornell Climate Engineering
– SRMGI
Pritzker Innovation Fund Rachel Pritzker, an heir to the
multi-billionaire Pritzker family, founders of the Hyatt Hotels
Corporation – HSGRP
– SilverLining
VK Rasmussen Foundation Family foundation founded by the Swedish
inventor and businessman Villum Kann Rasmussen; funds a range of
environmental groups, some opposed to geoengineering; raises funds
from investment capital – Carnegie Climate Governance Initiative
(C2G) ($5.55M)
– FCEA
– National Academies
Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Founded by Alfred P. Sloan of General
Motors; claims $1.9 billion in assets; raises funds from investment
capital – HSGRP ($90K)
– CSPO Arizona State University ($300K)
a Amounts indicated when available. Sources: Necheles et al.
<https://geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu/blog/funding-solar-geoengineering> and
authors’ data. Values in US$.
To understand the alignment of these organizations with various
economic sectors (e.g. industrial, technological, financial,
commercial), we trace board-level interlocks with the corporate
community <https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu/wra8.html> –
governance-level connections
<https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/7t8c9/>formed when corporate
directors sit on the boards of multiple organizations. One of the
board’s roles is to decide on the broad orientations of a foundation,
including the main areas which will receive funds. Hence, in general
terms, foundation boards are charged with distributing philanthropic
capital. <https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu/wra8.html>
Data about board members’ interlocks to different economic sectors
thus show which sector(s) of the economy solar geoengineering funders
are most closely embedded. As shown in Table 2, among the 91 directors
of the top seven solar geoengineering funders, we count a total of 62
corporate interlocks: the financial sector comprises 38.7% of the
links, the commercial and services sector 24.2% and the high-tech
sector 19.4%. Among all corporations, 20 interlocks (32.3%) are to
high-tech related firms, including financial or consulting firms
providing services specifically to the high-tech sector. A mere five
interlocks (8.1%) connect solar geoengineering funders to fossil fuel
extractive firms and to carbon-linked sectors such as automotive
industries, aviation, steel production and chemical manufacturing
(Table 2).
/Table 2. Board-level interlocks between top solar geoengineering
funders and different economic sectors/
Economic sector N %
Finance, investment and real estate 24 38.7%
Commercial, advisory and misc. services 15 24.2%
Technology, equipment, software, communications 12 19.4%
Other industrial, mediated relation to fossil fuels 6 9.7%
Carbon-linked industrial 4 6.5%
Carbon extraction, processing, distribution 1 1.6%
Total 62 100.0%
Source: Authors’ data.
Another key feature of solar geoengineering funding in the U.S. is the
number of billionaires and billionaire-founded philanthropies involved
in the field. A large part of these individuals’ wealth comes from
high-tech firms including Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard, Google and
Skype; only one of 11 billionaires acquired their fortune through the
carbon extractive sector, former Enron trader John Arnold. In addition
to individual billionaires, several high net-worth individuals also
fund solar geoengineering research. For example, key funders of the
Harvard Solar Geoengineering Research Program include: G. Leonard
Baker, Jr., partner at Sutter Hill Ventures (Silicon Valley VC firm);
Howard Fischer, founder of Basso Capital Management; Ross Garon of
Millennium Capital; The Tansy Foundation, founded by Eric Wepsic, an
executive at hedge fund D. E. Shaw; and Teza Technologies, founded by
Misha Malyshev, formerly of hedge fund Citadel Investment Group and
McKinsey & Co, among others.
Solar geoengineering funding is thus comprised of a core group of
individuals and organizations with multiple ties to corporate power
either directly or via their boards of directors, /primarily in the
financial and technology capital sectors/. Among this group, we find
at least 11 billionaires or billionaire-founded philanthropies, as
well as a slew of wealthy individuals with direct ties to venture
capital firms and billionaire-led hedge funds. Solar geoengineering
research funding is the province of the financial and high-tech
sectors of the corporate elite, which are interrelated to but
ultimately distinct from the fossil fuel fraction. Hence, we
conceptualize solar geoengineering as a potential strategy for
compromise among climate and fossil
<https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0306396819844121?casa_token=QvTJEs2EEeMAAAAA%3AFmVqMR9t8kr3gJDyrKP6ho6gGQvHxpwXUX2opEurIJstv7VEZqV0VsKpAxU6dWotTIrHFW06LBe66Q>capital
<https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0306396819844121?casa_token=QvTJEs2EEeMAAAAA%3AFmVqMR9t8kr3gJDyrKP6ho6gGQvHxpwXUX2opEurIJstv7VEZqV0VsKpAxU6dWotTIrHFW06LBe66Q>:
solar geoengineering is being mobilized by the actors outlined above
explicitly to “buy time” for gradual, market-driven climate and energy
transitions. This is of obvious financial interest to the fossil fuel
industry, but /also/ to the banks and financial institutions
<https://capitalmonitor.ai/sector/energy-and-utilities/banks-still-supporting-fossil-fuels-to-the-tune-of-billions/> that
continue to invest in fossil fuel expansion, as well as wealthy
individuals and big corporations interested in maintaining the
political and economic status quo.
The big picture discussions of funding and economic sectors above can
be fleshed out by examining the economic rationales mobilized by
leading solar geoengineering researchers as they sell this idea to
elite economic and political institutions. As an illustrative example,
take a recent paper by David Keith – perhaps the leading solar
geoengineering researcher in the world – and his co-author John
Deutch. Keith is Director of the Harvard geoengineering program,
which, as noted above, is funded largely by billionaire philanthropies
and wealthy individuals. Deutch is Institute Professor of Chemistry at
MIT, former Director of the CIA, former Deputy Secretary of Defense,
has been or is currently on the board of Cheniere Energy, Citigroup,
Raytheon, and Schlumburger (an oil services company), and serves as a
member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the National Petroleum
Council, the Secretary of Energy’s Advisory Board, and the Trilateral
Commission. Keith and Deutch’s paper
<https://www.economicstrategygroup.org/publication/climate-policy-enters-four-dimensions/> was
written for the Aspen Institute’s Economic Strategy Group
<https://www.aspeninstitute.org/programs/economic-strategy-group/>.
The Aspen Institute is an influential economic and foreign policy
think tank based in Washington, D.C., with a well-connected board.
More specifically, Aspen’s Economic Strategy Group is co-chaired by
former Treasury Secretaries, and comprised of CEOs or CFOs from
leading financial corporations.
The paper, titled “Climate Policy Enters Four Dimensions
<https://www.economicstrategygroup.org/publication/climate-policy-enters-four-dimensions/>,”
is the concluding chapter of the Economic Strategy Group’s 2020 book,
/Securing our Economic Future/, wherein Keith and Deutch analyze
climate policy as primarily a question of /costs/. They begin by
arguing that the /purpose /of mitigation is to “lower emissions
/without reducing economic growth/” (p. 267, emphasis added), and
adaptation aims to “protect communities, commerce, and environments.”
Dealing with climate change cannot threaten economic growth, and
adaptation must attend to the needs of commerce equally alongside
communities and environments. From this perspective, they argue that
decarbonization is best accomplished through the private market,
acknowledging that government policy to create market incentives is
necessary, but should not venture too far into economic processes in
the form of “industrial policy:” “the government record in advancing
innovation is mixed; the government does not have the expertise that
is necessary to make uncertain investment decisions, and the political
system has little tolerance for the failures that inevitably occur
with R&D projects” (p. 284). Hence solar geoengineering becomes
rational in a situation where the “low-carbon economy will require
massive amounts of capital and a very long period of market adjustment
until the benefits of decarbonization are realized (p. 269). In this
view, while /the market/ figures out how to reduce emissions while
expanding growth, we need solar geoengineering as a bridge technology
until large-scale carbon dioxide removal (CDR) comes online. In their
models “an optimal policy deploys emission reduction early and uses
carbon removal at large scale only after emissions have been
substantially reduced while [solar geoengineering] is used for an
intermediate period while carbon concentrations are high and is then
phased out as concentrations are reduced by CDR” (p. 282).
They argue that this engineered-Earth approach has clear economic
value. Running various integrated assessment models, they suggest that
the added value derived from including solar geoengineering in
near-term climate policy ranges between US$ 39 trillion and US$ 58
trillion (p. 283). Given this modelling exercise, they note the
following: costs of solar geoengineering appear to be “quite small,
with the global annualized costs perhaps under $20 billion per year
well into the latter half of the century. By comparison, the
damage-reduction benefits could be 100 times this amount. It seems
reasonable that the favorable cost-benefit potential of [solar
geoengineering] justifies a vigorous public R&D effort …” (p. 287). In
other words, these are elite scientists and policymakers connected in
various ways to both fossil and climate capital making an argument for
the “rational” inclusion of solar geoengineering in /current/ climate
policy not as a future emergency measure, as is often assumed – based
on narrow goals of economic efficiency and maintaining market-driven
growth, presented to leading figures and institutions within the
economic and political elite. While many proponents of solar
geoengineering frame it as a global humanitarian intervention on
behalf of the poor and climate vulnerable, it is being developed
through an extremely narrow, deeply ideological lens that caters to
dominant interests.
With funding from tech and finance-linked philanthropists, a
political-economic logic that pushes management of the climate crisis
via interventions /into the climate system, rather than the
economy/ (thus avoiding direct economic planning), and policy
proposals demonstrating tremendous cost efficiency, the appeal of
solar geoengineering to corporations, hegemonic states, and all manner
of elites becomes clear. Solar geoengineering is not a humanitarian
endeavor: it would constitute a massive, potentially dangerous, likely
centuries-long intervention into the climate system in order to
maintain the economic system at the root of the crisis.
Kevin Surprise is a Lecturer in Environmental Studies at Mount Holyoke
College. He researches the political economy of climate change, with a
focus on the politics of solar geoengineering proposals, and serves as
co-chair of the Politics of Geoengineering Working Group
<https://cssn.org/projects/working-groups/the-politics-of-geoengineering/> with
the Climate Social Science Network <http://cssn.org/>.
J. P. Sapinski is Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies at
Université de Moncton, in New Brunswick, Canada. He is interested in
how the structures of capitalism and corporate power mediate the
social metabolism between human societies and the ecosphere, and how
we can transform and decolonize this relationship to make it just and
sustainable. He is co-editor, with Holly Jean Buck and Andreas Malm,
of /Has It Come to This? Promises and Perils of Geoengineering on the
Brink/
<https://www.rutgersuniversitypress.org/has-it-come-to-this/9781978809352> (Rutgers
University Press, 2020).
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-04XT%3D8A18qZagGShNB0iQ17T0PA82huqAGzUNG8n8t5xA%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-04XT%3D8A18qZagGShNB0iQ17T0PA82huqAGzUNG8n8t5xA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
******
Dr. Maiken Winter
Bahnhofstr. 12
82399 Raisting
08807 9280544
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/9537d52e-60f1-71c8-5fd3-e0957d0dca52%40maikenwinter.de.
