Talking on behalf of one of the efforts listed in Table 1, I want to stress that GeoMIP is not funded in any way by Silver Lining. Anyone interested in facts can find a public list of supporters and funding for GeoMIP here http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/GeoMIP/support.html Travel support for some past workshops has been provided by numerous research institutions, and different modeling groups might have different sources of funding.
I look forward to a correction in the blog and a Corrigendum in the published paper by the authors. Best, Daniele > On Oct 31, 2022, at 9:26 AM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote: > > > https://www.solargeoeng.org/economic-interests-and-ideologies-behind-solar-geoengineering-research-in-the-united-states/ > > <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] > <mailto:[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>. -- 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/3781FDB6-487A-48CC-9E31-6442BEAD6110%40gmail.com.
