Hello Everyone,
Kevin Surprise and J.P. Sapinski here. Andrew brought this discussion to our attention and we wanted to take a moment to address you all directly. First, thank you for so vigorously engaging with our blog post and longer paper, even if we do come from different perspectives on solar geoengineering research and its potential role in climate policy. Our papers don’t often get this level of attention! We do very much appreciate the additional details provided by many of you. We certainly did our best in assembling that dataset (which is in some ways an update of the 2019 piece by Necheles and colleagues on the HSGRP blog), but as academic researchers, we all understand well that some small mistakes might appear even in the most carefully curated datasets. On some of the points raised: 1. On SilverLining funding GeoMIP, and PNNL funding Cornell - we are going back through our data to see where these connections originally emerged for us. This will take some time, but one thing to note is that GeoMIP has many integral and longstanding connections to RISCI (which SilverLining directly funds), e.g. GeoMIP emerged out of RISCI, is still (according to the website) steered by Alan Robock, and the RISCI website states "In addition of continuing to support GeoMIP, we are now focused on the impacts of SAI climate intervention…” So SilverLining indirectly supports GeoMIP via Rutgers (according to how we’re thinking about connections in the field). We may decide to correct that line in the table to note that SilverLining funds RISCI, which in turn supports GeoMIP, but we note that the main arguments we make in the paper are not at all affected by these individual connections. 2. Similarly, on SilverLining and GLENS, it was our interpretation that GLENS was the basis for NCAR’s new modeling project with Amazon Web Services, with recent publications from NCAR researchers using GLENS (within the SilverLining funding period), and hence our understanding of current NCAR solar geoengineering modeling as based on and using/expanding GLENS - the most well known solar geo research output from NCAR (who are funded by funded by SilverLining). 3. On EDF and Cornell, it’s our understanding that Cornell Climate Engineering is under the umbrella of and supported by the Atkinison Center for Sustainability, which has a significant partnership (financial and otherwise) with EDF. Given that EDF is one of the leading Big Greens advancing solar geoengineering conversations, we find this connection significant. 4. On FICER, is it indeed lumped with its funder Bill Gates in the table, but no line appears between FICER and HSGRP in figure 1. We thus are in agreement with Ken Caldeira that FICER does not fund HSGRP. We had to 1. keep the table simple, 2. find a way to show what Gates has funded and that he is the largest single funder of solar geoengineering research - a significant fact, we think, and 3) note that FICER is a personal fund of Gates to differentiate it from the Gates Foundation, which is how it is phrased on Harvard’s FICER webpage. 5. On C2G, we greatly appreciate Janos’ concerns and engagement - we are in agreement with his specifications of C2G’s funding sources. In the larger paper we define solar geoengineering research as any scientific or governance effort that advances solar geoengineering - initiating high-level governance conversations certainly does that, even if an organization claims neutrality. In the larger paper we discuss funding and C2G clearly (i.e. we only examined funding organizations that have given to two different SG initiatives in recent years, so VKRF is discussed but not, say, Children’s Investment Fund (CFI), though incidentally CFI is founded/run by yet another billionaire hedge fund manager … ). Finally, in case someone would like to engage on the argument we are making: the paper shows that despite the fact that many prominent critics present solar geoengineering as supported by the fossil fuel industry, it is actually funded by individuals and philanthropies from the high-tech and financial sectors (e.g. billionaires, Silicon Valley VC’s, hedge fund people). From this empirical finding,* we argue that solar geoengineering is poised to play a strategic, compromise role among the fossil fuel industry and what we call “climate capitalists.” That is, solar geoengineering can potentially buttress the fossil fuel industry’s interest in a gradual, long-term energy transition (not SRM research but the promise of SRM as a strategy), and it is now being turned to by key segments within liberal** climate politics also interested in/dependent upon a gradual, market driven response to climate change. The unique qualities of solar geoengineering (speed and scale) make the strategy of gradual change amidst a rapidly unfolding crisis possible, indeed makes the survival of capitalism possible in the face of climate crisis, which is the underlying interest of both the fossil fuel industry and the high-tech/financial sectors of the capitalist class. * One would think this finding, clearly demonstrated by solar geoengineering critics (us), would be welcome. We certainly feel that we can only have a real debate on SRM once those more open and those more skeptical are starting from the same place. **As in centrist, corporate, market-driven status quo climate action. We’re both (broadly) Marxists, and we published this paper in a Marxist journal to talk about class power, so it’s great to be engaging with scientific researchers here! We are happy to follow up on any of this, here, or directly via email ( ksurp...@mtholyoke.edu, and I’ll forward to J.P.) Thank you, Kevin and J.P. On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 4:36:26 PM UTC-4 jpas...@c2g2.net wrote: > Thank you – and I liked it too, and with minor edits, sent it off… > > > > Janos > > > > ======================= > Janos Pasztor > Executive Director > *Carnegie Climate Governance Initiative (C2G)* > Geneva, Switzerland > > Email: jpas...@c2g2.net | Mobile: +41-79-7395503 > <+41%2079%20739%2055%2003> | Twitter: @jpasztor > > [image: signature_3161340672] <https://www.c2g2.net/> > > www.c2g2.net > > Follow C2G on > [image: signature_351954219] <https://twitter.com/c2g2net> [image: > signature_318332671] <https://www.facebook.com/C2G2net> [image: > signature_2343540949] > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/carnegie-climate-governance-initiative> > > > > > > *From: *Janos Pasztor <jpas...@c2g2.net> > *Date: *Wednesday, 2 November 2022 at 21:35 > *To: *Andrew Lockley <andrew....@gmail.com>, Geoengineering < > geoengi...@googlegroups.com> > *Subject: *Re: [geo] Economic interests and ideologies behind solar > geoengineering research in the United States > > I would like to clarify and correct some information in the article by > Kevin Surprise and J.P. Sapinski that concerns the Carnegie Climate > Governance Initiative - C2G, the initiative I lead. > > > > First and foremost, C2G’s mission is strictly impartial and focused on > catalyzing the governance of both CDR and SRM. We do not take a position on > whether these approaches are good or bad, but instead raise awareness with > governments, the intergovernmental actors and CSOs around the world on the > need to develop effective governance for them. > > > > Our original funder, as noted, was the VK Rasmussen Foundation (VKRF), a > Danish family foundation which, in addition to supporting C2G, has also > funded other actors, some of whom strongly oppose SRM. > > > > The article does not make clear if their use of the term geoengineering > refers to SRM alone or both SRM and CDR, and what time period it covers. > C2G will remain in existence through the end of 2023, and then deliberately > close shop, true to its role as a catalyst for encouraging governance > discussions among policymakers and those who advise them – not an advocate > or implementer of any governance. In that light, it is misleading to list > funding for C2G in a table entitled “Funding for Solar Geoengineering”. > > > > In addition to VKRF and Oak Foundation, since 2018 C2G has secured funding > from several other major international climate philanthropies – all of whom > are listed with their funding levels – on our website > <https://www.c2g2.net/c2g-funders/>, including, among others, the IKEA > Foundation, the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, and the MacArthur > Foundation. > > > > ======================= > Janos Pasztor > Executive Director > *Carnegie Climate Governance Initiative (C2G)* > Geneva, Switzerland > > Email: jpas...@c2g2.net | Mobile: +41-79-7395503 > <+41%2079%20739%2055%2003> | Twitter: @jpasztor > > [image: signature_3161340672] <https://www.c2g2.net/> > > www.c2g2.net > > Follow C2G on > [image: signature_351954219] <https://twitter.com/c2g2net> [image: > signature_318332671] <https://www.facebook.com/C2G2net> [image: > signature_2343540949] > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/carnegie-climate-governance-initiative> > > > > > > *From: *geoengi...@googlegroups.com <geoengi...@googlegroups.com> on > behalf of Ken Caldeira <kcal...@carnegiescience.edu> > *Date: *Wednesday, 2 November 2022 at 00:27 > *To: *Tamas Bodai <boda...@googlemail.com> > *Cc: *Andrew Lockley <andrew....@gmail.com>, geoengineering < > geoengi...@googlegroups.com> > *Subject: *Re: [geo] Economic interests and ideologies behind solar > geoengineering research in the United States > > The United States gov't has been known to kidnap and torture, kill > children with drones under the rubric of "collateral damage", start > senseless wars, etc, etc, but we don't fault anyone for taking Federal > research funds. > > > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 12:17 PM Tamas Bodai <boda...@googlemail.com> > wrote: > > I tend to believe any of you that you didn’t receive grants from shady > sources. But it is a bit ridiculous to suggest that they can ask you about > your funding before making things up and publish it — while i, as a > scientist, agree that things should not be made up. I think we should > accept the possibility that some of us are funded by shady players. It > would totally make sense. So, we don’t need to say that “I’m clean”. It’s > like MP's in Westminster should not call each other “right honorable > gentleman” while the guy might be a rapist if not a tax-evader. The facts > are enough: MP, member of parliament. > > > > > On Nov 2, 2022, at 5:30 AM, Ken Caldeira <kcal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > There are some mistakes here. > > > > I played no material role related to the funding or operation of the > Harvard Solar Geoengineering Research Program (HSGRP). > > > > Funding for HSGRP was independent of FICER. > > > > FICER was a fund at Harvard and Carnegie Institution for Science supported > by a gift from Gates Ventures LLC. It was not a "personal fund of Bill > Gates". David Keith and I made funding decisions without consulting with > Bill Gates or anyone working for Bill Gates. > > > > After a few years, we stopped funding others because we had neither the > capacity nor desire to evaluate external research proposals. My work under > that funding shifted over time increasingly towards energy research. > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 5:26 AM Andrew Lockley <andrew....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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 funded**a* > > 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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com. > 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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAKNUXC32VZtP9s9Sw9P8hcb%3Dos81qTinF2BS_t14_XhAA3xpaw%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAKNUXC32VZtP9s9Sw9P8hcb%3Dos81qTinF2BS_t14_XhAA3xpaw%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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAKNUXC2UtUD%3DEk67ZQS6VAPCTpmBFbCXJ%3D2gYG4aV9kouuDDqQ%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAKNUXC2UtUD%3DEk67ZQS6VAPCTpmBFbCXJ%3D2gYG4aV9kouuDDqQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > > *Disclaimer* > > The information contained in this communication from the sender is > confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others > authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby > notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in > relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may > be unlawful. > > This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been > automatically archived by *Mimecast Ltd*, an innovator in Software as a > Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a *safer* and *more useful* place > for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and > compliance. To find out more Click Here > <http://www.mimecast.com/products/>. > -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/49e2273c-57b0-42ff-9f8e-50aef9125702n%40googlegroups.com.
