Hi,
I've been running a scicomm operation for well over a decade now. It started with the geoengineering Google group, and has expanded to include
@geoengineering1 twitter
@reviewer2Geo podcast
Carbon removal updates substack
SRM substack
YouTube play list
This is on top of moderating this geoengineering Google group
...and contributing to the CDR Google group.
While this isn't a marketing post, I'd encourage you to check out these brands. This is both for your personal benefit, and for background information to the below discussions.
This work is currently funded roughly half by me and half by donations. You can donate via substack subscription, or directly here:
The current situation isn't ideal. I'm paying hundreds of $/mth to subsidise this community service, which employs one approx. full time staff member (contractor). Furthermore, various people in this community seem to dislike variously me, my leadership, or my academic work - for whatever reason. This likely taints their perception of the brands, and their willingness to engage with them - eg some people block @geoengineering1 on twitter (don't worry, we still track all their posts manually). This apparent animosity to the brands is despite the fact that I have I have no direct involvement in ~95pc of editorial decisions, and I don't use the brands for financial gain (far from it!). Interestingly, these twitter blocks are roughly balanced between pro- and anti- factions, so I'm probably achieving a fairly neutral balance. For the avoidance of doubt, these brands aren't an SRM/CDR advocacy service, and rival views are given equal prominence - although disinformation and bad-faith actors aren't amplified alongside good-faith debate.
Two coincidental issues have made it necessary to reconsider the long-term future of these services.
Firstly, there's a possible funder available. While I think that crowdfunding is great, it's never been nearly enough to cover basic admin, let alone any outreach, advertising, or public representation at events. Long-term funding would turn this into a proper specialist media operation. Such funding might also suit a different leadership/governance approach.
Secondly, my own involvement henceforth has some complications. On the one hand, the long term funding discussed above might possibly result in an insurmountable conflict of interest with other work I do. On the other, there may be a benefit from having either a less controversial leader, or simply a broader range of views on both governance and media strategy.
So, it's time for your input. Two key questions:
1) what should I/we do
2) do YOU personally want to be part of it (or can you recommend someone)? This could be for an oversight board, or even a paid CEO/operator - if funding was available.
Additionally, if you know of funding / sponsorship opportunities, pls let me know. We've sought funding for a while, but this kind of thing isn't really on anyone's funding radar - so the funding stream under consideration seems to be the only game in town.
Please keep all comments constructive and respectful. I don't tolerate ad hom attacks or personal hostility on the geoengineering Google group, and they're not welcome or helpful on this thread. I'm seeking views on the future of the brands I've started, not soliciting abuse for my unrelated work, perceived political views, or personal style.
Thanks in advance for any constructive contributions.
Andrew Lockley
