RE: [geo] Economic interests and ideologies behind solar geoengineering research in the United States

[david.sevier]

I think you guys are giving yourselves an unfair hard time. Finding funding for 
this area of research is difficult to say the least. Take the money where you 
find it and publish your results for all to see. The research may someday be 
difference between disaster and not. 

 

 

David Sevier

 

Carbon Cycle Limited

248 Sutton Common Road

Sutton, Surrey SM3 9PW

England

 

Tel 44 (0) 208 288 0128

www.carbon-cycle.co.uk

 

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Cush Ngonzo Luwesi
Sent: 03 November 2022 10:15
To: geoengineering 
Subject: Re: [geo] Economic interests and ideologies behind solar 
geoengineering research in the United States

 

Dear Surprise

This is as well a surprise to our community of researchers, as one could 
naively think that there is no conflict of interest in GE research. No wander 
that these GE Philosophies hit the wall of negative attitudes from 
policy-makers, who do not see their economic interest in our undertakings. 
Capitalism, communism, socialism, eugenism, Judaism,  christianism, bouddhism, 
shintoïsm, africanism, etc. also have their say in the current context of GE 
research. This does ipso facto affect the final result of the researches, which 
are still at a early stage of implementation. Shall we keep blaming 
policy-makers for not allowing open-door experiments of some forms of GE? Or 
shall we first with the ethics of GE, while perfecting our tools and approaches?

This is just food for thought.

Thanks

Prof. Cush Ngonzo Luwesi, PhD
Director of Postgraduate Studies/ Francophone Africa (Dist./Online)
Ballsbridge University
WFG (jombi), Mesing 14, Willemstad, Curacao, The Netherlands
WhatsApp: +243 970 649 946
Website: www.fr-acedu.org <http://www.fr-acedu.org> 
E-mail: lc...@fr-acedu.org <mailto:lc...@fr-acedu.org> 

 

On Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 16:26 Andrew Lockley mailto:andrew.lock...@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.>
  <http://www.etcgroup.org/content/big-bad-fix>  business-as-usual. 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 i

Re: [geo] Economic interests and ideologies behind solar geoengineering research in the United States

['Jessica Gurevitch' via geoengineering]

SAI is what is called a Wicked Problem. Wicked problems are an interesting
thing to think about. We would not be researching or considering SAI were
it not for catastrophic climate change that seems unstoppable. Are there
good alternatives, given the current and projected consequences of
anthropogenic climate change? We don't really know, and we have a Wicked
Problem on our hands.
Are the people thinking about this wicked problem evil tools of nefarious
actors? Perhaps not. You can look up "wicked problems" if you're interested.

~~
Jessica Gurevitch
Distinguished Professor and Co-Chair
Department of Ecology and Evolution
Stony Brook University
Stony Brook, NY 11794-5245 USA
~~


On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 6:14 AM Cush Ngonzo Luwesi 
wrote:

> Dear Surprise
> This is as well a surprise to our community of researchers, as one could
> naively think that there is no conflict of interest in GE research. No
> wander that these GE Philosophies hit the wall of negative attitudes from
> policy-makers, who do not see their economic interest in our undertakings.
> Capitalism, communism, socialism, eugenism, Judaism,  christianism,
> bouddhism, shintoïsm, africanism, etc. also have their say in the current
> context of GE research. This does ipso facto affect the final result of the
> researches, which are still at a early stage of implementation. Shall we
> keep blaming policy-makers for not allowing open-door experiments of some
> forms of GE? Or shall we first with the ethics of GE, while perfecting our
> tools and approaches?
> This is just food for thought.
> Thanks
>
> Prof. Cush Ngonzo Luwesi, PhD
> Director of Postgraduate Studies/ Francophone Africa (Dist./Online)
> Ballsbridge University
> WFG (jombi), Mesing 14, Willemstad, Curacao, The Netherlands
> WhatsApp: +243 970 649 946
> Website: www.fr-acedu.org
> E-mail: lc...@fr-acedu.org
>
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 16:26 Andrew Lockley 
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>- 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
>> , with pdf
>> here: 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
>> 
>>  business-as-usual . 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
>> 
>>  (or
>> effective altruism) and ecomodernism .
>> 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 

Re: [geo] Economic interests and ideologies behind solar geoengineering research in the United States

[Cush Ngonzo Luwesi]

Dear Surprise
This is as well a surprise to our community of researchers, as one could
naively think that there is no conflict of interest in GE research. No
wander that these GE Philosophies hit the wall of negative attitudes from
policy-makers, who do not see their economic interest in our undertakings.
Capitalism, communism, socialism, eugenism, Judaism,  christianism,
bouddhism, shintoïsm, africanism, etc. also have their say in the current
context of GE research. This does ipso facto affect the final result of the
researches, which are still at a early stage of implementation. Shall we
keep blaming policy-makers for not allowing open-door experiments of some
forms of GE? Or shall we first with the ethics of GE, while perfecting our
tools and approaches?
This is just food for thought.
Thanks

Prof. Cush Ngonzo Luwesi, PhD
Director of Postgraduate Studies/ Francophone Africa (Dist./Online)
Ballsbridge University
WFG (jombi), Mesing 14, Willemstad, Curacao, The Netherlands
WhatsApp: +243 970 649 946
Website: www.fr-acedu.org
E-mail: lc...@fr-acedu.org

On Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 16:26 Andrew Lockley  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
>
>
>
>- 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
> , with pdf
> here: 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
> 
>  business-as-usual . 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
> 
>  (or
> effective altruism) and ecomodernism .
> 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 :
> 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
> 
> .
>
> We explore this paradox in a recent
>  paper
>  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 

Re: [geo] Economic interests and ideologies behind solar geoengineering research in the United States

[Kevin Surprise]

ering (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 
> *Date: *Wednesday, 2 November 2022 at 21:35
> *To: *Andrew Lockley , 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  on 
> behalf of Ken Caldeira 
> *Date: *Wednesday, 2 November 2022 at 00:27
> *To: *Tamas Bodai 
> *Cc: *Andrew Lockley , geoengineering <
> geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [geo] Economic interests and ideologies behind solar 
> geoengineeri

Re: [geo] Economic interests and ideologies behind solar geoengineering research in the United States

[Janos Pasztor]

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: jpasz...@c2g2.net<mailto:jpasz...@c2g2.net> | Mobile: +41-79-7395503 | 
Twitter: @jpasztor
[signature_3161340672]<https://www.c2g2.net/>
www.c2g2.net<https://www.c2g2.net/>
Follow C2G on
[signature_351954219]<https://twitter.com/c2g2net> [signature_318332671] 
<https://www.facebook.com/C2G2net>  [signature_2343540949] 
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/carnegie-climate-governance-initiative>


From: Janos Pasztor 
Date: Wednesday, 2 November 2022 at 21:35
To: Andrew Lockley , Geoengineering 

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: jpasz...@c2g2.net<mailto:jpasz...@c2g2.net> | Mobile: +41-79-7395503 | 
Twitter: @jpasztor
[signature_3161340672]<https://www.c2g2.net/>
www.c2g2.net<https://www.c2g2.net/>
Follow C2G on
[signature_351954219]<https://twitter.com/c2g2net> [signature_318332671] 
<https://www.facebook.com/C2G2net>  [signature_2343540949] 
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/carnegie-climate-governance-initiative>


From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Ken Caldeira 
Date: Wednesday, 2 November 2022 at 00:27
To: Tamas Bodai 
Cc: Andrew Lockley , geoengineering 

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 
mailto:bodai...@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 
mailto:kcalde...@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 wo

Re: [geo] Economic interests and ideologies behind solar geoengineering research in the United States

[Janos Pasztor]

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: jpasz...@c2g2.net<mailto:jpasz...@c2g2.net> | Mobile: +41-79-7395503 | 
Twitter: @jpasztor
[signature_3161340672]<https://www.c2g2.net/>
www.c2g2.net<https://www.c2g2.net/>
Follow C2G on
[signature_351954219]<https://twitter.com/c2g2net> [signature_318332671] 
<https://www.facebook.com/C2G2net>  [signature_2343540949] 
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/carnegie-climate-governance-initiative>


From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Ken Caldeira 
Date: Wednesday, 2 November 2022 at 00:27
To: Tamas Bodai 
Cc: Andrew Lockley , geoengineering 

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 
mailto:bodai...@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 
mailto:kcalde...@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 
mailto:andrew.lock...@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 interest

Re: [geo] Economic interests and ideologies behind solar geoengineering research in the United States

[Ken Caldeira]

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  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  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 
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>- 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
>> , with pdf
>> here: 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
>> 
>>  business-as-usual . 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
>> 
>>  (or
>> effective altruism) and ecomodernism .
>> 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 :
>> market mechanisms, policy tweaks, and technological innovations. There
>> appears to be a faction within climate politics willing to push for
>> extreme, potentially dangerous, likely 

Re: [geo] Economic interests and ideologies behind solar geoengineering research in the United States

[Ken Caldeira]

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 
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
>
>
>
>- 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
> , with pdf
> here: 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
> 
>  business-as-usual . 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
> 
>  (or
> effective altruism) and ecomodernism .
> 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 :
> 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
> 
> .
>
> We explore this paradox in a recent
>  paper
>  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
> 

RE: [geo] Economic interests and ideologies behind solar geoengineering research in the United States

[Douglas MacMartin]

GLENS took place before SilverLining funded anyone!

Cornell was never funded by EDF or PNNL (though I’ve coauthored papers with 
people from both).  We’ve had funding over the years from a number of 
philanthropic donors, mostly from tech sector.

Highly entertaining that someone would write a paper about funding for SG 
research and then just make stuff up about the funding….  If the authors had 
actually cared, they could have asked; I think we’re all transparent about our 
funding if anyone wants to know (and it’s generally listed in acknowledgements 
of papers too.)

It is true, of course, that most funding comes from philanthropic interests, 
from people who fund broadly in approaches to reduce CO2 emissions, including 
CDR, and then recognize that in addition to that, it may be valuable to 
consider SRM as a way to reduce suffering.

I understand that the authors don’t agree with that framing of SRM and view 
that anything short of smashing capitalism is a failure of imagination and/or 
ethics, and they are of course entitled to express their ideological viewpoint. 
 Though in doing so they shouldn’t misrepresent the views and values of those 
they disagree with.

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Simone Tilmes
Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2022 4:50 AM
To: daniele.visi...@gmail.com
Cc: geoengineering 
Subject: Re: [geo] Economic interests and ideologies behind solar 
geoengineering research in the United States

Just following up regarding funding sources, GLENS has also not been funded by 
Silverling, but was initially funded by DARPA.
Simone

On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 11:45 AM Daniele Visioni 
mailto:daniele.visi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
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 
mailto:andrew.lock...@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

RE: [geo] Economic interests and ideologies behind solar geoengineering research in the United States

[kevin lister]

Everything the article says may be correct, but that’s not the issue. The issue is what happens at the current level of CO2 concentrations if we do not proceed with SRM and how much worse the prognosis will be at the higher levels that are unable to stop the planet moving towards. Sent from Mail for Windows From: Dr. Maiken WinterSent: 01 November 2022 11:14To: Daniele VisioniCc: geoengineeringSubject: Re: [geo] Economic interests and ideologies behind solar geoengineering research in the United States Thanks for the clarficiation! Such a weird difficult time right now. Sometiems it´s hard to keep track of what is right and wrong. Best,Maiken Am 31.10.2022 um 18:59 schrieb Daniele Visioni:Dear Maiken,  I can’t but give you my personal opinion: the people who wrote in the blog have constantly demanded that governments and public research institutions not fund research into geoengineering at all.That’s the whole goal of the website on which the article is hosted (they also demand that the IPCC should self-censor itself on the topic, and that researchers should lose their job over their research. It’s in the letter hosted on the website and you can look it up). With that in mind, the authors move to accuse researchers of shady goals not because that’s what they say or state publicly or privately, but because they take funding for their research from sources the two authors see as having those goals in mind. You can see the trap for yourself.If you want to hear directly from the researchers, you can find a couple of opinion pieces I have been involved in (many more can be found around from different sets of researchers). https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/559859-climate-engineering-research-is-essential-to-a-just-transition-and/  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221209632100053X  Best,Daniele-- **Dr. Maiken WinterBahnhofstr. 1282399 Raisting08807 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/9da9c4c8-4cff-46fd-bcbf-007f565ce9b3%40maikenwinter.de. 



-- 
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/0DD3625E-143E-4FC1-91E1-2AE8ADBD0980%40hxcore.ol.

Re: [geo] Economic interests and ideologies behind solar geoengineering research in the United States

[Simone Tilmes]

Just following up regarding funding sources, GLENS has also not been funded
by Silverling, but was initially funded by DARPA.
Simone

On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 11:45 AM Daniele Visioni 
wrote:

> 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 
> 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
>
>
>
>- 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
> , with pdf
> here: 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
> 
>  business-as-usual . 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
> 
>  (or
> effective altruism) and ecomodernism .
> 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 :
> 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
> 
> .
> We explore this paradox in a recent
>  paper
>  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 

Re: [geo] Economic interests and ideologies behind solar geoengineering research in the United States

[Dr. Maiken Winter]

Thanks for the clarficiation!

Such a weird difficult time right now. Sometiems it´s hard to keep track 
of what is right and wrong.


Best,

Maiken


Am 31.10.2022 um 18:59 schrieb Daniele Visioni:

Dear Maiken,

I can’t but give you my personal opinion: the people who wrote in the 
blog have constantly demanded that governments and public research 
institutions not fund research into geoengineering at all.
That’s the whole goal of the website on which the article is hosted 
(they also demand that the IPCC should self-censor itself on the 
topic, and that researchers should lose their job over their research. 
It’s in the letter hosted on the website and you can look it up). With 
that in mind, the authors move to accuse researchers of shady goals 
not because that’s what they say or state publicly or privately, but 
because they take funding for their research from sources the two 
authors see as having those goals in mind. You can see the trap for 
yourself.
If you want to hear directly from the researchers, you can find a 
couple of opinion pieces I have been involved in (many more can be 
found around from different sets of researchers).


https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/559859-climate-engineering-research-is-essential-to-a-just-transition-and/ 



https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221209632100053X

Best,
Daniele


--
**
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/9da9c4c8-4cff-46fd-bcbf-007f565ce9b3%40maikenwinter.de.

Re: [geo] Economic interests and ideologies behind solar geoengineering research in the United States

[Daniele Visioni]

Dear Maiken,

I can’t but give you my personal opinion: the people who wrote in the blog have 
constantly demanded that governments and public research institutions not fund 
research into geoengineering at all.
That’s the whole goal of the website on which the article is hosted (they also 
demand that the IPCC should self-censor itself on the topic, and that 
researchers should lose their job over their research. It’s in the letter 
hosted on the website and you can look it up). With that in mind, the authors 
move to accuse researchers of shady goals not because that’s what they say or 
state publicly or privately, but because they take funding for their research 
from sources the two authors see as having those goals in mind. You can see the 
trap for yourself.
If you want to hear directly from the researchers, you can find a couple of 
opinion pieces I have been involved in (many more can be found around from 
different sets of researchers).

https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/559859-climate-engineering-research-is-essential-to-a-just-transition-and/
 

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221209632100053X 
 

Best,
Daniele

-- 
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/6A77F067-34A1-4B93-9064-B7DB631496D1%40gmail.com.

Re: [geo] Economic interests and ideologies behind solar geoengineering research in the United States

[Daniele Visioni]

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  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 
> 
> 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 
> , with pdf 
> here: 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 
> 
>  business-as-usual . 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 
> 
>  (or effective altruism) and ecomodernism . 
> 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 
> : 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 
> .
> We explore this paradox in a recent 
>  paper 
>  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 

Re: [geo] Economic interests and ideologies behind solar geoengineering research in the United States

[Dr. Maiken Winter]

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


  * 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 
, with 
pdf here: 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 
 business-as-usual 
. 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 
 (or 
effective altruism) and ecomodernism . 
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 
: 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 
.


We explore this paradox in a recent 
 paper 
 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 
 (HSGRP), new 
federal funding, and recent grants from the NGO SilverLining 
). 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