Darpa and geoengineering

[Eli Kintisch]

See:

 

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/03/exclusive-milit.html

 

I'm interested to hear everyone's take on Ken's view that DARPA should stay out of funding geo exploratory research (vs defense. For a more extreme view see http://theenergycollective.com/TheEnergyCollective/36631

 

 Feel free to email me at work if you want to opine more (even) publicly than this list and I'll update the blog.

Cheers, Eli

 

ekin...@aaas.org

[Ken Caldeira]

Folks,

Let me expand:

I think it is entirely appropriate for the US military to think about things like:

-- is climate intervention feasible?
-- who could do it? who would be more likely to do it?
-- how long would it take them to do it?
-- how would they do it?
-- why would they do it? under what circumstances would they do it?
-- how much resources would it take?
-- what would the consequences be environmentally, politically, etc?
-- what kind of governance structures would lessen the likelihood of "rogue deployment"
-- what countermeasures would be available in the case of "rogue deployment"

I do not think it would be appropriate at this time for the US military to develop or test deployment hardware.

The introduction of commercial forces has complicated the discussion of ocean iron fertilization. Introduction of the suspicion of extraneous motives like military advantage will tend to distract from and makes it more difficult to achieve a consensus on the fundamental questions of whether the development of intentional climate intervention can reduce overall risk -- in fact, in many people's mind, the involvement of the US military in such development in itself would be evidence that such development increases risk.

Development of these technologies by the US military is unlikely to make the rest of the world feel more secure (nor does it give me that warm and fuzzy feeling). Recall that the US military more-or-less went into Iraq alone (sorry Tony) with disastrous results. So, there is a recent case where this organization deployed its technology, effectively ignoring governance structures suggesting that Hans Blix be allowed to proceed.

It will make it harder to achieve broad consensus on developing and governing these technologies if there is suspicion that gaining military advantage is an underlying motivation for its development.

Best,

Ken

___________________________________________________
Ken Caldeira

Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA

kcal...@ciw.edu; kcal...@stanford.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
+1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968  

[Ken Caldeira]

I don't think weaponization of climate intervention is a serious risk. But, one party could intervene in the climate system to diminish their own climate damage, and as a result inflict additional climate damage on other parties.

I agree that the military is experienced in developing and deployment advanced engineering systems.

Issues relevant to development at this time by the US military include confidence in norms and governance structures to avoid rogue deployment, clarity of goals (e.g. suspicions over weaponization), public perception and public communication (including international).

___________________________________________________
Ken Caldeira

Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA

kcal...@ciw.edu; kcal...@stanford.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
+1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968  

On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Andrew Lockley <andrew....@gmail.com> wrote:

From wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoengineering#Weaponisation

(see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Modification_Convention )

Weaponisation

Weaponisation of geoengineering techniques is generally prohibited by the Environmental Modification Convention. However, this does not eliminate the risk. Geoengineering techniques may be used as a weapon of mass destruction, creating droughts or famines designed to destroy or disable an enemy.^[60] They could also be used simply to make battlefield conditions more favourable to one side or the other in a war^[61] (such as in Operation Popeye). For example, laser-guided weapons are confounded by clouds, and thus switching off cloud machines would favour forces using such weapons, and switching them on would favour ground forces defending against them.^[62]

Whilst laws or treaties may prevent the manipulation of the climate as a weapon of war,^[63] it could be argued that geoengineering is itself a manipulation, and thus destroying or disabling the geoengineering structures is not prohibited. A new legal framework may be necessary in the event that large-scale geoengineering becomes established.

My personal opinion is that the US military is ideally placed to develop this technology, having at its disposal the jets, missiles and artillery pieces necessary - not to mention virtually unlimited amounts of money.  If commercial firms are at best controversial and at worse inappropriate, then who will be in charge of the research?  The academic community either doesn't have the money or lacks the will to direct funds.  Further academic institutions appear not to have the capacity for large-scale deployment activity.

2009/3/18 Ken Caldeira <kcal...@gmail.com>

[Andrew Lockley]

From wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoengineering#Weaponisation

(see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Modification_Convention )

Weaponisation

Weaponisation of geoengineering techniques is generally prohibited by the Environmental Modification Convention. However, this does not eliminate the risk. Geoengineering techniques may be used as a weapon of mass destruction, creating droughts or famines designed to destroy or disable an enemy.^[60] They could also be used simply to make battlefield conditions more favourable to one side or the other in a war^[61] (such as in Operation Popeye). For example, laser-guided weapons are confounded by clouds, and thus switching off cloud machines would favour forces using such weapons, and switching them on would favour ground forces defending against them.^[62]

Whilst laws or treaties may prevent the manipulation of the climate as a weapon of war,^[63] it could be argued that geoengineering is itself a manipulation, and thus destroying or disabling the geoengineering structures is not prohibited. A new legal framework may be necessary in the event that large-scale geoengineering becomes established.

My personal opinion is that the US military is ideally placed to develop this technology, having at its disposal the jets, missiles and artillery pieces necessary - not to mention virtually unlimited amounts of money.  If commercial firms are at best controversial and at worse inappropriate, then who will be in charge of the research?  The academic community either doesn't have the money or lacks the will to direct funds.  Further academic institutions appear not to have the capacity for large-scale deployment activity.

2009/3/18 Ken Caldeira <kcal...@gmail.com>

Folks,

[David Schnare]

Ken makes good points, but I believe he misses one - the research funding angle.

 

DARPA has been a leader in innovative research of all kinds (e.g., the internet).  DARPA is not hobbled by political contraints and political correctness, (now being called a "moral hazard").  As they appear to be the only big pocket of money available, and as research, including field testing, is needed, I believe their entry into the field is not merely desirable, but necessary.

 

David.

--
David W. Schnare
Center for Environmental Stewardship

[William Fulkerson]

There is another possible source of geo R&D funding and that is ARPA-E bankrolled to $400 million in the Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the stimulus bill).  I believe the NAS America's Climate Choices meeting at the end of the month may provide some stimulus for the need to begin to do something on geoengineering or whatever you want to call it.

Bill Fulkerson  

Bill Fulkerson, Senior Fellow

Institute for a Secure and Sustainable Environment

University of Tennessee

311 Conference Center Bldg.

Knoxville, TN 37996-4138

wf...@utk.edu

865-974-9221, -1838 FAX

Home

865-988-8084; 865-680-0937 CELL 

2781 Wheat Road, Lenoir City, TN 37771

[William Fulkerson]

There is another possible source of geo R&D funding and that is ARPA-E bankrolled to $400 million in the Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the stimulus bill).  I believe the NAS America's Climate Choices meeting at the end of the month may provide some stimulus for the need to begin to do something on geoengineering or whatever you want to call it.

Bill Fulkerson  

On Mar 18, 2009, at 11:47 AM, David Schnare wrote:

[Kelly Wanser]

I am an entrepreneur and strategist engaged in strategy and funding
for climate intervention research, which takes me afield to
discussions with political aides, lobbyists, former officials and
others.

US Federal Funding:
In today’s environment, climate intervention (geoengineering) lacks
political support, financial backing and the endorsement of the
environmental NGOs who are the main lobby and primary customers for
any congressional or executive efforts pertaining to the environment.

Some new appointees in the Obama administration are very familiar with
climate intervention, and, through the NAS effort and other channels
(including considerable efforts by Ken and others), there is a
probable path to commencement of modest research money along a 3 – 5
year time horizon (federal monies, once appropriated, often take over
2 years to reach their recipients).

DARPA/Defense Agencies
With regard to potential funding from DARPA, Ken makes compelling
points for the disadvantages of associating climate intervention with
any offensive or defensive military benefits of engaging in
geoengineering. These are extremely important considerations as the
backlash and impairment to research associated with early commercial
efforts in ocean fertilization does provide early indications of what
may lie in store regarding other controversial affiliations.

Given the challenges of near-term government funding for climate
intervention research, the discretionary availability of funds from an
organization like DARPA, and the role of Defense in the future
evolution of the field, there are interesting points to consider.

The US military has produced early, high-quality analyses of climate
change to assess its potential impact on national security. The
treatment of climate change as a national security threat largely
associated with its impacts on the availability of food, clean water
and energy, produces a relatively proactive and rational stance with
regard to the benefits of mitigating it, placing the DoD on the side
of the NGOs and others in some of its conclusions (http://
www.mindfully.org/Air/2003/Pentagon-Climate-Change1oct03.htm - well-
known report produced for the Pentagon in 2003)

From a tactical perspective, as mentioned here and noted by former
science agency personnel, the US military has assets that would be
valuable, if not crucial, for critical research in climate
intervention – monitoring satellites, specialized research aircraft,
ocean observation systems etc -. There are some important
observational research projects (volcano observations, stratospheric
studies etc) that could be collaboratively designed in the near term
to leverage these important capabilities. As Ken suggests, hardware
development might be the most controversial aspect of involvement,
though some capabilities such as particle development and dispersal
methods, may be interesting to consider.

Finally, building the ethical, political and legal framework for
climate intervention will require a big tent. The military will have
an important role to play in the evaluation, logistical support and
protection of most field activities- observations, experiments or
active projects. The ONR's financial support (along with NSF, NOAA
and others) in, and loan of assets to, the recent VOCALs field study
of marine clouds is a constructive example of collaboration.
http://www.eol.ucar.edu/projects/vocals/documentation/rex_summary.html.
Ken and others have done a stellar job on briefing them, and
influencing their thinking to date.

It is also worth highlighting, as others have pointed out here, that
research conducted under the auspices of the department of defense has
produced medical technology, computing innovations and other non-
weapons-related innovations (e.g. SBIR /STTR program http://www.acq.osd.mil/osbp/sbir/
).

Given the above (and Ken's framing questions), it may stimiulate
progress to further define research that is suitable for funding from
DoD/DARPA and compatible with transparent, rigorous research in
climate intervention as an investment in reducing the overall security
& stability risks of climate change. To the extent that these
questions are suitable fields of study for them, it could be
propitious to access their 'low-hanging' funds for suitable research
(and researchers) in the relatively near term.

--
Kelly Wanser
CEO
eCert, Inc.
One Market Street, Suite 3500
San Francisco, California 94105
c. +1 (303) 513-3539
p. +1 (415) 681-8000 x102
f. +1 (415) 651-8932
e. kwa...@ecertsystems.com

On Mar 19, 9:21 am, William Fulkerson <wf...@utk.edu> wrote:
> There is another possible source of geo R&D funding and that is ARPA-E  
> bankrolled to $400 million in the Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the  
> stimulus bill).  I believe the NAS America's Climate Choices meeting  
> at the end of the month may provide some stimulus for the need to  
> begin to do something on geoengineering or whatever you want to call it.
> Bill Fulkerson
> On Mar 18, 2009, at 11:47 AM, David Schnare wrote:
>
>
>
> > Ken makes good points, but I believe he misses one - the research  
> > funding angle.
>
> > DARPA has been a leader in innovative research of all kinds (e.g.,  
> > the internet).  DARPA is not hobbled by political contraints and  
> > political correctness, (now being called a "moral hazard").  As they  
> > appear to be the only big pocket of money available, and as  
> > research, including field testing, is needed, I believe their entry  
> > into the field is not merely desirable, but necessary.
>
> > David.
>

> > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Ken Caldeira <kcalde...@gmail.com>  

> > kcalde...@ciw.edu; kcalde...@stanford.edu

> >http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
> > +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968
>

> > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 5:26 AM, Eli Kintisch <elik...@gmail.com>  
> > wrote:
> > See:
>
> >http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/03/exclusive-
> > milit.html

>
> > I'm interested to hear everyone's take on Ken's view that DARPA  
> > should stay out of funding geo exploratory research (vs defense. For  

> > a more extreme view seehttp://theenergycollective.com/TheEnergyCollective/36631

>
> >  Feel free to email me at work if you want to opine more (even)  
> > publicly than this list and I'll update the blog.
> > Cheers, Eli
>

> > ekinti...@aaas.org