Joe Romm post and comment on attending the Asilomar meeting
Ken Caldeira
A part that quotes me:
--
I have learned that the Asilomar geoengineering meeting is expected to play an important role in legitimizing and helping raise funds for Margaret Leinen’s Climate Response Fund.
I have not seen any statement from Margaret Leinen or her Fund saying that the Fund will not support geoengineering field tests nor have I seen a statement saying that the Fund would not directly or indirectly transfer resources to for-profit companies like Climos.
I am not comfortable with the the idea that a meeting set up to create guidelines governing geoengineering field tests might be used to help raise funds for geoengineering field tests, without the informed consent of meeting participants. I am also concerned with possible conflicts of interest related to the profit motive.
Guidelines governing such tests should be developed as a product of an ongoing process involving established professional societies and organizations, established major non-profit institutions, intergovernmental institutions, or others who do not have an apparent stake in specific outcomes.
Margaret Leinen can obviate my concerns by stating clearly (1) that the Fund will not support geoengineering field tests and (2) that the Fund would not directly or indirectly transfer resources to for-profit geoengineering companies like Climos (or other for-profit companies with significant financial participation by members of Margaret Leinen’s family).
Without such statements, I cannot be confident that I am not being used without my consent for purposes of which I do not approve. Thus, I cannot attend the meeting.
---I would like to point out that the Scientific Organizing Committee for the Asilomar meeting is a stellar collection of people whose integrity is beyond reproach. I have no issue with the Scientific Organizing Committee. I simply fear that they too are being used to advance the goals of Margaret Leinen and her Fund.
I have no fundamental problem with what is expected to occur within the meeting proper. My problem lies with the apparent attempt of Margaret Leinen and her Fund to use the credibility of the attendees and organizers of this meeting to legitimize her Climate Response Fund and help raise money for poorly defined purposes.
---
Best,
Ken
___________________________________________________
Ken Caldeira
Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
+1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968
Margaret Leinen
Recently the Board of Directors of the Climate Response Fund (and I am a member of the Board) posted a statement explicitly stating that we will not fund climate intervention experiments now or in the future. The statement also addresses other concerns that have been raised in blogs.
The statement is located at:
http://www.climateresponsefund.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=147&Itemid=87
Margaret Leinen
--
Margaret Leinen, PhD.
Climate Response Fund
211 N. Union Street
Suite 100
Alexandria, VA 22314
P 202-415-6545
F 703-842-8031
mle...@climateresponsefund.org
> From: Ken Caldeira <kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu>
> Reply-To: Ken Caldeira <kcal...@gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:38:58 -0700
> To: geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: [geo] Joe Romm post and comment on attending the Asilomar meeting
>
> http://climateprogress.org/2010/03/18/exclusive-chief-sponsor-of-landmark-clim
> ate-manipulation-conference-maintains-close-financial-ties-to-controversial-ge
> o-engineering-company/
>
> A part that quotes me:
>
> --
>
> an important role in legitimizing and helping raise funds for Margaret
>
> *I have not seen any statement from Margaret Leinen or her Fund saying that
> the Fund will not support geoengineering field tests nor have I seen a
> statement saying that the Fund would not directly or indirectly transfer
>
> *I am not comfortable with the the idea that a meeting set up to create
> guidelines governing geoengineering field tests might be used to help raise
> funds for geoengineering field tests, without the informed consent of
> meeting participants. I am also concerned with possible conflicts of
>
> *Guidelines governing such tests should be developed as a product of an
> ongoing process involving established professional societies and
> organizations, established major non-profit institutions, intergovernmental
> institutions, or others who do not have an apparent stake in specific
>
> *Margaret Leinen can obviate my concerns by stating clearly (1) that the
> Fund will not support geoengineering field tests and (2) that the Fund
> would not directly or indirectly transfer resources to for-profit
> geoengineering companies like Climos (or other for-profit companies with
> significant financial participation by members of Margaret Leinen’s family).
>
> *Without such statements, I cannot be confident that I am not being used
> without my consent for purposes of which I do not approve. Thus, I cannot
> ---
>
> I would like to point out that the Scientific Organizing Committee for the
> Asilomar meeting is a stellar collection of people whose integrity is beyond
> reproach. I have no issue with the Scientific Organizing Committee. I simply
> fear that they too are being used to advance the goals of Margaret Leinen
> and her Fund.
>
> I have no fundamental problem with what is expected to occur within the
> meeting proper. My problem lies with the apparent attempt of Margaret Leinen
> and her Fund to use the credibility of the attendees and organizers of this
> meeting to legitimize her Climate Response Fund and help raise money for
> poorly defined purposes.
>
> ---
>
> Best,
>
> Ken
>
> ___________________________________________________
> Ken Caldeira
>
> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
>
> kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu
> http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
> +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
>
David Keith
The board statement clarifies the goals of CRF. These goals seem admirable and entirely appropriate for an organization sponsoring a meeting like Asilomar. For my part, they answer the questions central I raised in my correspondence with Joe Romm.
This relieves my concerns about attending the meeting.
Thank you very much for this.
I look forward to seeing you tomorrow.
Yours,
David
Ken Caldeira
Up to this point I have been adamant about not permitting ad hominim posts to this email group. Some have asked me why I have apparently broken my own rules.
---
I have seen Margaret Leinen and her son, Dan Whaley, operate at negotiations over ocean iron fertilization under the London Convention and London Protocol. I got the distinct impression that both Margaret Leinen and Dan Whaley, then both formally associated with Climos, were working hard to keep open the possibility of an ocean fertilization equivalent of "scientific whaling" -- the ability of for-profit ventures to profit from nominally scientific experiments -- threatening a profit-driven scale-up. Climos seemed ready to profit from such an outcome.
It appeared to me that in the episode, Margaret Leinen was seeking both to weaken governance of a geoengineering technique and put herself and/or her family members in a position to profit from such weakening.
Since that time, as I understand it, Climos set up the Climate Response Fund, and Margaret Leinen left Climos to lead this new organization.
After this history, it was somewhat disconcerting that Margaret Leinen appeared to be attempting to place herself and an organization with questionable provenance at the center of a process to develop governance for geoengineering experiments. This is especially odd because there is no shortage of well-established organizations willing to address this issue, including the Council on Foreign Relations, the International Risk Governance Council, the Royal Society of London, and so on.
http://www.cfr.org/project/1364/geoengineering.html
http://www.irgc.org/geoengineering
http://royalsociety.org/Royal-Society-launches-major-study-on-the-governance-of-geoengineering/
These sorts of organizations do not raise the same sorts of alarm bells as do organizations created by Climos.
---
Earlier, I wrote that:
Margaret Leinen can obviate my concerns by stating clearly
(1) that the Fund will not support geoengineering field tests and
(2) that the Fund would not directly or indirectly transfer resources to for-profit geoengineering companies like Climos (or other for-profit companies with significant financial participation by members of Margaret Leinen's family).
To be absolutely clear, Climate Response Fund will not fund field experiments for any climate intervention technique now or in the future including, but not limited to, ocean fertilization, solar radiation management by stratospheric aerosols, tropospheric aerosols, adding alkalinity to the ocean or any other particular climate mitigation techniques.
http://www.climateresponsefund.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=147&Itemid=87
This addresses concern (1). The board statement does not address concern (2), but if the Climate Response Fund is not funding climate intervention field experiments then it is really no concern of mine how they spend their money.
If my comments helped to motivate the issuance of this statement, then I accomplished my primary goal.
---
Both the Scientific Organizing Committee and the attendees of the upcoming Asilomar meeting are truly stellar groups of people and the meeting will be a wonderful meeting.
While I do not think it will be possible to acheive substantive consensus among a broad group on such controversial matters, I could be proven wrong and it will nevertheless be an important continuation and broadening of an important ongoing conversation.
---
I am not a Christian, but I do believe in the redemption.
I don't pray, but I do hope.
I hope Margaret Leinen and the Climate Response Fund have committed themselves to playing a positive role in this discussion, working in a disinterested manner for the greater good.
If this is the case, and I hope it is, then I wish Margaret Leinen the best of luck and apologize for any pain I may have caused.
Regards,
Ken Caldeira
___________________________________________________
Ken Caldeira
Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
+1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 3:57 PM, David Keith <ke...@ucalgary.ca> wrote:
Margaret,
The board statement clarifies the goals of CRF. These goals seem admirable and entirely appropriate for an organization sponsoring a meeting like Asilomar. For my part, they answer the questions central I raised in my correspondence with Joe Romm.
This relieves my concerns about attending the meeting.
Thank you very much for this.
I look forward to seeing you tomorrow.
Yours,
David
From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Margaret Leinen
Sent: March 21, 2010 1:08 PM
To: Ken Caldeira; geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Joe Romm post and comment on attending the Asilomar meeting
Some have speculated to this group about my motivation and that of the Climate Response Fund in sponsoring the upcoming Asilomar International Conference on Climate Intervention Technologies.
Recently the Board of Directors of the Climate Response Fund (and I am a member of the Board) posted a statement explicitly stating that we will not fund climate intervention experiments now or in the future. The statement also addresses other concerns that have been raised in blogs.
The statement is located at:
Margaret Leinen
--
Margaret Leinen, PhD.
Climate Response Fund
211 N. Union Street
Suite 100
Alexandria, VA 22314
P 202-415-6545
F 703-842-8031
mle...@climateresponsefund.org
> From: Ken Caldeira <kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu>
> Reply-To: Ken Caldeira <kcal...@gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:38:58 -0700
> To: geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: [geo] Joe Romm post and comment on attending the Asilomar meeting
>
> +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://*groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
--
Jane C. S. Long
Fellow, Center for Global Strategic Research
and
Principal Associate Director at Large
Livermore National Laboratory
925 422 0315
775 772 2250 primary cell
510 610 0502 iphone
Dan Whaley
I really have to object to the tenor and the nature of your comments.
I have never treated you with this kind of disrespect, though clearly
on many points we may disagree. I do not understand the tone of voice
you are taking with me.
The "equivalent of scientific whaling"?
First, being a "Whaley" and quite fond of whales, I resent that.
Secondly, we did not "operate" at the LC, any more than you "operated"
there. We participated, fully, honestly and with the goal of
achieving permission for OIF projects to move forward. I continue to
participate under the framing now of the Oct 08 resolution, i.e.
"legitimate scientific research". My goal is to simply see the
research be able to move forward. I have been to 6 sessions now of
the London Convention over the last two years (and will be there in
April again) and I ask you to point out any comment or intervention I
made that in your opinion was disingenuous, improper or otherwise-- in
particular any comment we ever made that would have led to a
"weakening" of proper regulation. Quite the opposite in fact--
without regulation the field will never move forward.
Third, carbon projects worldwide are financed by the carbon market. I
did not choose this. Tens of thousands of well-intentioned people
make their livelihoods there. New expansions of this market, such as
REDD, are still being proposed. It is quite conceivable that this
global market may not survive. It is possible that carbon taxes are
better than cap and trade. It is possible that some actors in this
market do not have the well-being of the planet in mind--- in fact, it
is a virtual certainty. I do not take an ideological point of view on
the question of mechanism-- though I think it is important to hold
open the financing structure for quality projects, at such a time as
the related technologies are fit for deployment. But to question my
moral character for imagining that this system might provide long term
financing of this technique--when it is deemed to be appropriate and
mature, if that ever happens---is I think quite unfair. I do
understand and appreciate that it is not helpful to use carbon credits
to finance the projects now, but I would make the following
observation: anyone that proposes any carbon technique, and works to
design it, to test it, to file for IP on it, which many in this
community are, is betting that long term there may be some economic
system which might fund its deployment. Are they morally bankrupt for
doing so? Should Lackner be dressed down in public because perhaps
offsets, or taxes, might pay for plastic trees? I hope the answer is
no.
Regards,
Dan
On Mar 21, 5:22 pm, Ken Caldeira <kcalde...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Up to this point I have been adamant about not permitting *ad hominim* posts
> to this email group. Some have asked me why I have apparently broken my own
> rules.
>
> ---
>
> I have seen Margaret Leinen and her son, Dan Whaley, operate at negotiations
> over ocean iron fertilization under the London Convention and London
> Protocol. I got the distinct impression that both Margaret Leinen and Dan
> Whaley, then both formally associated with Climos, were working hard to keep
> open the possibility of an ocean fertilization equivalent of "scientific
> whaling" -- the ability of for-profit ventures to profit from nominally
> scientific experiments -- threatening a profit-driven scale-up. Climos
> seemed ready to profit from such an outcome.
>
> It appeared to me that in the episode, Margaret Leinen was seeking both to
> weaken governance of a geoengineering technique and put herself and/or her
> family members in a position to profit from such weakening.
>
> Since that time, as I understand it, Climos set up the Climate Response
> Fund, and Margaret Leinen left Climos to lead this new organization.
>
> After this history, it was somewhat disconcerting that Margaret Leinen
> appeared to be attempting to place herself and an organization with
> questionable provenance at the center of a process to develop governance for
> geoengineering experiments. This is especially odd because there is no
> shortage of well-established organizations willing to address this issue,
> including the Council on Foreign Relations, the International Risk
> Governance Council, the Royal Society of London, and so on.
>
>
> These sorts of organizations do not raise the same sorts of alarm bells as
> do organizations created by Climos.
>
> ---
>
> Earlier, I wrote that:
>
> *Margaret Leinen can obviate my concerns by stating clearly
>
> (1) that the Fund will not support geoengineering field tests and
>
> (2) that the Fund would not directly or indirectly transfer resources to
> for-profit geoengineering companies like Climos (or other for-profit
> companies with significant financial participation by members of Margaret
> Leinen's family).
>
> *The Climate Response Fund board issued a statement of 19 March 2010
> stating:*
>
> To be absolutely clear, Climate Response Fund will not fund field
> experiments for any climate intervention technique now or in the future
> including, but not limited to, ocean fertilization, solar radiation
> management by stratospheric aerosols, tropospheric aerosols, adding
> alkalinity to the ocean or any other particular climate mitigation
> techniques.
> *http://www.climateresponsefund.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=...
>
> This addresses concern (1).* *The board statement does not address concern
> (2), but if the Climate Response Fund is not funding climate intervention
> field experiments then it is really no concern of mine how they spend their
> money.*
>
> *If my comments helped to motivate the issuance of this statement, then I
> accomplished my primary goal.
>
> *---
>
> *Both the Scientific Organizing Committee and the attendees of the upcoming
> Asilomar meeting are truly stellar groups of people and the meeting will be
> a wonderful meeting.
>
> While I do not think it will be possible to acheive substantive consensus
> among a broad group on such controversial matters, I could be proven wrong
> and it will nevertheless be an important continuation and broadening of an
> important ongoing conversation.
> *
> ---
>
> *I am not a Christian, but I do believe in the redemption.
>
> I don't pray, but I do hope.
>
> I hope Margaret Leinen and the Climate Response Fund have committed
> themselves to playing a positive role in this discussion, working in a
> disinterested manner for the greater good.
>
> If this is the case, and I hope it is, then I wish Margaret Leinen the best
> of luck and apologize for any pain I may have caused.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ken Caldeira
>
> *
> *
> ___________________________________________________
> Ken Caldeira
>
> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
>
> kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.eduhttp://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
> +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968
>
> >> mlei...@climateresponsefund.org
> >> > kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu
> >> > http://*dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
> >> > +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968
>
> >> > --
> >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >> Groups
> >> > "geoengineering" group.
> >> > To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
> >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >> > geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com<geoengineering%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> >> .
> >> > For more options, visit this group at
> >> > http://*groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
>
> >> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>
> ...
>
> read more »
Kelly Wanser
and, as such, I appreciate the business achievement represented by
herculean efforts you and Margaret made in capitalizing and operating
a company to pursue geoengineering commercially. I am also fond of
you personally, and enjoy the many insights you both bring to bear in
the field. But, I think there is a great deal more to the issues
surrounding Climos, CRF and commercialization in geoengineering than
personal criticism, or any failure to appreciate the role of commerce
and markets in fostering all manner of activities.
The primary issue, in my view, is the influence of commercial
interests on both scientific research and policy in areas where
benefits and risks to the public are not well understood.
Critics of geoengineering, and near-term commercialized efforts in
geoengineering, raise very legitimate issues in questioning the
influence of commercial entities that form to capitalize in a typical
investment time-horizon (5 years; 10 years at the outside) on as-yet-
unproven science that includes very high potential known and unknown
risks. In fact, the fossil fuel industry’s activities reinforce a
serious skepticism, as they have been very motivated to influence both
scientific research and policy in a way that is not objective, and
which disproportionately endangers the environment and individuals in
favor of near term financial gains for their investors.
As the officer of a company, you have a fiduciary interest in
maximizing returns (just as fossil fuel companies do). Not
specifically accurate science, not minimizing risks to the
environment, not even in selling something that works in the long
term, but in maximizing returns. The science is very early, so
investors in Climos are taking a gamble as to whether there is
something viable there, and your structural obligation as a corporate
officer includes a built-in need to manage against research that
points to the risks or drawbacks of the method.
Commercial influence on policy (such as your role in influencing the
IMO) and on research (such as Climos establishing the Climate Response
Fund) is problematic because the risks and benefits are not well
understood. We are all victims of the outcomes of this in the
financial services sector, fossil fuel industry and parts of the
pharmaceutical industry.
Policy makers, and critics, are rational when they seek objective
research from uninterested parties to inform what we do in this
space. We are wise to respect this. The less objective we appear,
and the more ready to pursue profits before we know what is in the
best interests of the environment, specific ecosystems and human
populations, the tougher it is going to be. When we don't know enough
to regulate what could be a dangerous activity, reaction to proposed
scaled commercial efforts is very rational.
The danger in geoengineering is that the activities of commercial
companies like Climos (and any efforts affiliated with commercial
entities, irrespective of their trappings) will raise sufficient
rational concern to impede progress for objective research. This is
not to say that various commercial entities may not exist, but the
harder they drive policy and research that supports their business
interests, the more rational resistance there is likely to be. My view
is that it is important to let academic scientists and objective
bodies take the lead on researching and promoting promising
approaches, and to do so fairly rapidly.
We have a limited period of time, and an almost incalculable set of
comparative risks to study and assess. We haven’t much capacity to
absorb the typical injection of short-term profiteering that can occur
before fundamentals are understood (Internet bubble, housing market,
biofuels etc.), and the subsequent damage, confusion and distrust that
tends to disrupt progress for a decade or so before advancement
resumes.
It is very early for private companies to attempt to realize return on
capital for specific geoengineering approaches, and, without a
governance framework, it is concerning that they may influence both
research and policy. In the case of the Asilomar event, as
interesting and substantive as it is, it is also concerning that
commercial interests might be perceived to leading the course of
geoengineering governance.
Kelly Wanser
Director
Silver Lining
--
Kelly Wanser
CEO
eCert, Inc.
One Market Street, Suite 3600
San Francisco, California 94105
p. +1 (415) 734-6790
f. +1 (415) 651-8932
e. kwa...@ecertsystems.com
eCert - Trust the Message
http://www.ecertsystems.com
> >http://www.cfr.org/project/1364/geoengineering.htmlhttp://www.irgc.or......
> ...
>
> read more »
Dan Whaley
Again, to my last point, anyone working with a potential financial gain--even providing services to further research efforts (which is our current configuration at Climos)-- on carbon or SRM techniques is in the same position. If the research (let alone the future deployment) moves forward, then they personally benefit. This is true of scientists that file patents on techniques (which I have no problem with)--which seems to include nearly everyone in this field. All of the sudden, the long term commercial benefit is (somewhat) captive, and their near term activities, the research findings they may publish, or the governance efforts they may participate in, are *potentially* conflicted as a result. Are the folks at Intellectual Ventures and those collaborating with them distorting this field? Some argue to me that they are... they have responsibilities to investors and all the complications you discuss. But I have no real problem with them (provided they do not squat on IP and disincentivise entrepreneurs who otherwise would develop it), and I think as long as the process is transparent that they can be an important part of the landscape. Instead of discouraging their capital from entering this space-- and potentially funding some efforts-- I think we should be encouraging it. We're all here because we think time is of the essence, right?
Rather than skewer anyone who imagines a future gain (financial or psychic--or both) in return for their near term efforts (which we all do to some degree, this is something of a biological phenomenon), I think it is more important to ensure that the process is open, thoughtful and transparent as possible, that appropriate regulations are in place, that results are peer-reviewed and independently assessed, that models are fully utilized, that the best minds are involved and that we move deliberately and openly through the various stages from concept to modeling, engineering, testing, time series analysis and, eventually, perhaps deployment.
You argue that the timeframe of expected returns on capital (5-10 years) somehow drives more short term pressure and thus potentially short term conflict on those charged with its investment. I would argue in return that this is a simple human phenomenon: life is short. Few of us invest our time and energy in things that we do not expect to see bear fruit within these timeframes. Utility patents are only valid for 20 years after all, design patents for 14. The economist in each of us places more net present value on near term accomplishments and diminishing returns on those far off.
Also-- I think there is a distinction between selling deployment and supporting research. Your points seem to tend towards the former.
D
> ...
>
> read more »
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Kelly Wanser
I am not in pursuit of skewering, I actually concur with your comments about time horizons and do';t fault anyone for pursuing their interests generally.
But, I do think the structural considerations of investment horizons for companies are very relevant with regard to businesses engaged in activities that have large potential risks to others, and long research cycles to quantify their benefits.
Unfortunately, time horizons for adequate safety and efficacy research may not match with the time horizons desired or required by investors. Where they don't, investment-driven businesses tend to seek to influence research or policy or in a way that supports their fiduciary mission to generate returns but displaces safety and efficacy considerations. I see this as sort of a structural reality that we all have to try to figure out how to manage.
We haven't done this well regarding the environment at all. We have done this increasingly less well in financial services. We have build a fairly extensive framework in pharmaceuticals and medical research to try to manage it, to a greater degree of success (though not a perfect one).
Regarding addressing deployment versus research, I think commercial geoengineering entities, particularly those looking to yield carbon credits, produce returns when they scale, so policy makers tend to have to treat commercialized activities in the context of scaling within a typical investment horizon (say, 5-10 years) which is daunting in the face of the amount of knowledge available, relative to the risks, within that time. My view is that it is that it is that concern that creates rational policy and activist backlash against early commercial proposals. Time to market does not match the research path for understanding the risks.
Companies also have a structural imperative to produce or influence favorable research findings, so their role in early research can be as much a complicating factor as an accelerating one.
Finally, some scientific researchers may build careers working on particular theories, but the nature of the academic community makes it somewhat as likely to build a career debunking them, if that follows the science. In the end, it appears to me that it is more difficult for resources to mass, or a critical mass of economic benefit, to accrue in a biased direction (though not impossible).
Great dialogue. Thanks, Dan.
Dan Whaley
Just as a point of clarification, I think we see ourselves as working
with scientists that are independently funded to do their science.
Clearly the tendency to produce favorable research findings is
prevalent in science itself--it may in fact be a necessary and
positive element of the creative process, obviously it also has a
downside that everyone has to be cognizant of. We'd like to stay out
of the path of that. An open and transparent approach to making all
the data available immediately from these projects is one important
antidote to that, as are a number of other strategies. I think we can
provide help in terms of project management, logistics, distributing
iron, regulatory and permitting assistance for what will be large
efforts over years.
D
> ...
>
> read more »