Global funding for geoengineering research

245 views
Skip to first unread message

Alexander Berger

unread,
Oct 4, 2013, 12:39:55 PM10/4/13
to geoengi...@googlegroups.com
Hi all,

I work for GiveWell, a nonprofit that does research to help donors decide where to give, and we're in the early stages of considering recommending funding for geoengineering research. One question we're interested in as we think about that is how much funding is already directed to geoengineering research.

Andy Parker and David Keith have put together a helpful list of publicly funded solar geoengineering research projects around the world, including funding information: http://environment.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/srm_projects_around_the_world.pdf (linked from here).

In the interest of trying to get an estimate of the total global annual funding for solar geoengineering research, I've added a few projects (mostly US- and philanthropically-funded) to their list, added timing info where I could find it, and uploaded it to Google Docs here: 

My total estimate comes out to around $10 million/year. Key (uncertain) assumptions include:
Programs I know of but don't have any funding info for include:
I've made the spreadsheet publicly editable, and I welcome any additions or corrections, particularly with respect to the above uncertainties. If you add information, some note about the source would be much appreciated (e.g. "I, Jane Smith, work for the program" or "here's the website with the info").

The additions I made--and, I believe, the underlying list compiled by Andy and David--aimed to include projects that have an SRM component (at least), and are explicitly framed as geoengineering. Including projects that are only "relevant" to SRM or that focus exclusively on CDR, as the GAO's 2010 report did, would lead to significantly larger funding estimates. However, it's not the case that 100% of the included funding is going towards SRM research; many of the included projects also have CDR components.

Thanks,
Alexander

--
Alexander Berger
www.GiveWell.org

Fulkerson, William

unread,
Oct 4, 2013, 2:41:55 PM10/4/13
to alexan...@gmail.com, geoengi...@googlegroups.com, Mikhail Antonovsky, Fulkerson, William, Bill Fulkerson
Dear Alexander:
Wonderful. My guess is that Geo will be a very big deal as ideas propagate and as nations begin to accept Geo research as legitimate and needed.  I am surprised you don't have the Russian  experiments listed.  Maybe I missed them.
The best,
Bill Fulkerson


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Ronal W. Larson

unread,
Oct 4, 2013, 3:13:21 PM10/4/13
to alexan...@gmail.com, geoengi...@googlegroups.com
Alexander    cc list:

   Can you clarify whether you are inquiring about A)  geoengineering (both SRM and CD) or B)  solar geoengineering.  

   Also whether you are also interested in the amount of private sector research funding that is going into A) and/or B).  And is total funding or R&D funding that is more critical?   I assume you can only fund non-profits.  But what if there was shared funding with a University?

   And whether you could fund an umbrella non-profit organization that only partially supports research  (but is promoting a particular "geo" approach).  I.e.  Is your interest only in funding research?   If your funding could be restricted by the recipient to R&D, would that be what you want?  (Other funding being on policy, education, etc)

Ron

Alexander Berger

unread,
Oct 4, 2013, 3:31:49 PM10/4/13
to Ronal W. Larson, geoengi...@googlegroups.com, Fulkerson, William
Bill - thanks. I'm not aware of ongoing funding for the Russian experiments, but if you're aware of that, I'd be more than happy to incorporate it.

Ron - my impression (partly based on the GAO report I pointed to in my previous email) is that there's considerably more funding for CDR research than SRM research in the status quo, especially when you get into specific approaches, which drives my focus on SRM research. If you have other info on that question, I'd love to hear it. I definitely am interested in the amount of private sector support for this kind of research.

On the other questions (universities, research, policy, education), we're pretty flexible. We work with individuals who could conceivably support a variety of different approaches.

Best,
Alexander

Andrew Lockley

unread,
Oct 4, 2013, 7:38:21 PM10/4/13
to alexan...@gmail.com, Ron Larson, wf...@utk.edu, geoengineering, Irene Stirling

My understanding is that the Carneige Institute has an effective research funding programme, and they are set up to take donations from US donors. Unfortunately, European donors cannot give yet in a tax efficient fashion, AFAIK.

I've always been able to direct enquiries to Irene, see cc.

A

Alan Robock

unread,
Oct 4, 2013, 8:22:19 PM10/4/13
to geoengi...@googlegroups.com
Dear Alexander,

These are interesting lists.  There are a couple more grants that could be added to your list:

1.  NSF Climate Dynamics, ATM-0730452, “Collaborative Research in Evaluation of Suggestions to Geoengineer the Climate System Using Stratospheric Aerosols and Sun Shading,” February 1, 2008 – January 31, 2013, $622,275, completed.

2.  Accompanying grant to UCLA, with Rich Turco as PI, for a smaller amount, completed.

3.  Norwegian EXPECT project 229760, Exploring the Potential and Side Effects of Climate Engineering, Jón Egill Kristjánsson, PI, along with a number of others.  Just now starting, 7,000,000 NOK =  US $1,170,000.
Alan Robock

Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
  Editor, Reviews of Geophysics
  Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
Department of Environmental Sciences             Phone: +1-848-932-5751
Rutgers University                                 Fax: +1-732-932-8644
14 College Farm Road                  E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551  USA     http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock
                                          http://twitter.com/AlanRobock
Watch my 18 min TEDx talk at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsrEk1oZ-54

Ken Caldeira

unread,
Oct 5, 2013, 2:28:55 AM10/5/13
to Alexander Berger, geoengineering
Alexander,

The following line is incorrect as written, but the situation is complex and not easily summarized:

  • Continued support from Bill Gates for FICER at ~$1.5 million/year

First, current funding to FICER is ~$1.3 million / year.

Second, only some of these resources are going to "geoengineering" research. (A will put aside for the moment the fact that "geoengineering" research is here -- and, for that matte, everywhere -- left undefined.)

FICER stands for "Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research". "Geoengineering research" (whatever that is) constitutes part of my group's FICER funded work (and as noted below, we do no work that is funded exclusively by FICER). We spend a lot of time looking at how different types of radiative forcing affect the climate system. A lot of this is in a blurry boundary between "geoengineering research" and fundamental climate science. We also look at things related to energy systems, carbon embodied in trade, etc.

Third, FICER funds support salaries of some postdocs working with me and miscellaneous expenses, but my salary is fully supported by Carnegie Institution for Science; so every project in our group that is partially supported by FICER is also partially supported by Carnegie. So, insofar as you are including FICER supporting "geoengineering" research, you would need to estimate how much Carnegie support was also applied to this research.  

Best,

Ken

PS. Here is a list of studies published in 2012 or 2013 that were funded in part by FICER and in part by Carnegie Institution for Science (and possibly other sources to authors from other institutions) [We had other publication to which FICER did not contribute.]. The ones where none of my post-docs are co-authors, the only FICER funds that were contributed through Carnegie were things like computer resources, travel expenses, etc.

K Caldeira and N P Myhrvold 2013 Projections of the pace of warming following an abrupt increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration Environ. Res. Lett. 8 034039 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034039

Author(s): Ricke, Katharine L.; Moreno-Cruz, Juan B.; Caldeira, Ken
Source: ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LETTERS  Volume: 8   Issue: 1     Article Number: 014021   DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/014021   Published: JAN-MAR 2013

Author(s): Kravitz, Ben; Caldeira, Ken; Boucher, Olivier; et al.
Source: JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES  Volume: 118   Issue: 15   Pages: 8320-8332   DOI: 10.1002/jgrd.50646   Published: AUG 16 2013

Author(s): MacMartin, Douglas G.; Keith, David W.; Kravitz, Ben; et al.
Source: NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE  Volume: 3   Issue: 4   Pages: 365-368   DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE1722   Published: APR 2013

Author(s): Bala, G.; Krishna, Sujith; Narayanappa, Devaraju; et al.
Source: CLIMATE DYNAMICS  Volume: 40   Issue: 7-8   Pages: 1671-1686   DOI: 10.1007/s00382-012-1495-9   Published: APR 2013

Author(s): Marvel, Kate; Kravitz, Ben; Caldeira, Ken
Source: NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE  Volume: 3   Issue: 2   Pages: 118-121   DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE1683   Published: FEB 2013

Author(s): Hsieh, W. -C.; Collins, W. D.; Liu, Y.; et al.
Source: ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS  Volume: 13   Issue: 15   Pages: 7489-7510   DOI: 10.5194/acp-13-7489-2013   Published: 2013

Author(s): Caldeira, Ken; Bala, Govindasamy; Cao, Long
Book Editor(s): Jeanloz, R
Source: ANNUAL REVIEW OF EARTH AND PLANETARY SCIENCES, VOL 41  Book Series: Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences   Volume: 41   Pages: 231-256  DOI: 10.1146/annurev-earth-042711-105548   Published: 2013

Author(s): Ricke, Katharine L.; Moreno-Cruz, Juan B.; Caldeira, Ken
Source: ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LETTERS  Volume: 8   Issue: 1     Article Number: 014021   DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/014021   Published: JAN-MAR 2013

Author(s): Davis, Steven J.; Cao, Long; Caldeira, Ken; et al.
Source: ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LETTERS  Volume: 8   Issue: 1     Article Number: 011001   DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/011001   Published: JAN-MAR 2013

Author(s): Caldeira, Ken
Source: SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN  Volume: 307   Issue: 3   Special Issue: SI   Pages: 78-+   Published: SEP 2012

Author(s): Caldeira, Ken; Myhrvold, Nathan P.
Source: PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  Volume: 109   Issue: 27   Pages: E1813-E1813   DOI:10.1073/pnas.1206019109   Published: JUL 3 2012

Author(s): Cao, Long; Bala, Govindasamy; Caldeira, Ken
Source: ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LETTERS  Volume: 7   Issue: 3     Article Number: 034015   DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/7/3/034015   Published: JUL-SEP 2012

Author(s): Pongratz, Julia; Caldeira, Ken
Source: ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LETTERS  Volume: 7   Issue: 3     Article Number: 034001   DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/7/3/034001   Published: JUL-SEP 2012

Author(s): Russell, Lynn M.; Rasch, Philip J.; Mace, Georgina M.; et al.
Source: AMBIO  Volume: 41   Issue: 4   Pages: 350-369   DOI: 10.1007/s13280-012-0258-5   Published: JUN 2012

Author(s): Kravitz, Ben; MacMartin, Douglas G.; Caldeira, Ken
Source: GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS  Volume: 39     Article Number: L11801   DOI: 10.1029/2012GL051652   Published: JUN 1 2012

Author(s): Ban-Weiss, George A.; Cao, Long; Bala, G.; et al.
Source: CLIMATE DYNAMICS  Volume: 38   Issue: 5-6   Pages: 897-911   DOI: 10.1007/s00382-011-1052-y   Published: MAR 2012

Author(s): Pongratz, J.; Lobell, D. B.; Cao, L.; et al.
Source: NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE  Volume: 2   Issue: 2   Pages: 101-105   DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE1373   Published: FEB 2012

Author(s): Myhrvold, N. P.; Caldeira, K.
Source: ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LETTERS  Volume: 7   Issue: 1     Article Number: 014019   DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/7/1/014019   Published: JAN-MAR 2012




_______________
Ken Caldeira

Carnegie Institution for Science 

p.j.irvine

unread,
Oct 5, 2013, 3:53:56 AM10/5/13
to geoengi...@googlegroups.com
Hi,

I believe SCRIM is focused on sustainably managing climate risks and will only touch on geoengineering. I don't know all the details but under 10% would be a better guess than 50%.

The IASS has a group that I work for on geoengineering which includes ~ 10 full time post-docs / research fellows, ~ 4 research assistants / masters students. I'm not sure how much we cost though.

cheers,

Pete

Chris Vivian

unread,
Oct 7, 2013, 11:40:24 AM10/7/13
to geoengi...@googlegroups.com
Alexander,
 
There is also the German DFG research programme 'Climate Engineering: Risks, Challenges, Opportunities?' that has some €5 million  funding for 2013-2015 - see http://www.spp-climate-engineering.de/focus-program.html.
 
Chris.

Alexander Berger

unread,
Oct 8, 2013, 3:01:12 AM10/8/13
to geoengineering
Hi all,

Thanks so much for the thoughtful responses.

Going in order:
  • Alan - I've added all three grants to the list. Thanks for the suggestions.
  • Ken - I 100% agree that this list underestimates the total resources going into geoengineering research, because it ignores the general support that institutions provide to their researchers regardless of what they're working on. Even "unfunded" research consumes resources, and those are not accounted for in this list. (Furthermore, the strategy of only accounting for programs I know of virtually guarantees an underestimate.) However, I don't think it's possible to systematically account for that general sort of support (at least in a relatively time-efficient way), so I'm planning to leave that as an explicit caveat, rather than attempt to include all of the support provided by researcher's home organizations (e.g. the Carnegie Institution). I've updated the estimate for FICER to $1.3 million, and if you have a suggestion for what percentage I should attribute to "geoengineering"--recognizing the lack of a fully worked out definition--I'm more than happy to take it. For now, I've left it at 100%, with the note that that is an overestimate.
  • Pete - thanks for the update on SCRiM; I've changed the estimate to 10%, recognizing that this is probably still on the high side.
  • Chris - the DFG program is listed in row 4 of the spreadsheet, and accounts for about a third of the total estimated annual funding.
Again, the spreadsheet is here, and I welcome any additions or corrections any of you might have. These projects still do not have any funding info:
Thanks for the help!

Best,
Alexander
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages