How would you allocate US$10 million per year to most reduce climate risk?

[Sam Carana]

Imagine that you had a budget of $10 million per year and that you
should maximize the amount of climate risk reduction obtainable with
that $10 million, what would you allocate it to and why?

Given the scary situation in the Arctic, I would apportion parts of
the $10 million to methods that promise immediate results:

1. Testing of SRM such as sulfur aerosols, bright water and marine
cloud brightening.

2. Testing ways to ignite or break down methane from the sky, i.e.
from airplanes or satellites. Laser beams spring to mind. Short,
amplified pulses of light could be focused on hydrogen peroxide or
ozone, in efforts to produce hydroxyl and oxidize as much methane as
possible.

3. Building on the outcome of 2., equipping small aircraft with such
technology, as well as autopilot software, GPS, LiPo batteries and
with solar thin film mounted both on top of and underneath the wings.

At first, one such plane could navigate to the north of Canada and
Alaska at the start of summer. In subsequent years, numerous such
planes could follow, also going to other parts of the Arctic. At the
end of summer, the planes could return home for a check-up and
possible upgrade of the technology, to be launched again early summer
the next year.

There are many self-financed clubs where members build and fly remote
controlled aircraft. Even a small financial incentive would give them
a goal, while the publicity would make people more aware of the
problems we face in the Arctic.

Sam Carana.

For background on above, also see:
http://geo-engineering.blogspot.com/2011/04/runaway-global-warming.html
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/browse_thread/thread/5eaf812314dced8c
http://geo-engineering.blogspot.com/2011/04/how-would-you-allocate-us10-million-per.html