Archive for April 19th, 2010

h1

Planes or Volcano?

April 19, 2010

Planes vs Volcano: Who's emitting the most CO2?

h1

The Money to Be Made

April 19, 2010

Jeff Goodell has a nice little schtick in this Grist piece on the directional flow of dollars in the geoengineered world. I’m surprised, in a way, that the $$ question hasn’t gotten more play, but perhaps it’s too early for that.

Here are Goodell’s estimations as to who makes the cash, quoting directly. The fourth and fifth must be tongue in cheek, because if not, hey, I’m suddenly in favor of geoengineering. The positive externality of fundamentalist preachers is that their ridiculous reasoning amps up the demand for philosophers. This well could be my meal ticket:

  1. Lobbyists: Right now, because geoengineering is not much more than a twinkle in James Lovelock’s eye, nobody on K street is pushing for Department of Energy funding of stratospheric aerosol injection devices. But in the future, they might be. Geoengineering could turn out to be the 21st century equivalent of industrial agriculture … or a government project that has a lot in common with the overwrought, overfunded Star Wars missile defense system. Either way, lobbyists make out.
  2. Carbon-sucking entrepreneurs: Here’s a simple truth: anyone who figures out a cheap, simple way to suck CO2 out of the air is going to make a lot of money. Not surprisingly, a number of scientists/entrepreneurs are working on it, including David Keith, a physicist at the University of Calgary. Keith’s company, called Carbon Engineering, uses a simple chemical process borrowed from the pulp industry, and has attracted $5 million in funding from investors, including Bill Gates. Right now, the cost of sucking carbon out of the air is up around $150 a ton, but if Keith — or anyone else — can cut that cost in half, things start to get interesting. And when it comes to geoengineering, CO2 removal is the one area where the profit motive is clearly lined up with the public good.
  3. Early investors in albedo engineering companies: Manipulating the earth’s albedo (a fancy word for reflectivity) by brightening clouds or injecting particles into the stratosphere is the most dangerous and complex type of geoengineering researchers are currently exploring.  Among the many questions: Who is going to end up doing the actual work of brightening clouds or injecting aerosols? Maybe governments will be in charge, maybe a Richard Branson-like billionaire. Either way, the hardware is likely to be built by private contractors, just as the fighter planes used by the U.S. Air Force are built by private concerns like Lockheed Martin — a company with a market cap right now of about $32 billion.
  4. Geoengineering conference organizers: The whole idea of geoengineering is so fraught with technical, political, moral, and cultural complexities that, no matter how the future of geoengineering plays out, there are going to be plenty of issues to fret about. So we may as well gather up and fret together, even if we have to pay for the privilege.
  5. Fundamentalist preachers: I’m not suggesting that religious leaders are motivated by money (or sex). However, if we start trying to deliberately manipulate the earth’s climate, you can be sure that some will see this as trespassing into forbidden realms, and they will raise their voices against it. Imagine the war over abortion played out in the stratosphere and you’ll have a pretty good idea where we might be headed.
h1

Paine and Pleasure

April 19, 2010

I got a kick out of this post by Prof. Rick Hills regarding the conceptual confusion of the tea party. He argues, basically, that members of the growing conservative backlash need to find the correct historical icons. To wit:

Take, for instance, Glenn Beck’s effort to appropriate Thomas Paine as the inspiration for Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government. I assume that Beck’s beliefs are roughly libertarian, pro-“Christian” in some sense, and generally anti-redistributivist. Paine, by contrast, was (1) a tax-and-spend liberal who (for instance) wrote six pamphlets defending the proposed national 5% impost against its small-government attackers in Rhodes Island; (2) an egalitarian who called for redistribution of land in his pamphlet, Agrarian Justice; (3) a Deist who ridiculed the Bible as a pack of socially destructive lies in The Age of Reason; (4) a self-proclaimed centralizer who teamed up with Pennsylvania Federalists like Robert and Gouvernour Morris to press for a powerful and consolidated national government; and (5) a citizen of the world who participated in the French Revolution and called on America to receive the fugitive from abroad (to the irritation of John Adams who denounced “the disciples of Thomas Paine” to John Marshall as European intellectual riff-raff — “a company of schoolmasters, painters, and poets” — more undesirable as immigrants than Caliban and Ariel “with a troop of spirits the most mischievous from fairy land”).

Yes. Exactly. Thank you.