Bill Gates backs climate scientists lobbying for large-scale geoengineering

Bill Gates backs climate scientists lobbying for large-scale geoengineering













The billionaire
philanthropist Bill Gates is backing a group of climate scientists
lobbying for geoengineering experiments. Photograph: Ted S. Warren/APA small group of leading climate scientists, financially supported by billionaires including Bill Gates,
are lobbying governments and international bodies to back experiments
into manipulating the climate on a global scale to avoid catastrophic climate change.

The scientists, who advocate geoengineering
methods such as spraying millions of tonnes of reflective particles of
sulphur dioxide 30 miles above earth, argue that a "plan B" for
climate change will be needed if the UN and politicians cannot agree to
making the necessary cuts in greenhouse gases, and say the US
government and others should pay for a major programme of international
research.

Solar geoengineering techniques are highly controversial: while some
climate scientists believe they may prove a quick and relatively cheap
way to slow global warming, others fear that when conducted in the
upper atmosphere, they could irrevocably alter rainfall patterns and
interfere with the earth's climate.

Geoengineering is opposed by many environmentalists, who say the
technology could undermine efforts to reduce emissions, and by
developing countries who fear it could be used as a weapon or by rich
countries to their advantage. In 2010, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity declared a moratorium on experiments in the sea and space, except for small-scale scientific studies.

Concern is now growing that the small but influential group of
scientists, and their backers, may have a disproportionate effect on
major decisions about geoengineering research and policy.

"We will need to protect ourselves from vested interests [and] be sure
that choices are not influenced by parties who might make significant
amounts of money through a choice to modify climate, especially using
proprietary intellectual property," said Jane Long, director at large
for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the US, in a paper
delivered to a recent geoengineering conference on ethics.

"The stakes are very high and scientists are not the best people to
deal with the social, ethical or political issues that geoengineering
raises," said Doug Parr, chief scientist at Greenpeace. "The idea that a
self-selected group should have so much influence is bizarre."

Pressure to find a quick technological fix to climate change is growing
as politicians fail to reach an agreement to significantly reduce
emissions. In 2009-2010, the US government received requests for over $2bn(£1.2bn) of grants for geoengineering research, but spent around $100m.

As well as Gates, other wealthy individuals including Sir Richard Branson, tar sands magnate Murray Edwards
and the co-founder of Skype, Niklas Zennström, have funded a series of
official reports into future use of the technology. Branson, who has
frequently called for geoengineering to combat climate change, helped
fund the Royal Society's inquiry into solar radiation management last
year through his Carbon War Room charity. It is not known how much he contributed.
Professors David Keith, of Harvard University, and Ken Caldeira
of Stanford, are the world's two leading advocates of major research
into geoengineering the upper atmosphere to provide earth with a
reflective shield. They have so far received over $4.6m from Gates to
run the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research
(Ficer). Nearly half Ficer's money, which comes directly from Gates's
personal funds, has so far been used for their own research, but the
rest is disbursed by them to fund the work of other advocates of
large-scale interventions.

According to statements of financial interests, Keith receives an undisclosed sum from Bill Gates each year, and is the president and majority owner of the geoengineering company Carbon Engineering, in which both Gates and Edwards have major stakes – believed to be together worth over $10m.

Another Edwards company, Canadian Natural Resources, has plans to spend
$25bn to turn the bitumen-bearing sand found in northern Alberta into
barrels of crude oil. Caldeira says he receives $375,000 a year from
Gates, holds a carbon capture patent and works for Intellectual Ventures,
a private geoegineering research company part-owned by Gates and run
by Nathan Myhrvold, former head of technology at Microsoft.

According to the latest Ficer accounts, the two scientists have so far
given $300,000 of Gates money to part-fund three prominent reviews and
assessments of geoengineering – the UK Royal Society report on Solar Radiation Management, the US Taskforce on Geoengineering and a 2009 report by Novin
a science thinktank based in Santa Barbara, California. Keith and
Caldeira either sat on the panels that produced the reports or
contributed evidence. All three reports strongly recommended more
research into solar radiation management.

The fund also gave $600,000 to Phil Rasch, chief climate scientist for the Pacific Northwest national laboratory, one of 10 research institutions funded by the US energy department.

Rasch gave evidence at the first Royal Society report on geoengineering 2009
and was a panel member on the 2011 report. He has testified to the US
Congress about the need for government funding of large-scale
geoengineering and, according to a financial statement he gave the Royal
Society, also works for Intellectual Ventures. In addition, Caldeira
and Keith gave a further $240,000 to geoengineering advocates to travel
and attend workshops and meetings and $100,000 to Jay Apt, a prominent
advocate of geoengineering as a last resort, and professor of
engineering at Carnegie Mellon University. Apt worked with Keith and Aurora Flight Sciences, a US company that develops drone aircraft technology for the US military, to study the costs of sending 1m tonnes of sulphate particles into the upper atmosphere a year.

Analysis of the eight major national and international inquiries into
geoengineering over the past three years shows that Keith and Caldeira,
Rasch and Prof Granger Morgan
the head of department of engineering and public policy at Carnegie
Mellon University where Keith works, have sat on seven panels, including
one set up by the UN. Three other strong advocates of solar radiation
geoengineering, including Rasch, have sat on national inquiries
part-funded by Ficer.

"There are clear conflicts of interest between many of the people
involved in the debate," said Diana Bronson, a researcher with
Montreal-based geoengineering watchdog ETC.

"What is really worrying is that the same small group working on
high-risk technologies that will geoengineer the planet is also trying
to engineer the discussion around international rules and regulations.
We cannot put the fox in charge of the chicken coop."

"The eco-clique are lobbying for a huge injection of public funds into
geoengineering research. They dominate virtually every inquiry into
geoengineering. They are present in almost all of the expert
deliberations. They have been the leading advisers to parliamentary and
congressional inquiries and their views will, in all likelihood,
dominate the deliberations of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) as it grapples for the first time with the
scientific and ethical tangle that is climate engineering," said Clive
Hamilton, professor of Public Ethics at the Australian National
University, in a Guardian blog.
The scientists involved reject this notion. "Even the perception that
[a small group of people has] illegitimate influence [is] very
unhealthy for a technology which has extreme power over the world. The
concerns that a small group [is] dominating the debate are legitimate,
but things are not as they were," said Keith. "It's changing as
countries like India and China become involved. The era when my voice
or that of a few was dominant is over. We need a very broad debate."

"Every scientist has some conflict of interest, because we would all
like to see more resources going to study things that we find
interesting," said Caldeira. "Do I have too much influence? I feel like
I have too little. I have been calling for making CO2 emissions
illegal for many years, but no one is listening to me. People who
disagree with me might feel I have too much influence. The best way to
reduce my influence is to have more public research funds available, so
that our funds are in the noise. If the federal government played the
role it should in this area, there would be no need for money from
Gates.
"Regarding my own patents, I have repeatedly stated that if any patent
that I am on is ever used for the purposes of altering climate, then
any proceeds that accrue to me for this use will be donated to
nonprofit NGOs and charities. I have no expectation or interest in
developing a personal revenue stream based upon the use of these
patents for climate modification.".
Rasch added: "I don't feel there is any conflict of interest. I don't
lobby, work with patents or intellectual property, do classified
research or work with for-profit companies. The research I do on
geoengineering involves computer simulations and thinking about
possible consequences. The Ficer foundation that has funded my research
tries to be transparent in their activities, as do I."


Source:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/06/bill-gates-climate-scientists-geoengineering