This is one of the few articles I've seen on the commercial aspects of climate engineering, covering Climos and another unnamed CO2-scrubbing startup.
Full article here
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Upcoming geo-engineering conference in March
I've seen several news reports today discussing an upcoming summit of climate scientists in California in March:
http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2256051/climate-scientists-convene
It looks like this is a sudden media blip rather than actual news - a similar set of articles appeared last November about the same event, which appears to be organised by the Climate Response Fund
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/11/march-geoengine.html
I'm currently trying to track down registration and agenda details. Although it appears to be a primarily science-oriented event, I suspect that there may also be early signs of commercial interests, especially around the practicalities of field trials. If possible, I'd like to get along to it.
http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2256051/climate-scientists-convene
It looks like this is a sudden media blip rather than actual news - a similar set of articles appeared last November about the same event, which appears to be organised by the Climate Response Fund
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/11/march-geoengine.html
I'm currently trying to track down registration and agenda details. Although it appears to be a primarily science-oriented event, I suspect that there may also be early signs of commercial interests, especially around the practicalities of field trials. If possible, I'd like to get along to it.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
A couple of worthwhile links
I've just finished reading this book, Energise! by Prof James Woudhuysen and Joe Kaplinsky. Although it's mostly about innovation in energy production and distribution (nuclear, wind, solar etc), it also briefly mentions geoengineering in positive terms. The general tone of the book is about human-centric development of larger-scale and more-efficients ways of generating power, and criticises much of the blind following of tenets like 'sustainability' and the so-called 'precautionary principle'.
I tend to concur with most of its findings, especially the notion that we are looking at the problem of climate change in the wrong way. Rather than asking 'what policies and behavioural changes can reduce energy consumption and hence CO2 emissions?' we should be asking 'what technological innovations can enable us to continue and extend current energy consumption and human behaviour, while also reducing emissions of CO2?'
Another useful article on Geoengineering is here
I tend to concur with most of its findings, especially the notion that we are looking at the problem of climate change in the wrong way. Rather than asking 'what policies and behavioural changes can reduce energy consumption and hence CO2 emissions?' we should be asking 'what technological innovations can enable us to continue and extend current energy consumption and human behaviour, while also reducing emissions of CO2?'
Another useful article on Geoengineering is here
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Welcome to Disruptive Geoengineering
This is the first post of my new blog, looking at the commercial opportunities arising from the nascent technology of geoengineering, also sometimes called climate engineering, planetary engineering or terraforming.
Geongineering is a term which encompasses a broad set of techniques for changing the earth's climate or surface, by means of large-scale interventions. Options under consideration range from changing the reflectivity of deserts, to "seeding" the atmosphere with clouds or chemicals to reflect more sunlight. It could involve extracting and storing carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere, or numerous other proposed solutions.
As of the beginning of 2010, the area of geoengineering remains highly controversial - but it is finally being acknowledged as a "Plan B" for mitigating climate change if other approaches fail to work sufficiently. Comments from leading policymakers and publications from bodies like the Royal Society have started to give it credibility, at least at the level of consideration and additional research.
In particular, worries that global CO2 levels will continue rising for some time - and that certain climatic effects are already 'locked in' but slow-moving, have led some fairly conservative commentators to consider it as almost essential. Even had Copenhagen been more successful, it's possible that any realistic agreements on emissions may be too late.
Some people are worried that its discussion might discourage people from making tough decisions about emissions or behaviour - while others see it as a technical solution to permit continued evolution of current lifestyles, which they object to. Like much of the debate around environmental issues, the emergence of geoengineering involves a complex mix of science, politics, ideology, attitudes to risk and numerous other variables.
This blog is primarily looking at the commercial opportunities that may at some point arise from geoengineering - which options will succeed, what are the risks, and who might make money from them. There are plenty of other good sources about the science and politics of geoengineering, which will be referenced here relevant, but my own analysis here will focus more on the companies and business models.
As a starting point, I would like to highlight the Royal Society's recent overview of Geoengineering as a very worthwhile resource. I will also link to various other useful publications and articles as time goes on.
About the Author (Dean Bubley). As a brief background, my current "day job" is a technology analyst and consultant for the telecoms industry, especially mobile & wireless networks, phones and services. My main work blog Disruptive Wireless is here and my company, Disruptive Analysis, is found here. I have long had a general interest in the broader aspects of science and technology, from environmental issues, through computing, physics and on to neurology and biogerontology.
A caveat: my general personal bias is towards technology-led solutions to environmental problems. I am generally of the belief that many environmentalists take a misanthropic stance, while I prefer to believe that humanity is both capable of solving problems, and has a destiny involving innovation, continued economic and technological development. I am particularly negative about attempts at "behavioural change" which are often thinly-veiled attempts to impose specific ideologies.
I am generally a believer in anthropogenic climate change - although I'm a little perturbed by the inability of climate models to show the recent falls in temperature. I strongly feel that computing and other areas of technology should be "ringfenced" from the effects of much environmental legislation, as whatever the situation, it is clear that more & faster computers, and better networks, will be essential to model the climate, collect data via sensors, control energy use via "smart grids" and so forth. It is critical that misguided laws do not limit the IT industry's ability to innovate & help solve environmental problems - that would be catastrophically self-defeating.
Although I am just starting out examining the Geoengineering 'Industry', I suspect that the information technology industry will be among the greatest beneficiaries in the next few years, as most of the action will be around modelling, simulation and monitoring, rather than 'real world' construction of cloud-ships or atmospheric sulphur-dioxide injectors.
Geongineering is a term which encompasses a broad set of techniques for changing the earth's climate or surface, by means of large-scale interventions. Options under consideration range from changing the reflectivity of deserts, to "seeding" the atmosphere with clouds or chemicals to reflect more sunlight. It could involve extracting and storing carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere, or numerous other proposed solutions.
As of the beginning of 2010, the area of geoengineering remains highly controversial - but it is finally being acknowledged as a "Plan B" for mitigating climate change if other approaches fail to work sufficiently. Comments from leading policymakers and publications from bodies like the Royal Society have started to give it credibility, at least at the level of consideration and additional research.
In particular, worries that global CO2 levels will continue rising for some time - and that certain climatic effects are already 'locked in' but slow-moving, have led some fairly conservative commentators to consider it as almost essential. Even had Copenhagen been more successful, it's possible that any realistic agreements on emissions may be too late.
Some people are worried that its discussion might discourage people from making tough decisions about emissions or behaviour - while others see it as a technical solution to permit continued evolution of current lifestyles, which they object to. Like much of the debate around environmental issues, the emergence of geoengineering involves a complex mix of science, politics, ideology, attitudes to risk and numerous other variables.
This blog is primarily looking at the commercial opportunities that may at some point arise from geoengineering - which options will succeed, what are the risks, and who might make money from them. There are plenty of other good sources about the science and politics of geoengineering, which will be referenced here relevant, but my own analysis here will focus more on the companies and business models.
As a starting point, I would like to highlight the Royal Society's recent overview of Geoengineering as a very worthwhile resource. I will also link to various other useful publications and articles as time goes on.
About the Author (Dean Bubley). As a brief background, my current "day job" is a technology analyst and consultant for the telecoms industry, especially mobile & wireless networks, phones and services. My main work blog Disruptive Wireless is here and my company, Disruptive Analysis, is found here. I have long had a general interest in the broader aspects of science and technology, from environmental issues, through computing, physics and on to neurology and biogerontology.
A caveat: my general personal bias is towards technology-led solutions to environmental problems. I am generally of the belief that many environmentalists take a misanthropic stance, while I prefer to believe that humanity is both capable of solving problems, and has a destiny involving innovation, continued economic and technological development. I am particularly negative about attempts at "behavioural change" which are often thinly-veiled attempts to impose specific ideologies.
I am generally a believer in anthropogenic climate change - although I'm a little perturbed by the inability of climate models to show the recent falls in temperature. I strongly feel that computing and other areas of technology should be "ringfenced" from the effects of much environmental legislation, as whatever the situation, it is clear that more & faster computers, and better networks, will be essential to model the climate, collect data via sensors, control energy use via "smart grids" and so forth. It is critical that misguided laws do not limit the IT industry's ability to innovate & help solve environmental problems - that would be catastrophically self-defeating.
Although I am just starting out examining the Geoengineering 'Industry', I suspect that the information technology industry will be among the greatest beneficiaries in the next few years, as most of the action will be around modelling, simulation and monitoring, rather than 'real world' construction of cloud-ships or atmospheric sulphur-dioxide injectors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)