Scientist calls U of C energy centre a failure Former director of group within Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environment and Economy speaks out
CBCNews, Studio Calgary: „David Keith is right here in our studio tonight. He was one of the star scientists recruited to run the institute, however he left. He is now at Harvard University in Massachusetts. First of all, let me start off, David, by saying: 'Thank you for coming in today.'“ David Keith: „Thanks very much. Great to be here.“ CBCNews, Studio Calgary: „So, first question is: Why did you leave ICE?“ David Keith: „I left cause it wasn't working very well. I left because I didn't see a prospect for really succeeding because of the kind management failures of the university.“ CBCNews, Studio Calgary: Oh when you joined it was very infancy in the early days. There were big plans to create some meaningful dialogue and communication between industry and policy makers, environmental researchers. What went wrong in your view?“ David Keith: „So there are hard to do first of all.“ CBCNews, Studio Calgary: „Yeah.“ David Keith: „So to some extent it's just hard when the stakes are made. But I think the thing you got to focus on at least three seperate big initiatives have all kind of foundered away not totally failed but really not succeeded anything like the dreams in public announced many of us had. And so: it's time to ask: Why? And for me the central reason is the university did not really think of creative and serious ways to manage conflicts of interests. It's not that the conflicts of interests are bad. They are natural. So it's normal for industry to have a point of view. That's what they should do. And it's normal for regulators to regulate and for environmental advocates to advocate. No problem. The problem was the university has to have a backbone and the university has to think really creatively about how to manage those conflicts to get a good public dialogue going and get good analysis out there. I think instead university senior management tended to think of these conflicts as kind of a sideshow they manage on adhoc basiis when problems arose.“ CBCNews, Studio Calgary: „Alright and you expected these major donors – these industry experts or companies to be weighing on these sorts of decisions. That's not a surprise to you then?“ David Keith: „No, it's healthy. Industry knows much more about how the energy sector works than the academics do in many cases. So you need active involvement with industry and in effect the industry interest is actually the right answer.“ CBCNews, Studio Calgary: „O.K. And you suggested earlier that Enbridge actually had some say or its input was taken seriously by the university to the point that an employee was let go. Enbridge has come out today and responded saying it has never meddled in any of these sorts of things. So what is your response to that?“ David Keith: „Soo I don't know precisely what Enbridge told you. I don't have no particular beef with that. What I know what happened inside the university the employee was recommended to drop out on being on the EPA's Scientific Advisory Board (U.S. Board) and eventually decided he wouldn't return to that center. He wasn't gone (?) to the university and from my understanding that was Enbridges request but I don't know that for fact.“ CBCNews, Studio Calgary: „And what do you think about the university's response? We have not told the public exactly what the response was. We are going to get there in a short time. But basicly the university is saying that it is happy with the way things are being run.“ David Keith: „So that's a very odd response I think it speaks to the measurements we are talking about. I mean it would have been much more afresh when the university has said: „Hey, we know there are problems. We've got plan(?) effects (?). That here's what we are gonna do: we welcome Edward. So, I see the main mist I was involved with it's not answer(?) about two or less than two or less than two fulltime equivalent faculty. They have divided the staff by about half in the last half year the executive director's offices is open if you go around there. Moral is very low so if that's success that's a very weird kind of success.“ CBCNews, Studio Calgary: „Alright, we have to leave it at that for today. Thank you so much for coming in, David.“ David Keith: „Thank you very much.“ CBCNews, Studio Calgary: „We appreciate that. And David Keith is the former head of ICE. He now teaches at Harvard University.“ http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2013/01/28/calgary-university-energy-centre.html
The former director of an interdisciplinary research group of an energy research centre at the University of Calgary is calling the centre a failure.
Climate scientist David Keith says the Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environment and Economy is critically important, but has not been able to balance the interests of private industry and environmental advocates.
Keith says the university for example, removed an academic at the request of Enbridge.
"That just fundamentally misconceives the university's role," says Keith who is now a professor at Harvard University in the United States.
Liberal MLA David Swann says he's concerned.
"It's affecting both the direction of research and the results of research and it throws into question the results we're producing at the university of Calgary," Swann said.
Meanwhile, Liberal leader Raj Sherman is calling for an investigation.
"The Integrity of one of our top institutions has been brought into question by a highly respected individual," Sherman says. "This needs to be looked at."
Enbridge released a statement to CBC saying the company was not involved in the recruitment process, the appointment nor changes to leadership roles at the university and "any claims to the contrary are categorically false."
"A lot of people put a lot of effort into this institution. A lot of good will effort. A lot of good people at U of C worked hard and we basically fumbled this institution," says Keith.
He adds poor management on the part of the university, which took too long to make important decisions about the Institute, contributed to its failure. U of C issues statement
In a written statement to the CBC, the University of Calgary says the centre was created to develop cost-effective solutions to the environmental challenges of energy production and use.
"We believe ISEE is delivering on that mandate," reads the statement.
On Wednesday, the U of C issued the another statement from president Elizabeth Cannon:
"The University of Calgary believes in and supports the academic integrity and independence of scholarly inquiry that is the foundation and core value of great universities. Balancing the views and interests of the academy, industry, government and non-governmental groups is not always easy, and often there are conflicts and disagreements. We believe that a university offers a valuable forum for debate, collaboration, and ultimately, ground-breaking research to address the significant challenges facing our society and our world. The University of Calgary’s belief in independent scholarly inquiry and academic freedom guides us when there are conflicts. The university’s executive is committed to continuous improvement in academic and administrative leadership and management.
The University of Calgary is moving forward with an ambitious agenda to become one of Canada’s top five research universities. Our Eyes High strategy was launched at the end of September 2011 after extensive consultation with faculty, staff and students. During the 2011 – 2012 academic year, with extensive input and consultation from the academy, the university developed an Academic Plan and a Strategic Research Plan. The Strategic Research Plan identified six themes, one of which is “Energy Innovations for Today and Tomorrow.”
Beginning in 2012, the university began developing an interdisciplinary energy research strategy with extensive input from, and consultation with, the internal academic community, the energy industry and government. The strategy builds on existing research strength at the university, led by more than 200 researchers in a wide range of disciplines, including science, engineering, law, economics, health, management and public policy.
An independent panel of international academic experts will be asked to review the strategy to ensure that it is of the highest calibre and at a global level. Effective September 1, 2011, David Keith, a respected academic and researcher, resigned from the University of Calgary. He stepped down from his full-time professorship and accepted an appointment with Harvard University in applied physics and public policy. He remains an adjunct professor in the Physics and Astronomy Department at the University of Calgary, and is a visiting fellow at the Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environment and Economy (ISEEE). On November 15, 2012, the University announced that ISEEE was moving into the Faculty of Science and that its future direction would be determined within the context of the emerging energy research strategy. While ISEEE has had successes, there have also been challenges.
We believe that more closely aligning the activities of ISEEE with our Energy Research Strategy will lead to greater success for all involved. All of us — academics, industry, government, NGOs, and community leaders — have a role to play in addressing societal challenges. This requires collaboration and mutual respect. The University of Calgary values the support of our many industry partners, including Enbridge.
The Enbridge Centre for Corporate Sustainability in the Haskayne School of Business is designed as an incubator for the research and development of business practices that account for social, environmental, and economic considerations. We are proud to partner with Enbridge on this important initiative. The Centre’s terms of reference make it clear that it will at all times operate within the mandate of the university for independent scholarly inquiry and academic freedom. We believe that the University of Calgary can create neutral ground for impactful and relevant research and education. We welcome all perspectives, including constructive criticism, to help us better deliver on this commitment to our students, faculty, staff and all Albertans." http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2013/01/28/calgary-university-energy-centre.html
Fourth interdisciplinary summer school on geoengineering Structure of the 2013 school The summer school will take place from August 5-9, 2013 at Harvard University. The objectives of the school are to promote interdisciplinary learning, stimulate new researchable ideas and collaborative research projects, and to enable vigorous discussion about the uncertainties and trade-offs faced in decisions about SRM. Students should expect to leave with a nuanced understanding of the current state of knowledge about SRM, with insights from across the natural and social sciences. As such, this year’s summer school will balance formal lectures with active and collaborative activities between students, and it will seek to maximise interaction between students and instructors. Admission and application We welcome applications from graduate students, post-doctoral fellows, NGO staff and recently appointed faculty and researchers who have an interest in SRM. The number of participants is limited to 80. We hope to bring new voices and perspectives into the school, in particular from the developing world, so while experience working on geoengineering is preferable it is not mandatory. The first day of the school will have a series of short catch-up lectures and Q&A on all aspects of SRM - natural and social science - allowing everyone to get up to speed. To apply, please submit a short letter (300 words or less) covering your research interests and an explanation of relevance of this summer school to your research. We request a short letter of recommendation from applicants who are in the first or second year of their graduate studies and who have not attended a previous geoengineering summer school. As there will be many interactive components to the school a good standard of English speaking and comprehension is required for all participants. Solar Radiation Management: Exploring uncertainties and trade-offs
"IMPLICC Final Symposium: The Atmospheric Science and Economics of Climate Engineering via Aerosol Injections 14-16 May, 2012 Max Planck Institute for Chemistry, Mainz, Germany Preliminary agenda (as of May, 4, 2012) Monday, 14 May 2012 - 12:00 Lunch CE – An overview - 13:30 Welcome, Logistics - 13:40 Introductory remarks (Lennart Bengtsson, Paul Crutzen) - 14:00 History of CE (James Fleming) - 14:30 Overview of CE options and issues (Jim Haywood)) - 15:00 Philosophical implications of CE (Clive Hamilton) - 15:30 Coffee CE via stratospheric aerosols - 16:00 Are volcanic eruptions a good analogy for climate engineering (Claudia Timmreck) - 16:30 GeoMIP – Current status (Ben Kravitz) - 17:00 Balancing a quadrupling of CO2 – A comparison of four CMIP5 models (Hauke Schmidt) - 17:20 Climate effects of different CE techniques (Ulrike Niemeier) - 17:40 Aerosol microphysics (Francois Benduhn) Tuesday, 15 May 2012 - 09:00 Results from the SPICE project (Matt Watson) - 09:30 Particle design for stratospheric CE (David Keith) - 10:00 Discussion - 10:30 Coffee CE via tropospheric aerosols - 11:00 Radiative effects of sea salt vs. other aerosol types (Michael Schulz) - 11:20 The indirect aerosol effect – implications for CE (Jon Egill Kristjansson) - 11:40 Effects of sea salt CE in IMPLICC models (Kari Alterskjær) - 12:00 Eastern Pacific Emitted Aerosol Cloud Experiment (E-PEACE) (Lynn Russell) - 12:30 Manipulating cirrus clouds (David Mitchell) - 13:00 Discussion - 13:30 Lunch The economics of CE - 14:30 Economics of climate change (Herrmann Held) - 15:00 Results from IMPLICC (Asbjoern Aaheim) - 15:30 Economics of CE (Adam Millard-Ball) - 16:00 Discussion - 16:30 Posters - 19:30 Conference Dinner Wednesday, 16 May 2012 Policy and future of CE research - 09:00 Politics and CE (Tim Rayner) - 09:30 Perspectives on international regulation of CE (Alexander Proelss) - 10:00 Coffee - 10:30 An NGO’s perspective on CE (Pat Mooney) - 11:30 Geoengineering: Emerging public perceptions and stakeholder perspectives (Adam Corner) - 12:00 Lunch - 13:15 Climate research in FP7, with view to Horizon2020 (Franz Immler) - 13:30 Overview on current and upcoming CE research activities in Europe (Mark Lawrence) - 14:00 Which questions should CE research tackle in the future? (Olivier Boucher) - 14:30 Discussion - Where do we go from here" http://implicc.zmaw.de/fileadmin/us...ents/final_symposium_agenda_20120508.pdf
Minutes: 8 Seconds: 27 till Minutes: 8 Seconds: 31 "David Keith: And by the way, it's not really a moral hazard it's more like FREE RIDING ON OUR GRANDKIDS."
Minutes: 8 Seconds: 33 till Minutes: 8 Seconds: 57 "Dane Wigington: Numerous studies including from CARB (California air resources board) have meant sub micron size particulates is being particularly harmful for human respiration. Do all discussions today - I have not heard any mentioning of this fallout - and has this been studied and also the effects of highly reactive metal like aluminum on toxifying soils and waters?"
Minutes: 8 Seconds: 58 till Minutes: 9 Seconds: 7 "Alan Robock, Geoengineer: The question is what would be the effects of these materials on human health if they come down into the stratosphere in particular small particulates of aluminum."
Minutes: 9 Seconds: 8 till Minutes: 9 Seconds: 46 "David Keith: So the collaborators in my working on the aerosol scheme are folks from Carnegie Melon" ( http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=7016#Post7016 , http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=7172#Post7172 ) " who focus on human health impacts and what we even have not published yet that was the very first thing we did. To do the order of magnitude of calculation in a pencil paper but we are not experts of human health impacts and whether it could be an issuue and for aluminum or other particulates there are a lot of toxicological things are needed to be looked at seriously. If you just think of the sheer number of particles and human health impact of these particles the answer is what we haven't published it that was the first thing we looked at with some leading experts who (?)logical research on human health impacts. It's not even close to an issue."
Minutes: 9 Seconds: 47 till Minutes: 9 Seconds: 53 "Dane Wigington: So let me clarify, so 10 megatons of aluminum dumped into the atmosphere would have no human health impacts?"
Minutes: 9 Seconds: 54 till Minutes: 10 Seconds: 7 "David Keith: So, so let me be more careful here: What the seperate out the toxicological - the aluminum: we have begun to research and published nothing."
Well, there may be help for David Keith:
In Vitro Toxicity of Aluminum Nanoparticles in Rat Alveolar Macrophages Andrew Wagner Charles Bleckmann E England Air Force Institute of Technology Wright-Patterson AFB OH 45433 Krista Hess Geo-Centers, Inc. Dayton OH Saber Hussain John J. Schlager Air Force Research Laboratory Human Effectiveness Directorate Applied Biotechnology Branch Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-5707 March 2001
IARC Scientific Publication No. 161 Air Pollution and Cancer Editors: Kurt Straif, Aaron Cohen, and Jonathan Samet eISBN 978-92-832-2161-6 ISSN 0300-5085
"ABOUT THIS BOOK
Emissions from motor vehicles, industrial processes, power generation, the household combustion of solid fuel, and other sources (emphasized by Denglisch) pollute the ambient air across the globe. The precise chemical and physical features of ambient air pollution, which comprises a myriad of individual chemical constituents, vary around the world due to differences in the sources of pollution, climate, and meteorology, but the mixtures of ambient air pollution invariably contain specific chemicals known to be carcinogenic to humans.
Recent estimates suggest that the disease burden due to air pollution is substantial. Exposure to ambient fine particles was recently estimated to have contributed 3.2 million premature deaths worldwide in 2010, due largely to cardiovascular disease, and 223 000 deaths from lung cancer. More than half of the lung cancer deaths attributable to ambient fine particles were projected to have been in China and other East Asian countries.
The IARC Monographs Programme convened a multidisciplinary Advisory Group that included epidemiologists, toxicologists, atmospheric scientists, cancer biologists, and regulators to make recommendations for the development of a series of Monographs on air pollution. This book provides the updated state-of-the-art overviews from this Advisory Group on topics related to exposure characterization, atmospheric and engineering sciences, epidemiological studies on cancer, results of pertinent cancer bioassays, and data elucidating potential mechanisms of carcinogenicity of compounds related to air pollution. Download file in ePUB format" http://www.iarc.fr/en/publications/books/sp161/Air%20Pollution%20and%20Cancer.epub
" 'I salute the British government for getting out and trying something,' he said. 'But I wish they'd had a better process, because those opposed to any such experiments will see it as a victory and try to stop other experiments as well.' " (David Keith, theguardian.com, Tuesday 17 July 2012 13.21 BST) http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jul/17/us-geoengineers-spray-sun-balloon
Individuals Engaged in Weather Modification Activities, COMMERCE/NOAA-8.
System location:
Assistant Administrator for Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce, 6010 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, Md. 20852.
Categories of individuals covered by the system:
Individuals and associations involved in weather modification operations.
Categories of records in the system:
Individual's name and address; type of weather modification activity; location and duration of project; and equipment used.
Authority for maintenance of the system:
Pub. L. 92-205; 15 CFR part 908.
Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses:
See routine use paragraphs in the Prefatory Statement. Also information is made available to anyone who so requests to comply with Pub. L. 92-205.
Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system:
Storage:
Electronic data base.
Retrievability:
Filed sequentially by name.
Safeguards:
Records are located on an electronic data base with full public access upon request to comply with Pub. L. 92-205.
Retention and disposal:
Records are maintained indefinitely.
System manager(s) and address:
Office of the Director, Office of Weather Modification, see above address.
Notification procedure:
Information may be obtained from: Director, Office of Administration, NOAA, Room 6863, Herbert C. Hoover Building, Washington, DC 20230. Requester should provide name, address, date(s) of project etc., pursuant to the inquiry provisions of the Department's rules which appear in 15 CFR part 4b.
Record access procedures:
Requests from individuals should be addressed to: Same address as stated in the notification section above.
Contesting record procedures:
The Department's rules for access, for contesting contents, and appealing initial determinations by the individual concerned appear in 15 CFR part 4b. Use above address.
"Canadian environmental scientist David Keith wants to change the world's climate by creating a type of sun filter in the sky to halt global warming. In an interview, he argues the technology is effective and inexpensive, but critics liken it to a nuclear bomb.
While delegates meeting in Warsaw at the United Nations climate talks push for targets for reducing greenhouse gases, a small splinter group of scientists is promoting an entirely different approach to fighting climate change: They want to artficially manipulate the planet's climate to help stop global warming.
The name most commonly associated with this 'geoengineering' is David Keith, a 50-year-old environmental scientist from Canada. Keith is arguably the best-known advocate of geoengineering. When he first devoted himself to the idea more than 20 years ago, it was considered dangerous nonsense. It enraged climate activists, and even Keith received death threats on his answering machine.
Since then, the concept of geoengineering has increasingly won over supporters, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) even grappled with the issue in its most recent report.
Keith runs a company called Carbon Engineering in Calgary, which is developing technology to capture carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere. He currently travels back and forth between Calgary and Cambridge, Massachusetts, where he is a professor of applied physics and public policy at Harvard University.
He recently sat down with SPIEGEL for an interview about his work.
SPIEGEL: Professor Keith, are you a climate fixer?
Keith: That's what they said in the New Yorker, right? People have called me all sorts of things. But I wouldn't say that. I'm a professional whose work is on climate technology, on so-called geoengineering.
SPIEGEL: How would you describe the goal of climate engineers?
Keith: Geoengineering is the deliberate attempt to alter the climate on a global scale.
SPIEGEL: That's quite a bold claim. The New Yorker quotes you saying that you could easily imagine how the tools of climate engineering could spur 'a chain of events that would extinguish life on earth.'
Keith: … and a lot of my colleagues were unhappy I said that. What I mean by that is the following: If we use this technology with wisdom and humility, and in combination with big emission cuts, then it will almost certainly be a benefit to the world. But it's our responsibility to ask: What is the worst that could happen? What if the user goes nuts? What if humanity decided to commit some kind of racial suicide?
SPIEGEL: Then, you want to say, geoengineering might be the technology to use? In other words: You are dealing here with the most dangerous technology in the world?
Keith: Well, yes and no. There has been a lot of talk about the analogy to nuclear weapons. And in one way the analogy makes sense: This technology has a huge amount of leverage, meaning relatively small amounts of material give a huge amount of power. But the big difference is it all moves slowly -- in years, not minutes. This gives us more room to think and proceed carefully.
SPIEGEL: Critics have accused geoengineers of trying to play God …
Keith: … and maybe it's a fair attribution. I don't think I'm playing God, but I do think the phrase captures some of what's going on here: the desire to deliberately alter nature on a global scale.
SPIEGEL: And you share this desire?
Keith: Well, mankind is already changing the planet. Take agriculture, the emission of carbon dioxide, the intervention in the nitrogen cycle.
SPIEGEL: But in all those cases people didn't intend to change the planet.
Keith: You're right, but intention matters -- as we also distinguish between manslaughter and murder. But the intention of myself and my colleagues is actually to reduce mankind's impact on the natural environment, which is very different from the intent to design it to our liking. As long as we just try to slow down the rate of climate change, I wouldn't say that we are playing God.
SPIEGEL: How exactly would you slow down climate change?
Keith: The idea is to make earth a little bit more reflective by putting say, sulfate or sulfuric acid aerosols in the upper atmosphere. This method is cheap, effective, quickly implantable but rather imperfect.
Keiko Hiromi/ DER SPIEGEL
David Keith is a professor of applied physics and public policy at Harvard University. SPIEGEL: Why imperfect?
Keith: Because it cannot deal with all problems with CO2 in the atmosphere. For example, it does nothing about ocean acidification.
SPIEGEL: And what do you mean by 'cheap?'
Keith: According to my estimate the injection of a dose with an appreciable effect on climate would cost about a $1 billion per year -- which is essentially zero if you compare it to the costs of climate damage, which are expected to be at least a $1 trillion a year by mid-century.
SPIEGEL: A billion dollars! This is, in fact, frighteningly cheap. It means that any billionaire could start to change the climate according to his will?
Keith: True. We have a case here, where low cost is not necessarily good. But I don't consider it to be very credible that an individual would be doing this. A government would be able to prevent him.
SPIEGEL: And what if some small island state that feels threatened by rising sea levels decides to cool down the earth a little bit?
Keith: Even in that case the international community has lots of mechanisms to stop this. My real concern is the big countries, like Indonesia, India or the United States.
SPIEGEL: Whoever injects sulfur into the stratosphere will put heavy risks on health and environment. This doesn't frighten you?
Keith: No doubt there are considerable risks. Eventually the sulfur will settle down into the lower atmosphere. And then there's the ozone loss risk.
SPIEGEL: Ozone damage means more ultraviolet radiation on earth, and this means an increase in skin cancer fatalities. Would you accept fatalities for the sake of climate therapy?
Keith: I don't think the fundamental justification is hard. We routinely introduce technologies which threaten some people. If you build a power plant, you are adding some air pollution, and new air pollution means deaths. And, by the way, the net impact of sulfur aerosols on mortality is by no means sure. They do reduce ozone, but they also increase UV scattering, which reduces UV exposure down on earth.
SPIEGEL: How well do you know whether you can actually achieve your ultimate goal to slow down climate change with these sulfur aerosols?
Keith: Well, we know a lot about that. Aerosols in the stratosphere reduce the rate of climate change. This is what we expect from basic theory; this is what we observe after eruptions of volcanoes like Pinatubo (which erupted in the Philippines in 1991); and this is what we see in every climate model that has ever been tested for the impact of aerosols.
SPIEGEL: Some people seem to be concerned that the Asian monsoon might be severely altered by such an aerosol therapy.
Keith: The Indian monsoon has indeed become a touchstone of this confused debate. The whole argument started with an early paper by Alan Robock, who said that geoengineering could shut down the monsoon and threaten billions of lives. He is right to focus on potential impacts on the poor, but the really bad outcomes only come when models are run with a crazy amount of geoengineering. Most models -- including Alan's own results -- show that modest interventions can significantly reduce climate impacts in the Indian subcontinent. It's as in pharmacology: An overdose of a drug is fatal -- but a small dose can save a life.
DER SPIEGEL
Graphic: Scientists would like to slow global warming by reproducing the effects of a volcano. SPIEGEL: When you talk about manipulating the climate, do you mean the regulation of average world temperature as a whole, or will it someday also be possible to tune climate differently in different locations?
Keith: This is delicate question. As an engineer you think, the more control the better. But I think in this case we might be better off if we couldn't turn too many knobs. While I oppose any military use of climate technology, you can be sure of one thing: The more targeted or tailored this technology gets, the more seriously military use will be considered.
SPIEGEL: Is it technically feasible to fine-tune the climate locally?
Keith: Sure it is. I have even published on this, but I wonder how much we should go on in this direction.
SPIEGEL: You won't be able to detain research anyway.
SPIEGEL: Are there any concrete plans to experiment with sulfur injection in the atmosphere yet?
Keith: This depends on what you mean by 'concrete plans.' There are several groups thinking hard about experimental proposals.
SPIEGEL: And who would approve such experiments?
Keith: There are still giant holes in the current law. If I introduce sulfur from a power plant, this is well regulated. If I introduce sulfur from aircraft as part of its fuel, again it's regulated. But if I introduce a million tons of sulfur a year to change the climate, this is not regulated. It's amazing, but by doing this you wouldn't violate any law.
SPIEGEL: So are you asking for restrictions that would be imposed on you and your colleagues?
Keith: Yes, I do. I differ from some of my European colleagues, though, in that I don't think it makes sense to leap right now to a full international treaty for tiny experiments. What we need is a strong memorandum of the large research institutions, which makes sure that in evaluating experiments we will have transparency and strict risk testing protocols. Such rules wouldn't be legally binding, but they would actually have big power.
SPIEGEL: Apart from health and environmental risks, there are also political side effects of geoengineering. The more people perceive climate fixing as an option, the less urgent they will consider the need for emissions cuts to be. Do you understand that activists are concerned about this?
Keith: Absolutely. This is my biggest single concern. The term 'moral hazard,' which describes exactly what you just talked about, was actually first introduced into this debate by me. Of course, geoengineering might decrease pressure on politics. But, interestingly, in opinion polls you actually find the opposite: After having been told about geoengineering, people appeared to be even more concerned about the climate.
SPIEGEL: Those on the right who deny climate change altogether seem to be remarkably attracted by the idea of geoengineering.
Keith: There are certainly some such people, and of course the oil industry attempts to abuse geoengineering in order to block action. But it is also a fact that most of our support comes from the left, not the right. Supporters of geoengineering overwhelmingly are people who want to see more action on reducing emissions.
SPIEGEL: According to your view, what kind of climate emergency would be necessary to get the first jets started and begin sulfur therapy for the world climate?
Keith: People who talk about a climate emergency need to articulate first what the heck they mean by this. This term reflects a naive and incorrect view of the world. For some ecosystems and some people, there is a climate emergency now. And others even benefit from the current warming. There is no value-free definition of a climate emergency. I don't support the view that we put a technology on the shelf and wait until there's an 'emergency.'
SPIEGEL: Which means we should get started right away?
Keith: If research shows that these technologies have benefits that greatly exceed the costs, then we should in fact start relatively soon, albeit carefully and with small steps. That will tell us a lot about unknown risks. And it would put us in a much better position to make decisions if there is really some kind of sharp change in climate that constitutes an emergency. The worst time to experiment with new technology like this is in the middle of an emergency.
SPIEGEL: And who should decide when and how to proceed?
Keith: That is the great question, and that is the reason why it's good to start talking about this sooner rather than later. Ultimately, the technological questions are all easy to solve. The governance questions are the ones that are really hard. In the end we have only one planet. And we must, as a species, evolve governance mechanisms that are capable of handling these globally acting technologies -- this is true not only for climate technologies, but also for Internet communications, for altering the human genome or for genetic manipulation of free living organisms.
SPIEGEL: Considering all the technical and political hurdles, what do you predict: Will the era of active climate manipulation start before your retirement?
Keith: I have no idea. I try and answer spontaneously every time I am asked this question. I just turned 50, so if I'm lucky, I will work another 25 years. And political systems, especially in the West, have become extremely inert. Today I think, I am going to answer 'No.'
Wylie A. Carr, Christopher J. Preston, Laurie Yung, Bronislaw Szerszynski, David W. Keith, Ashley M. Mercer Public engagement on solar radiation management and why it needs to happen now
"Abstract
There have been a number of calls for public engagement in geoengineering in recent years. However, there has been limited discussion of why the public should have a say or what the public can be expected to contribute to geoengineering discussions. We explore how public engagement can contribute to the research, development, and governance of one branch of geoengineering, solar radiation management (SRM), in three key ways: 1. by fulfilling ethical requirements for the inclusion of affected parties in democratic decision making processes; 2. by contributing to improved dialogue and trust between scientists and the public; and 3. by ensuring that decisions about SRM research and possible deployment are informed by a broad set of societal interests, values, and framings. Finally, we argue that, despite the nascent state of many SRM technologies, the time is right for the public to participate in engagement processes." This article is part of a special issue on “Geoengineering Research and its Limitations” edited by Robert Wood, Stephen Gardiner, and Lauren Hartzell-Nichols. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-013-0763-y
Minutes: 8 Seconds: 27 till Minutes: 8 Seconds: 31 "David Keith: And by the way, it's not really a moral hazard it's more like FREE RIDING ON OUR GRANDKIDS."
Minutes: 8 Seconds: 33 till Minutes: 8 Seconds: 57 "Dane Wigington: Numerous studies including from CARB (California air resources board) have meant sub micron size particulates is being particularly harmful for human respiration. Do all discussions today - I have not heard any mentioning of this fallout - and has this been studied and also the effects of highly reactive metal like aluminum on toxifying soils and waters?"
Minutes: 8 Seconds: 58 till Minutes: 9 Seconds: 7 "Alan Robock, Geoengineer: The question is what would be the effects of these materials on human health if they come down into the stratosphere in particular small particulates of aluminum."
Minutes: 9 Seconds: 8 till Minutes: 9 Seconds: 46 "David Keith: So the collaborators in my working on the aerosol scheme are folks from Carnegie Melon" ( http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=7016#Post7016 , http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=7172#Post7172 ) " who focus on human health impacts and what we even have not published yet that was the very first thing we did. To do the order of magnitude of calculation in a pencil paper but we are not experts of human health impacts and whether it could be an issuue and for aluminum or other particulates there are a lot of toxicological things are needed to be looked at seriously. If you just think of the sheer number of particles and human health impact of these particles the answer is what we haven't published it that was the first thing we looked at with some leading experts who (?)logical research on human health impacts. It's not even close to an issue."
Minutes: 9 Seconds: 47 till Minutes: 9 Seconds: 53 "Dane Wigington: So let me clarify, so 10 megatons of aluminum dumped into the atmosphere would have no human health impacts?"
Minutes: 9 Seconds: 54 till Minutes: 10 Seconds: 7 "David Keith: So, so let me be more careful here: What the seperate out the toxicological - the aluminum: we have begun to research and published nothing."
Well, there may be help for David Keith:
In Vitro Toxicity of Aluminum Nanoparticles in Rat Alveolar Macrophages Andrew Wagner Charles Bleckmann E England Air Force Institute of Technology Wright-Patterson AFB OH 45433 Krista Hess Geo-Centers, Inc. Dayton OH Saber Hussain John J. Schlager Air Force Research Laboratory Human Effectiveness Directorate Applied Biotechnology Branch Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-5707 March 2001
"Abstract: The explosive characteristics of aluminum powder have great significance in preventing and controlling aluminum-dust explosion accidents, especially the nano-aluminum powder. The explosion characteristics of 100 nm and 75 lm aluminum powders were investigated by using a 20 L spherical explosion cavity and a horizontal pipe whose cross-section area is 80 mm 80 mm and length is 8 m. The results show that the maximum explosion pressure and its rising rate of 100 nm aluminum powder gradually increase with increasing concentration of aluminum-powder at the beginning. When aluminum-powder concentration is 1 kg/m3, the maximum explosion pressure reaches its maximum, and then gradually decreases. While when the concentration is 1.25 kg/m3, the maximum rate of pressure rise obtains its maximum, and then decreases. After 100 nm aluminum powder is exploded in pipes, the peak overpressure of blast wave first decreases and then increases to the maximum at a distance of 298 cm from the ignition source, and then gradually decreases. The most violent concentration is about 0.4 kg/m3 which is lower than 0.8 kg/m3 of 75 lm aluminum powder, so 100 nm aluminum powders are more easily exploded. The change laws of maximum explosion pressure, maximum rate of pressure rise and blast-wave peak over- pressure of 100 nm aluminum powders with concentration are similar to those of 75 lm aluminum pow- ders, but these values are much higher than 75 lm aluminum powders under the same concentration, so the aluminum-powders explosion of 100 nm will produce more harms. In the process of production, storage and transportation of aluminum powder, some relevant preventive measures can be taken to reduce the loss caused by aluminum-dust explosion according to nano-aluminum dust.
Keywords: Nano-aluminum powder Explosion pressure Rate of pressure rise Peak overpressure Funding: supported by the Major State Basic Research Development Program of China (No. 2011CB201205) the Open Fund Program of the State Key Laboratory of Explosion Science and Technology (No. KFJJ10-19M) [DOI]: X932 Text: 1. Introduction Aluminum powder is an important industrial raw material and widely used in pigments, paints, fireworks, metallurgy, aircraft and ship manufacturing. With the development of science and technology, new material of nano-aluminum powder em (...)" http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZHKD201105011.htm
Published on June 1rst 2014: "One of the worlds pioneering Geoengineers talks about his plans to play God with our planet by spraying the atmosphere with harmful materials in order to reflect sunlight back out to space. He says these programmes are still only theoretical but according to the World Meteorological Organisation these programmes are already well underway.
Geoengineering documents to reference :
World Meteorological Organization (WMO) disclosed that 42 countries doing weather modification :
Interview with David Keith, Professor of Applied Physics at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, from Calgary: A leading scientist in the field of geo-engineering.
The Keith Group, 12 Oxford Street, Cambridge, MA 02138 David Keith: david_keith [at] harvard.edu Faculty Coordinator: Lori Reck lreck [at] seas.harvard.edu http://keith.seas.harvard.edu
