Excellent research on cooling interventions exists. What's missing? Organizations willing to say temperature stabilization will likely be necessary. Here's why.
I'm excited you're writing about solar geoengineering! However, I worry about looking up to carbon removal as a role model for how our field develops. Might we not learn more from looking at some other industry that's been more successful while also being controversial? The growth of cryptocurrency is one of my favorite examples.
Hey Luke, thanks for the comment and I totally take your point. In terms of actual atmospheric impact, carbon removal has achieved next to nothing so far, relatively speaking.
My reflection on Nori is that we took on two tasks simultaneously: educating the market and running a commercial carbon credit business. We were extremely successful at the former (measured by the literal dozens of people who have told me they work in CDR because of Nori content plus the large scale growth of investment into the space), and obviously not successful at the latter. That's the experience driving my conviction that clear advocacy work is needed.
As for crypto, I was around at the start of that industry too (discovered and bought BTC in January 2011, and Nori was crypto-first). You're right that crypto offers lessons beyond just the financial incentives: building despite regulatory uncertainty, creating facts on the ground, developing passionate communities. Those elements could absolutely apply here.
The key difference I see is risk distribution. Crypto could "move fast and break things" because the downside was mostly financial and mostly affected participants. With cooling interventions, we're talking about potential externalities that affect everyone. That seems to demand different approaches to governance and deployment.
But I'm genuinely curious about your perspective on this. How do you think about balancing the need for momentum with the risks of uncoordinated action? Would love to discuss more sometime. Let me know!
I'm excited you're writing about solar geoengineering! However, I worry about looking up to carbon removal as a role model for how our field develops. Might we not learn more from looking at some other industry that's been more successful while also being controversial? The growth of cryptocurrency is one of my favorite examples.
Hey Luke, thanks for the comment and I totally take your point. In terms of actual atmospheric impact, carbon removal has achieved next to nothing so far, relatively speaking.
My reflection on Nori is that we took on two tasks simultaneously: educating the market and running a commercial carbon credit business. We were extremely successful at the former (measured by the literal dozens of people who have told me they work in CDR because of Nori content plus the large scale growth of investment into the space), and obviously not successful at the latter. That's the experience driving my conviction that clear advocacy work is needed.
As for crypto, I was around at the start of that industry too (discovered and bought BTC in January 2011, and Nori was crypto-first). You're right that crypto offers lessons beyond just the financial incentives: building despite regulatory uncertainty, creating facts on the ground, developing passionate communities. Those elements could absolutely apply here.
The key difference I see is risk distribution. Crypto could "move fast and break things" because the downside was mostly financial and mostly affected participants. With cooling interventions, we're talking about potential externalities that affect everyone. That seems to demand different approaches to governance and deployment.
But I'm genuinely curious about your perspective on this. How do you think about balancing the need for momentum with the risks of uncoordinated action? Would love to discuss more sometime. Let me know!