Memorandum 143
Submission from PODEnergy
Applying Wikinomics to Geo-Engineering
1. SUMMARY
1.1 Encourage and enable engineers and scientists
to self-organize using principles of wikinomics.[2]
1.1.1 Strive for transparency on decisions
using wikinomics concepts of mass collaboration.
1.1.2 All climate change causes and solutions
are geo-engineering.
1.1.3 Sort geo-engineering technologies
for eco-sustainability and effectiveness against both basic climate
change impacts: trapping heat in the atmosphere and increasing
ocean acidity.
1.1.4 Facilitate all people, not only scientists
and engineers, to self-select roles, activity, funding, training,
and status for the various geo-engineering technologies.
1.2 Consider geo-engineering as a game of
football. Mankind plays on the current favorite team, the greenhouse
gas (GHG) "Releasers." Mankind also plays the underdog,
the "Sustainables." The Sustainables win by preventing
the releasers from scoring another melted glacier, drought, or
dead coral reef and score when renewable energy replaces fossil
fuels, or anthromorphic GHG release is prevented.
1.3 A long time ago, the "orderly game"
football officials gained the upper hand and implemented the "offside"
rule. The offside rule effectively limits scoring. In our game
against GHG, "zero environmental impact" is our offside
rule. Many solutions have some impact: wind energy makes noise,
looks ugly, kills birds, might change wind patterns when conducted
on a massive scale; desert solar changes the desert; ocean iron
fertilization might change ocean nutrient patterns; and reflective
particles in the atmosphere address only the atmospheric heating.
However, mankind needs every possible score against GHG release.
It's tough enough to hit the net without an "offside rule"
demanding only "perfect" solutions. On the other hand,
each "shot on goal" requires substantial human effort
and time. We must take high percentage shots. Mankind needs a
universally inspiring and technically proficient coach. A special
new wiki[3]
can be that coach.
2. CATEGORIES
OF GEO-ENGINEERING
2.1 The International Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) identified three categories for countering GHG release.
2.1.1 The IPCC defines mitigation, "An
antropogenic intervention to reduce the sources or enhance the
sinks of greenhouse gases." This includes for example; planting
trees, energy efficiency, renewable energy, high-pressure anaerobic
digestion, and chemical/mechanical "trees." On the necessary
scale, all are geo-engineering.
2.1.2 The IPCC defines Adaptation, "Adjustment
in natural or human systems to a new or changing environment."
This includes for example; moving dwellings above the new river
flood levels or sea levels, building new water conveying facilities,
and water desalting facilities. At the global scale, this treating
the local symptoms of excess GHG is geo-engineering.
2.1.3 The IPCC defines Geo-Engineering,
treating one or more global symptoms of increased GHG as, "Efforts
to stabilize the climate system by directly managing the energy
balance of Earth|" This includes mirrors in space, insulating
blankets on glaciers, adding quicklime to the ocean, and reflective
particles in the atmosphere.
2.2 The Innovation, Universities, Science
and Skills Committee, should not limit itself to the IPCC definitions.
Because of the scale, any Climate Change cause and solution is
Geo-Engineering. GHG release is Geo-Engineering. Spraying millions
of tons of saltwater droplets high in the air, ocean-based high-pressure
anaerobic digestion, converting millions of tons of corn into
ethanol, and deploying millions of wind turbines are all Geo-Engineering.
2.3 The Committee may continue to slot various
technologies into the IPCC categories for consistency sake. However,
the categories do not matter in a truly transparent priority ranking
system. What matters is quickly identifying and constantly reevaluating
which technologies are the best players. Do not let the human
tendency to characterize everything get in the way of determining
the best combination of players. For example, not all Mitigations,
such as corn ethanol, are automatically worthy of more funding
than all Adaptations, such as desalting seawater.
2.4 The game is fluid as new players come
on and off the field. Any tool attempting to prioritize technologies
must be continually updated. The game will run for many generations
and several centuries.
3. TRANSPARENCY
3.1 Every human participates in the game
of Climate Change. Only transparent, trust-building decisions
will bring and keep a preponderance of people on the Sustainables
for many generations. Some will be referees sorting out truth.
Some will be players by championing or developing technologies.
Some will be fans, buying technologies and electing managers.
Some will be managers, allocating resources. All will be constantly
tempted to switch teams. Many will switch back and forth over
their lifetimes.
3.2 Countries need to trust each other and
work together. That is buy-in by 51% of every democratic country,
or the leadership of every autocratic country, is more useful
than unevenly distributed buy-in by 80% of the world's people
or 80% of the world's wealth.
3.3 But Climate Change is like the prisoner's
dilemma, a zero-sum game, or drug doping in sport. Everyone and
every country is tempted to selfishly maintain or advance their
standard of living. The tremendous difference between countries'
standard of living amplifies the desire to opt out of Climate
Change solutions adverse to a country's economic competitiveness.
3.4 Trust is only possible with trustworthy
communication. Conversely, the lack of trustworthy communication
amplifies natural selfish tendencies. Fortunately, mankind has
the tools for trustworthy communication of every human with every
other human in a language every human can understand. The Internet
allows every referee, player, manager, and fan to communicate
with everyone else individually and collectively.
3.5 Unfortunately, no one has the time to
listen to seven billion people. That's why we need an inspiring
and technically proficient coach. The coach absorbs the observations
of managers, players, and fans, the abilities of the players,
and abilities of the opposing players, and infinite other factors.
A good coach processes all those factors into a winning game strategy.
Not a static strategy, but a dynamic strategy that adjusts constantly.
3.6 Even if we desired, no one person, one
organization, one country, or partial collection of countries
can be the coach. The game is too complex and exclusivity will
not inspire trust. Climate Change is too complex because there
are thousands of potential actions, thousands of known environmental
and economic impacts, and thousands of unknown environmental and
economic impacts. Even if one group could sort all this out and
recommend actions, a few previously unknown impacts would appear
before the suggested action, with all the reasons therefore, can
be translated for everyone. Even after the suggested action is
translated, those not involved in selecting the action will not
trust it is indeed the best action. Corn ethanol is an example
of a well-meaning play by one group that resulted in an "own
goal." That is, while corn ethanol appears to make a modest
reduction in local fossil fuel use, the impacts on food supply,
global land use, and increased ocean dead zone area make it a
better play for the Releasers than the Sustainables.
3.7 All seven billion of us can be the coach
that builds trust and simplifies the complexity. We need to develop
a special kind of wiki, a judgewiki. A judgewiki will combine
a wiki's "many hands make light work" approach with
a decision-matrix spreadsheet and other software designed to provide
globally transparent decisions.
4. SORTING TECHNOLOGIES
4.1 A conceptual sample spreadsheet component
of a Climate Change judgewiki is attached. The technologies are
listed in one column. Criteria are listed in other columns. Each
technology is given a score for each criterion. One can "score"
every technology for each criterion and then "sort"
the technologies for which are better based on each technology's
total score.
4.2 A matrix also allows one to sum the
ecological and economic sustainable production of each technology.
People will more easily see that tremendous volumes of many technologies
are needed for the Sustainables to win. That is, those inclined
to impose an offside rule, can more quickly see that insisting
on "perfect" solutions virtually guarantees losing the
game.
4.3 We should arrange the judgewiki to avoid
two pitfalls with many current decision systems, commission reports,
and group web sites. One is the too-quick discouraging of out-of-box
suggestions. The other is a tendency to focus too narrowly on
one's mission. Both can arise when retaining only experts in a
particular field. Experts may not notice, mention, or properly
value new technology from areas outside their expertise. A collection
of 1945 vacuum tube experts planning for the year 1965 vacuum
tube factory, do not include transistors in their planning. A
collection of 2003 investors and politicians narrow their focus
to "immediately available American biofuel" and increased
corn ethanol production increases burning of tropical forests,
increases the size of the Gulf of Mexico dead zone, encourages
the mining of fresh water, and only debatably reduces oil dependence
and fossil carbon dioxide emissions.
4.4 Ideally, the judgewiki itself evolves,
much like the open source operating system Linux is evolving.
It can become more accurate and more fun. For example, social
scientists are finding that market forecasting can predict outcomes
better than polls or experts, particularly when the forecasters
are diverse and don't stop thinking independently. Market forecasting
relies on averaging the "bets" of many people to predict
an outcome. Essentially, it allows people to "buy" stock
in the outcome of an event. The March 2008 Scientific American
provides a discussion of market forecasting starting page 38.
Popular Science runs a future prediction market at ppx.popsci.com.
The judgewiki may include collaboration as part of a multi-player
video game, much like the Geek Squad exchanging tips while playing
Battlefield 2.[4]
4.5 The judgewiki is the coach; deciding
the training and positions for each player. It is a continually
updating list of each technology's priority. It indicates the
total resources available and how much from which sources should
be spent on each technology. It may, for example, decide in February
2009, that energy efficiency efforts are best funded by private
enterprise, some technologies (perhaps wind and solar thermal)
only need a carbon credit or tax on the GHG releasers, and $10
billion per year is an adequate government investment in basic
energy research spread over the top 100 technologies. The judgewiki
may suggest maintaining a reserve for jumping on a technology
that rises into the top 90 on June 2009 while government funding
on whichever technology dropped to 101st ramps down quickly.
4.6 When sorting alternatives in a decision
matrix, not every criterion should have the same weight. More
likely, the criteria weights are adjusted depending on the situation
presumed for each judgewiki. (No reason not to have many derivative
judgewiki's as a sensitivity check on both criteria weights and
the ranking points given each technology.) For example, a judgewiki
guiding government basic research funding allotments, would favour
long-term eco-system sustainability when providing more than a
fifth the world's energy or sequestering more than a fifth the
world's anthromorphic GHG release over economics. A judgewiki
that presumes a few countries will remain major GHG releasers,
or that atmospheric GHG concentrations are already above the tipping
point, would emphasize quick and inexpensive means to address
both atmospheric heating and ocean acidity.
5. FACILITATE
COLLABORATION
5.1 The Innovation, Universities, Science
and Skills Committee should facilitate collaboration and then
pay attention to the result. That is, the Committee should indicate
a desire for and fund a small staff dedicated to assisting volunteers[5]
to band together in building a judgewiki that:
5.1.1 Allows engineers (and others) to self-select
their roles in geo-engineering solutions to climate change.
5.1.2 Guides funding national and international
research activity concerning all aspects of geo-engineering.
5.1.3 Suggests university courses (and allows
universities to self-select which universities offer which classes)
and other forms of training relevant to geo-engineering.
5.1.4 Establishes the status (relative funding)
of geo-engineering technologies in government, industry and academia.
5.1.5 Engages young people to play for the
Sustainables in the engineering profession.
5.1.6 And becomes the voice of engineers
in informing policy-makers and the public regarding the potential
costs, benefits and research status of different geo-engineering
schemes.
MANAGING CLIMATE
CHANGE, JUDGEWIKI-MATRIX
TEMPLATE, AUGUST
2008
Goal-emissions reduction or sequestration (Gt/y).
2005 world emissions of CO2 were 28 Gt. Allowing the developing
world to emerge from poverty implies the total for renewable energy
solutions will increase and a goal of 40 Gt/y is appropriate.
(This is a conceptual draft decision matrix
for the purposes of discussing a judgewiki. An actual judgewiki
would contain multiple variations of every possible technology.
The costs and scorings are fictitious, useful only to see how
technologies might be scored and their combined effects added.
An actual judgewiki would have links to research results and reports
plus a measure of "potential" and "proven.")
|
| Technology | Capacity comments
| Capacity (Gt/y of CO2)
| Selected effort (%)
| Running total contribution (Gt/yr of CO2)
| Human cost-That carbon tax or trade which makes it competitive with the "free" dumping of CO2
| Net cost ($/t) |
Cost score, 1 to 10 with 10 the least cost
|
|
| Cease burning trees | Developed countries need to pay developing countries to conserve trees
| 0.5 | 100%
| 1 | an opportunity cost
| $2 | 9
|
| Ocean Anaerobic Digester, CH4 | None, fully sustainable approaching 10x 2005 world energy demand
| 15 | 30%
| 5 | Estimated without prototype
| $50 | 7
|
| Energy efficiency | Using less energy for the same standard of living
| 5 | 100%
| 10 | capital expense balances operating savings
| $0 | 10
|
| Ocean Anaerobic Digester, CO2 | Centuries of 2005 world emissions
| 15 | 30%
| 15 | Estimated without prototype
| $30 | 7
|
| Wind energy | Limited areas for economics, inconsistent power
| 6 | 50%
| 18 | Beyond 5-15% of grid, needs backup systems
| $25 | 8
|
| Move dwellings to higher ground | Equivalent CO2 reduction by adaptation
| 2 | 50%
| 19 | |
| 3 |
| Solar photovoltaic | Limited hours, good for warm climate peak power, expensive.
| 4 | 50%
| 21 | Beyond 5-15% of grid, needs backup systems
| $50 | 7
|
| Solar thermal | Limited hours, good for warm climate peak power, expensive.
| 4 | 50%
| 23 | Beyond 5-15% of grid, needs backup systems
| $50 | 7
|
| Ocean iron fertilization | Limited appropriate ocean areas
| 1.0 | 100%
| 24 | Needs full scale research
| $5 | 9
|
| Reflective roofs and roads | Equivalent CO2 reduction by radiance
| 1.0 | 100%
| 25 | |
| 3 |
| Nuclear fission | Limited fuel even with recycling
| 3 | 100%
| 28 | | $100
| 6 |
| Grow and harvest trees | Requires fresh water
| 2 | 100%
| 30 | Water and food opportunity costs
| $5 | 9
|
|
|
| Technology | Capacity comments
| Capacity (Gt/y of CO2)
| Selected effort (%)
| Running total contribution (Gt/yr of CO2)
| Human cost-That carbon tax or trade which makes it competitive with the "free" dumping of CO2
| Net cost ($/t) |
Cost score, 1 to 10 with 10 the least cost
|
|
| Chemical "tree" | Mountains of materials
| 5 | 100%
| 35 | | $50
| 6 |
| Plant more reflective forests | Equivalent CO2 reduction by radiance
| 0.5 | 5%
| 35 | |
| 7 |
| Chemically raising ocean pH | Equivalent CO2 reduction by adaptation
| 0.5 | 5%
| 35 | |
| 5 |
| Place particles in stratosphere | Equivalent CO2 reduction by radiance
| 0.5 | 5%
| 35 | |
| 9 |
|
|
| Mitigation-reduce GHG emissions or remove GHG from atmosphere (potential cures)
| Adaptation-manage the impacts of GHG (local symptom treating)
| Radiance Engineering-manage solar irradiance (global symptom treating)
|
|
| Technology | Appropriate Govt investment
| Appropriate private investment
| Persistence-A score of 1 may be less than 100 years while 10 is more than 10,000 years
| Persistence score |
Ecological cost-A measure of species diversity impacts
| Ecological Score |
Synergy-Potential to address 2+ issues simultaneously
| Synergy score | Total score for this technology, higher score is better
|
| Cease burning trees |
| | Infinitely persistent, constant temptation
| 9 |
| 10 | CC & native peoples
| 9 | 37
|
| Ocean Anaerobic Digester, CH4 |
| | Infinitely persistent, removes temptation
| 10 | May increase species diversity, needs work
| 9 | Energy, CO2, food, species diversity
| 10 | 36
|
| Energy efficiency | |
| Infinitely persistent, constant temptation
| 10 | Depends on how more efficient items are produced
| 8 |
| 8 | 36
|
| Ocean Anaerobic Digester, CO2 |
| | Encased liquid CO2 in deep ocean, needs research
| 8 | Good potential, needs details
| 9 | Energy CO2, food, species diversity
| 10 | 34
|
| Wind energy | |
| Infinitely persistent, removes temptation
| 10 | Birds, local eco
| 7 |
| 5 | 30
|
| Move dwellings to higher ground |
| | Move once
| 10 | Disturbs new locations
| 8 | Rebuild green
| 8 | 29
|
| Solar photovoltaic | |
| Infinitely persistent, removes temptation
| 10 | Manufacture, low impact on roofs, higher in deserts
| 7 |
| 5 | 29
|
| Solar thermal | |
| Infinitely persistent, removes temptation
| 10 | Local eco impact
| 7 |
| 5 | 29
|
| Ocean iron fertilization | |
| Needs research
| 5 | Questions maturing
| 7 |
| 7 | 28
|
|
|
| Mitigation-reduce GHG emissions or remove GHG from atmosphere (potential cures)
| Adaptation-manage the impacts of GHG (local symptom treating)
| Radiance Engineering-manage solar irradiance (global symptom treating)
|
|
| Technology | Appropriate Govt investment
| Appropriate private investment
| Persistence-A score of 1 may be less than 100 years while 10 is more than 10,000 years
| Persistence score |
Ecological cost-A measure of species diversity impacts
| Ecological Score |
Synergy-Potential to address 2+ issues simultaneously
| Synergy score | Total score for this technology, higher score is better
|
| Reflective roofs and roads |
| | Routine maintenance
| 5 | manufacture materials
| 9 |
| 8 | 25
|
| Nuclear fission | |
| Infinitely persistent, removes temptation
| 10 | used fuel, local heating, water intakes and use
| 6 |
| 2 | 24
|
| Grow and harvest trees | |
| Fires a hazard
| 1 | local water/natives issues
| 7 |
| 6 | 23
|
| Chemical "tree" | |
| Need to breakout options
| 8 |
| 6 |
| 2 | 22
|
| plant more reflective forests |
| | Routine maintenance
| 5 difficult to predict
| 3 5
| 20 | |
| |
| Chemically raising ocean pH |
| | Constant maintenance
| 1 | Alkalinity plumes
| 4 |
| 6 | 16
|
| Place particles in stratosphere |
| | Constant maintenance
| 1 | difficult to predict
| 3 |
| 3 | 16
|
|
2
Wikinomics-How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything, Don
Tapscott and Anthony D Williams, expanded edition, Penguin Group,
2008. Back
3
The most well known wiki is WikiPedia. A wiki is software that
helps people collaborate on the Internet. Most are collections
of information. The wiki that organizes the information from hundreds
of collaborators to continually adjust decisions does not yet
exist. Back
4
Wikinomics-How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything, page
242. "...But then, you know, while we're running along with
the squadron with our rifles in our hands, one of the (Geek Squad)
agents behind me will be like, `Yeah, we just hit our revenue
to budget' and somebody else will be like, ` Hey, how do you reset
the password on a Linksys router?... (Robert) Stephens says the
agents now have up to 384 colleagues (from all over the world)
playing at one time." Back
5
Many Internet projects, Wikipedia, Linux, Facebook, YouTube, Human
Genome Project to name a few, rely on volunteers. The volunteers
determine how they would like to be compensated. Back
|
