AnonymousBy Harrison Tasoff, UC Santa Barbara
UC Santa Barbara has received $1 million to kickstart climate innovation and entrepreneurship on campus. The funding is part of $15 million in grants for such efforts across the UC system, and part of an even larger UC enterprise in support of California’s climate action goals, including new methods for carbon capture and innovative coping strategies for drought, wildfire and other impacts of a warming planet. The grant to UCSB will be managed by the California NanoSystems Institute (CNSI) at Elings Hall, a center for science and innovation focused on integrated research and discovery.
“There is a need to accelerate the deployment of tools and technologies that will help solve environmental problems throughout the state of California,” said Professor Kelly Caylor, associate vice chancellor for research. “UCSB has great climate-related research happening across campus, and these innovation and entrepreneurship funds will help translate discovery into societal impact faster.”
CNSI plans to put out a call for applications in early April. The announcement will be posted on the institute’s website. Questions can be directed to Sherylle Mills Englander or Tal Margalith.
The Climate Action I&E funding will support a proof-of-concept fund to accelerate up to 10 climate action innovations in development at UC Santa Barbara or affiliated startups. The fund will enable researchers to demonstrate the viability of their technologies, including prototypes and pilot projects. It will also support user discovery, helping researchers meet with individuals who might make use of their innovations and learn about their wants and needs.
“If researchers are given the support they need to directly engage with a diversity of potential users and key stakeholders during the development process, the chances that their innovation will be successfully adopted and broadly deployed increases exponentially,” said Englander, CNSI’s executive director for strategic initiatives and operations.
The project will also enable CNSI to expand its Innovation360 Program, a series of seminars and workshops designed to acquaint researchers with the process of translating research into useful applications. “Innovation360, which will be adapted for climate action innovations, exposes researchers to the practical characteristics that innovations need to attract user or commercial interest, such as scalability and market fit,” Englander explained.
The new Climate Innovation360 program will expand its curriculum to incorporate life cycle assessment of products as well as consideration of environmental equity and justice in the deployment and development of novel technologies. “The impact of a novel environmental technology isn’t just about its engineering specs or its economic valuation,” Caylor said. “It’s about who receives the environmental benefits from its use, and who might be experiencing potential environmental harms. We’re seeking innovators who are developing solutions designed to address environmental equity and assess impacts holistically from the ground up.” Developing a climate solutions curriculum for the program should enable the award’s benefits to continue well beyond the award’s duration.
The new funding will also provide 50% support for up to 12 Climate Action I&E fellows over the course of two years. “Our plan is to partner with faculty who are interested in climate action to recruit and train cohorts of early career scientists who will pursue technology translation and entrepreneurship as major part of their postdoctoral experience at UCSB,” Caylor said. The grant will cover participation in the Innovation360 program and enable the fellows to focus on innovation and entrepreneurship around their faculty member’s research. Ideally, there will be a large overlap between fellows, Innovation360 participants and members of the proof-of-concept teams.
With the funding, the team also plans to convene quarterly Climate Action Ideation sessions for the UCSB research community. The goal is to center each one around key themes within climate resilience in order to forge new collaborations. Meanwhile, regional symposia will foster collaboration among a wide variety of participants. Innovation fellows, proof-of-concept startup awardees and faculty from across campus will join community leaders, government representatives, NGOs and corporate sustainability officers.
Caylor emphasized that these resources will be used to engage as many people as possible. “We aim to create an active, connected environment for eco-friendly innovation,” he said, “making it easier for everyone on campus to get involved and turn new ideas into practical, fair solutions for tackling climate challenges.”
Hopefully one of the ‘Science’ classes informs them the fact ‘climate change’ is a natural reoccurring Earth phenomenon which has existed for for millions of years.
Why would you want falsehoods to be taught?
Congratulations on picking climate myth #1!
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm
Here is a concise graph showing how average global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations have changed over the last 600 million years.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Global-temperature-and-atmospheric-CO2-over-geological-time-600-mya-Aus-from-HIEB_fig17_325078712
What is the falsehood @4:31? Goleta Local saying Earth’s climate has been changing naturally for millions of years or Chip’s graph showing the changing CO2 concentrations and global temperatures over the past 600 million years? Both?
6:22 – Hard scientific facts from actual scientists mean nothing to them. They’re so angry that they might have to DO something additionally/differently to help our planet, that they’ve completely blinded themselves with their own thumbs.
One must think about it this way: Why are some people so vehemently against the established fact that our climate is changing due to human created pollution? It’s because they would have to make an effort. They don’t like to be told what to do, especially by the intelligent “elite.” They HATE having to make an effort if it will cost them time/money/though. It’s the conservative way of thinking – “I shouldn’t have to do anything for anyone else.”
4:36 @
Notice the scale on that graph, squashing the last million years of Earth’s history into the last pixel or so? Notice that it zooms up into the y_axis? Way to palter!
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
And, since you probably need a really simplified explanation:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24021772
Saying that climate change has always happened is true but obfuscatory. Regardless of what has happened in the past, the very rapid anthropogenic global warming in the industrial era is causing major climate change that *is not* part of “a natural reoccurring Earth phenomenon”, since the Earth has not had reoccurring human populations that mine and burn large quantities of coal, oil, and natural gas, and this extreme climate change has a greatly deleterious effect on human beings and the ecology they depend on (https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climate-impacts/climate-impacts-ecosystems_.html). Maybe you could attend some science classes and learn some actual Earth science. But for now you might just read
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2017/04/04/how-we-know-climate-change-is-not-natural/
@8:51
Adding heat energy to the atmosphere via radiative forcing from all the CO2 causes weather to become more extreme, at both the wet and dry ends. But, you knew that. You’re just blathering your politically motivated agenda.
Right, and if only we all pay triple for our gas and electric bills and buy super expensive fancy new cars to support the rare earth mining industry we will all be spared from the hot air and permanent drought we have been experiencing. Of course the believers in climate “science” will always believe because it is a faith based ideology. If it were real science, the theory could be proven wrong if it’s predictions failed. Instead the zealots are trying to sell the idea that we can experience a drought and a flood at the same time.
The sad thing is that the people pushing the argument that climate has been changing for 600 million years can’t see how obviously irrelevant that is. It’s like: people have always died, it’s natural, so there’s no point in having doctors, no reason to object to war and genocide, no reason to buy a gun to protect yourself or your family (heh heh).
What happened 600 million years ago doesn’t matter. What matters is what’s happening now, which is climate change due to anthropogenic global warming. And unlike what happened 600 mya, AGW is affecting us now, it’s something we’re doing, and it’s something we can change.
@6:22 Yes, there’s a black line at the right edge of the graph (different from the black line representing atmospheric CO2) that is labeled “Quaternary”. The Quaternary period, which we are living in, is the last period of the Cenozoic, and started about 2.6 million years ago. Homo sapiens only appeared about 200,000 years ago, and human civilization only started about 12,000 years ago. And the rapid warming that is happening now only occurred in the last couple of hundred years. The graph is completely irrelevant, but this one isn’t: https://climate.nasa.gov/internal_resources/2581
Guess you missed the previous conversation in another thread you were ostensibly part of, where it was shown conclusively that non-carbon energy and electric vehicles were less costly that all the subsidies and drawbacks of fossil fuels.
Either that, or it’s willful ignorance.
CHIP–
I’m sorry man, but you saying that it’s not possible to have a flood during a drought period is…is…is…well words fail at the stupidity of the statement.
ALEX – it’s another one of those “Republi-Facts.”
4:07 and 4:11 – We can certainly tell it was inadequate!
You know nothing of my educational background. When someone has nothing to disprove a theory or ideal, they fall back on name calling. Typical.
You know nothing of my educational background. That’s called the school of assumption from a narrow mind.
Welcome to EdHat Goleta Local.
Publish this, Boomer Chip! You must be a genius. You’ll get a Nobel Prize for sure.
GLS69 – that was absolutely great! Lit the fire then walked across the coals barefoot…
well done!
I don’t know who “Chip of SB” is, but it’s apparent from that comment that he is deeply dishonest. Feh.
“Hopefully one of the ‘Science’ classes informs them the fact ‘climate change’ is a natural reoccurring Earth phenomenon which has existed for for millions of years.” That’s what people learned who never took college science, or specialized in a scientific field. It’s called the school of delusional populism.
CHIP – Your Research Gate graph omits a readable representation of the last 50 years. So, looking at the NASA graph, how do you explain the increase since 1950? The temp and estimated CO2 over the last 800 million years has gone down, but what about the last 50 years? You’re ignoring the important data.
Can’t we pour Brawndo on the weather and fix it?
When Mark Zuckerberg move away from his sprawling mansion in Hawaii that he took land from native people btw. And Obama move away from the beach I’ll be convinced!!
Can’t think for yourself?
There’s no reason for anyone to care what you’re convinced of or when, especially given the quality of your arguments.
BENICEE–
It’s funny, I see this reference to the ultra wealthy who publicly accept that climate change is real owning beach houses as an argument that a.) they actually don’t believe it’s real and b.) therefore other people should also not believe it’s real.
It’s shocking to me how people who like to cite this are so fundamentally lacking in common sense as to the way the world actually works.
The ultra-wealthy can buy and own beach front property, even in places where those properties are more likely to be damaged or rendered uninhabitable, BECAUSE THEY CAN AFFORD IT.
It’s just that simple man. Billionaires get to have whatever material things they want when they want them. They are insulated by their money. They don’t have to wait, they don’t have to deny themselves their desires, they don’t have to worry about the future. They can simultaneously believe that climate change is real and also own physical assets at greater risk.
Why is that so hard to understand?
Time for a big dose of: https://crankyuncle.com
“When it comes to climate change, this truly is a golden age—of fake news, post-truths, pluralistic ignorance, conspiracy theories, a willfully ignorant administration, and the Cranky Uncle. You know him. We all have one. That exasperating Thanksgiving blusterer digs in his heels even as the foundation of his denial thaws faster than the Arctic ice caps.”
This is great! Incentivizing young, intelligent minds to start thinking and developing tools to advance our climate technology is the way to go. These young scientists can change the world, given the resources. Keep funding science!
GT without a timeframe, your data is just numbers without context. Are those numbers for 2022 or from 1990 until now, or?
Rethuglicans are scared of innovation if it might harm petrol stock in any way.
What conservative powers you may ask? Led by the oil and gas industry, this sector regularly pumps the vast majority of its campaign contributions into Republican coffers. Even as other traditionally GOP-inclined industries have shifted somewhat to the left, this sector has remained rock-solid red.
Since the 1990 election cycle, more than two-thirds of this sector’s contributions to candidates and party committees has gone to Republicans. Besides oil and gas, the electric utilities industry is another big donor in this sector. Less generous, but even more partisan, is the mining industry
Koch Industries
$27,283,154
Occidental Petroleum
$8,045,227
Chevron Corp
$7,554,749
American Petroleum Institute
$7,185,700
Energy Transfer Lp
$4,704,477
Samson Energy
$4,314,555
Devon Energy
$3,895,322
ConocoPhillips
$3,546,776
Ota Holdings
$3,500,000
Valero Services
$3,112,885
Chief Oil & Gas
$2,643,800
Pilot Corp
$2,532,880
Crownquest Operating
$2,423,901
Midland Energy
$2,111,208
Continental Resources
$1,726,051
Exxon Mobil
$1,450,255
Walter Oil & Gas
$1,413,338
Hilcorp Energy
$1,333,074
Berexco Inc
$1,299,315
Valero Energy
$1,200,605
11:50am comment is textbook whataboutism. Like it or not.
Yup, because only registered Republicans invest in oil companies and no Democrat politician would ever accept oil money or listen to their lobbyists, wouldn’t accept Wall Street money whose heavily invested in oil companies, or vote in favor of any legislation that would benefit the oil industry. What else happens in this make believe world you live in?