Climos - Using Technology to fight climate change

Climos is a recently funded startup, (one of their investors is Elon Musk), that aims to combat climate change through a controversial "geo-engineering" technique that seems remarkably simple at it's core. They plan to take iron, dump it into the ocean. Plankton grows well is iron rich environments, so it blossoms, dies and sinks to the bottom of the ocean. Since plankton consumes carbon and the carbon would be stored in the body of the plankton, you are sequestering carbon.

Seems simple. Almost rings of some kind of movie plot. If it works, and can be done safely, then I think it's really cool. I'll admit to having reservations though. How many times have we been told something is safe and foolproof? It's times like this I always remember the pictures of scientists and dignitaries watching the nuclear bomb tests, wearing dark sunglasses. I'm sure they were told it was safe, but human knowledge is not infallible. And when humans begin projects that are designed to tweak the delicate balance of the planet we live on, even well intentioned and seemingly reasonable, I get nervous.

Earth2Tech's article on 10 controversial geo-engineering projects.

Is Free really the future of business?

Wired Magazine had a recent article titled: Free! Why $0.00 Is the Future of Business

It's a good article, but misses the mark on several points.
My first quibble is with the headline. When you read the article, it's clear it's really referring to businesses like the web, software, and music. It's businesses where there is very little or no physical product being sold. Without a physical element to the product, marginal costs can be very low, and you can afford to give away much of the product. The author mentions a web model, "freemium" where a small percentage of users pay for a premium version of the product, and in doing so, support the majority who do not. Makes sense when you are talking about email, but I can not imagine a scenario where one person buying a premium car pays for 99 other people to get a car free.

Most of the points the author makes are very valid, but apply to a very limited scope of businesses. The reality of the world is that it is very complex, and there are many, many complexities. As energy costs rise, the majority items will become considerably more expensive, not free. More expensive to produce, more expensive to ship, and more expensive to buy. This hardly points to a future where "Free" rules.

Advertising makes sense, but at some point, the model begins to fall apart. As more and more businesses move to a free, advertising supported model, eventually the number of outlets selling advertising will outstrip the number of businesses willing to pay. When supply exceeds demand, prices will drop. As the revenue drops, the cost of providing the service may no longer be covered by advertising, and companies will be forced to look for other revenue streams.

These are just a few of the issues I have with article. Most of it stems not from any blatant falsehoods or logical mistakes, but merely the failure to address the serious limitations to the "free" model.

(And yes, I do realize I'm posting on a free blog service, with Google Ads on it.)