[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ENGINEERING THE CLIMATE:
RESEARCH NEEDS AND STRATEGIES
FOR INTERNATIONAL COORDINATION
=======================================================================
COMMITTEE PRINT
BY THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 2010
__________
Serial No. 111-A
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology. This
document has been printed for informational purposes only and does not
represent either findings or recommendations adopted by this Committee.
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
62-619 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin
DAVID WU, Oregon LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
PAUL D. TONKO, New York BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas
JIM MATHESON, Utah MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
BARON P. HILL, Indiana PETE OLSON, Texas
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
KATHLEEN DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania
ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
SUZANNE M. KOSMAS, Florida
GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
JOHN GARAMENDI, California
VACANCY
FOREWORD
Climate engineering, also known as geoengineering, can be
described as the deliberate large-scale modification of the
earth's climate systems for the purposes of counteracting and
mitigating climate change. As this subject becomes the focus of
more serious consideration and scrutiny within the scientific
and policy communities, it is important to acknowledge that
climate engineering carries with it not only possible benefits,
but also an enormous range of uncertainties, ethical and
political concerns, and the potential for harmful environmental
and economic side-effects. I believe that reducing greenhouse
gas emissions should be the first priority of any domestic or
international climate initiative. Nothing should distract us
from this priority, and climate engineering must not divert any
of the resources dedicated to greenhouse gas reductions and
clean energy development. However, we are facing an unfortunate
reality. The global climate is already changing and the onset
of climate change impacts may outpace the world's political,
technical, and economic capacities to prevent and adapt to
them. Therefore, policymakers should begin consideration of
climate engineering research now to better understand which
technologies or methods, if any, represent viable stopgap
strategies for managing our changing climate and which pose
unacceptable risks.
``We need the research now to establish whether such
approaches can do more good than harm. This research will take
time. We cannot wait to ready such systems until an emergency
is upon us.''
--Dr. Ken Caldeira, Geoengineering: Assessing the
Implications of Large-Scale Climate Intervention (written
hearing testimony) (2009).
Likewise, the impact of a moratorium on research should be
carefully weighed against the importance of promoting
scientific freedom and accountability. Scientific research and
risk assessment is essential to developing an adequate
scientific basis on which to justify or prohibit any action
related to climate change, including climate engineering
activities. Sound science should be used to support decision
making at all levels, including rigorous and exhaustive
examination of both the dangers and the value of individual
climate engineering strategies. A research moratoria that
stifles science, especially at this stage in our understanding
of climate engineering's risks and benefits, is a step in the
wrong direction and undercuts the importance of scientific
transparency. The global community is best served by research
that is both open and accountable. If climate change is indeed
one of the greatest long-term threats to biological diversity
and human welfare, then failing to understand all of our
options is also a threat to biodiversity and human welfare.
There is no clear consensus as to which types of activities
fall within the definition of climate engineering. For example,
most experts on land-based strategies for biological
sequestration of carbon, such as afforestation, do not identify
the activities they study as climate engineering. The
definition of the term also depends somewhat on the context in
which it is used. For the purpose of developing regulations,
for instance, the term may apply to a smaller set of higher-
risk strategies than might otherwise be included for the
purpose of crafting a broad interagency or international
research initiative. In the interest of simplicity and
consistency, the criteria used in this report are modeled off
of the U.K. Royal Society Report, Geoengineering the Climate:
Science, Governance and Uncertainty.\1\ These criteria are
inclusive of lower-risk activities such as reflective roofs,
some types of carbon capture and sequestration, and distributed
land management strategies, as well as more controversial
proposals such as ocean fertilization and atmospheric aerosol
injection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ John Shepherd et al., Geoengineering the Climate: Science,
Governance and Uncertainty (The U.K. Royal Society) (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Readers may notice that I use the term ``climate
engineering'' instead of ``geoengineering'' throughout this
report. While ``geoengineering'' is the term more commonly used
to describe this category of activities, I feel that it does
not accurately or fully convey the scale and intent of these
proposals, and it may simply be confusing to many stakeholders
unfamiliar with the subject. Therefore, for the purposes of
clarity, facilitating public engagement, and acknowledging the
seriousness of the task at hand, this report will use the term
``climate engineering'' in lieu of ``geoengineering'' going
forward.
This report is informed by an extensive review of proposed
climate engineering strategies and their potential impacts,
including a joint inquiry between the U.S. House of
Representatives Committee on Science and Technology and the
United Kingdom House of Commons Science and Technology
Committee (hereafter referred to as the ``U.S. Committee'' and
the ``U.K. Committee''), three Congressional hearings, review
of scientific research relevant to climate engineering, and
discussions with a number of experts, stakeholder groups,
scientists and managers at federal agencies, and the Government
Accountability Office (GAO).
As noted in the attached joint agreement between the U.S.
and U.K. Committees, Collaboration and Coordination on
Geoengineering,\2\ the U.S. Committee investigated the research
and development challenges associated with climate engineering,
while the U.K. Committee focused on regulatory and
international governance issues. Striking the right balance
between research and regulation is critical as both should
develop, to some degree, in parallel. Regulatory processes must
be based on sound scientific information, and some climate
engineering research will require regulation and government
oversight. Furthermore, development of a comprehensive risk
assessment framework to weigh the potential public benefits of
climate engineering against its potential dangers will be
needed to inform decision makers and the public as policies are
crafted for research and possible deployment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See infra Appendix at p.47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equally important in the development of policies for
climate engineering research will be transparency and public
engagement. For this reason, both the U.S. and U.K. Committees
have sought to establish an official record through public
proceedings with relevant background materials posted online.
Just as full-scale deployment of climate engineering would
necessarily have global effects, some large-scale field
research activities will impact multiple communities and cross
international borders. Furthermore, the impacts of climate
engineering may be felt most by less economically-advanced
populations that are particularly vulnerable to climatic
changes, deliberate or otherwise. Widespread public
understanding and acceptance is fundamental to any climate
engineering policy that is both socially equitable and
politically feasible.
It is my intent that this report, the U.S. and U.K.
Committees' hearing records, the reports from GAO, and other
forthcoming documents will make key contributions to the
evolving global conversation on climate engineering and help
guide future government and academic structures for research
and development activities in this field. In addition, the
bilateral cooperation between the U.S. and U.K. Committees on
this topic should serve as a model for future inter-
parliamentary collaboration. As nations become more
technologically, economically, and ecologically interdependent,
multilateral collaboration will be critical to developing
policies that address an increasingly complex range of
challenges.
Congressman Bart Gordon, Chairman
Committee on Science and Technology
United States House of Representatives
C O N T E N T S
October 2010
Page
Foreword......................................................... iii
Table of Contents................................................ vii
Background....................................................... 1
Summary of Hearings.............................................. 3
Research Needs................................................... 7
U.S. Research Capacities......................................... 8
National Science Foundation.................................. 9
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.............. 12
Department of Energy......................................... 17
National Aeronautics and Space Administration................ 22
Environmental Protection Agency.............................. 26
U.S. Department of Agriculture............................... 28
Other Federal Agencies....................................... 30
Organizational Models............................................ 32
General Findings and Recommendations............................. 37
Additional Sources............................................... 45
Appendix
United States-United Kingdom Joint Agreement..................... 47
Engineering the Climate: Research Needs
and Strategies for International Coordination
This document has been developed by the Chairman and staff
of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science and
Technology, for use by the Members of the Committee, the United
States Congress, and the public. It has not been reviewed or
approved by the Members of the Committee and may therefore not
necessarily reflect the views of all Members of the Committee.
This document has been printed for informational purposes only
and does not represent either findings or recommendations
adopted by the Committee.
This report should not be construed to provide any binding
or authoritative analysis of any statute. This report also does
not reflect the legal position of the United States.
BACKGROUND
During the 111th Congress, the U.S. Committee launched an
initiative to better understand the issues surrounding climate
engineering, and collaborated with the U.K. Committee to
explore the subject. The U.S. Committee convened three public
hearings to explore the science, governance, risks, and
research needs associated with climate engineering. A summary
of each hearing follows this section.
This report consolidates information gathered during
eighteen months of inquiry, and focuses on the research needs
associated with climate engineering. It identifies key research
capacities, skills, and tools located within U.S. federal
agencies that could be leveraged to inform climate engineering
science responsibly. Included throughout the report are
recommendations of the Chair in bold text.
Climate engineering, or geoengineering, can be defined as
the deliberate large-scale modification of the earth's climate
systems for the purpose of counteracting and mitigating
anthropogenic climate change. The strategies which fall under
this definition are loosely organized into two types: Solar
Radiation Management and Carbon Dioxide Removal. Solar
Radiation Management (SRM) methods propose to reflect a
fraction of the sun's radiation back into space,\3\ thereby
reducing the amount of solar radiation trapped in the earth's
atmosphere and stabilizing its energy balance. Carbon Dioxide
Removal (CDR) methods, also known as Air Capture (AC), propose
to reduce excess CO2 concentrations by capturing
CO2 directly from the air and storing the captured
gases as a solid through mineralization, or consuming it via
biological processes. CDR is different from direct capture,
which targets carbon from a single point source and stores it
in sedimentary formations. A comprehensive discussion of the
variety of proposed strategies can be found in the U.K. Royal
Society report, discussed below, although it is expected that
some proposals for climate engineering will continue to evolve
into completely new technical concepts over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The proposed reductions in global solar radiation absorption
are usually 1-2%; around 30% is already reflected naturally by the
earth's surface and atmosphere. See Geoengineering: Assessing the
Implications of Large-Scale Climate Intervention Hearing Before the
House of Representatives Committee on Science and Technology, 111th
Cong. (2009) (Hearing Charter).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While proposals for climate engineering in some form have
been around for decades, climate change research and regulation
efforts have been almost wholly focused on mitigation through
emissions reductions and, more recently, adaptation to the
effects of a changing climate. Because of the inherent risks
and uncertainties, climate engineering, thus far, has not
represented a technically viable, environmentally sound, or
politically prudent option for preventing or adapting to
climate change. However, in recent years a growing number of
credible scientific bodies have engaged in more serious
deliberation to the concept of climate engineering.
In September of 2009 the U.K. Royal Society published a
comprehensive report entitled, Geoengineering the Climate:
Science, Governance and Uncertainty.\4\ In May 2010 the
National Research Council released a pre-publication version of
a congressionally requested report, America's Climate
Choices,\5\ which included discussion on several carbon dioxide
removal strategies. In the spring of 2010 the bipartisan
National Commission on Energy Policy (NCEP) announced its
formation of a Task Force on Geoengineering to explore U.S.
governmental approaches to research and governance issues.
Since the U.S. Committee began its inquiry, at least three
books dedicated exclusively to the topic of climate engineering
have been released. Following on to its previous efforts, the
U.K. Royal Society, in partnership with the Environmental
Defense Fund (EDF) and the Academy of Sciences for the
Developing World, initiated the Solar Radiation Management
Governance Initiative (SRMGI) to ensure strict and appropriate
governance of any plans for solar radiation management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ John Shepherd et al., Geoengineering the Climate: Science,
Governance and Uncertainty (The U.K. Royal Society) (2009).
\5\ Division on Earth and Life Sciences, National Research Council,
America's Climate Choices: Advancing the Science of Climate Change
p.299 (National Academies Press) (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to these efforts, the U.S. Committee
commissioned both the Congressional Research Service (CRS) and
the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct their own
inquiries. CRS reviewed the international treaties, laws and
other existing regulatory frameworks that might apply if
climate engineering were tested or deployed at a large scale.
This report was released on March 11, 2010 and is contained in
its entirety as part of the official Committee hearing
records.\6\ A second report was released by CRS in August 2010
containing a more detailed consideration of the potential
regulatory issues of climate engineering.\7\ GAO conducted a
Committee-requested assessment of the current federal agency
research activities directly related to climate engineering.
This GAO inquiry focused on the general state of the science
and technology regarding climate engineering approaches and
their potential effects, the extent to which the U.S. federal
government is sponsoring or participating in climate
engineering research or deployment, the views of legal experts
and federal officials regarding the extent to which federal
laws and international agreements apply to climate engineering
activities, and some of the associated governance challenges.
This report, A Coordinated Strategy Could Focus Federal
Geoengineering Research and Inform Governance Efforts, was
released in October 2010.\8\ Also at the Chairman's request, a
separate group of scientists and engineers within GAO are
conducting a technology assessment on various climate
engineering strategies and the related technical and societal
considerations, with a report on their process and findings
expected in early 2011. This GAO effort will include a survey
of the knowledge base within the scientific community about
leading climate engineering approaches, the public's general
perception of those approaches, and the prospects for their
potential development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ H.R. Rep. Nos. 111-62, 111-75, 111-88 (2010).
\7\ Kelsi Bracmort et al., Geoengineering: Governance and
Technology Policy (U.S. Congressional Research Service) (2010).
\8\ U.S. Government Accountability Office, A Coordinated Strategy
Could Focus Federal Geoengineering Research and Inform Governance
Efforts (Publication No. GAO 10-903) (2010).
SUMMARY OF HEARINGS
The U.S. Science and Technology Committee held three public
hearings to receive testimony from expert witnesses on climate
engineering. The official record of these hearings, including
discussion transcripts, witness testimony, questions for the
record, and other supplementary materials, was finalized in
July 2010 and will be available to academia, policy makers and
the public.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Access to official hearing records is available at .
Geoengineering: Assessing the Implications of Large-Scale Climate
Intervention
On November 5, 2009, with the Honorable Bart Gordon (D-TN)
presiding, the U.S. Committee held a hearing to introduce the
concept of climate engineering and explore some of the
scientific, regulatory, engineering, governance, and ethical
challenges. Five witnesses testified before the Committee:
Professor John Shepherd, Professional
Research Fellow in Earth System Science at the
University of Southampton and Chair of the Royal
Society working group that produced the report
Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and
Uncertainty
Dr. Ken Caldeira, Professor of Environmental
Science, Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie
Institution of Washington and co-author of the Royal
Society Report
Mr. Lee Lane, Co-Director of the American
Enterprise Institute Geoengineering Project
Dr. Alan Robock, professor at the Department
of Environmental Sciences in the School of
Environmental and Biological Sciences at Rutgers
University
Dr. James Fleming, Professor and Director of
the Science, Technology and Society Department at Colby
College and author of Fixing the Sky: The Checkered
History of Weather and Climate Control.
Chairman Gordon introduced some key challenges with climate
engineering and described Committee plans for future discussion
and international collaboration. He warned that climate
engineering is no substitute for greenhouse gas mitigation and
would require years of research before deployment.
During the witness testimony, Professor Shepherd described
the goals and conclusions of the Royal Society report and
recommended a multidisciplinary research initiative on climate
engineering, including widespread public engagement at a global
scale. Dr. Caldeira profiled the two major categories of
climate engineering, solar radiation management (SRM) and
carbon dioxide removal (CRM), and called for an interagency
research program on both types. Mr. Lane argued for the
economic viability of and environmental and political rationale
for stratospheric injections, an SRM strategy. Dr. Robock
identified some major risks and uncertainties of climate
engineering. Specifically, he noted the problems of
international disagreement, large-scale field testing, and the
potential impacts of interruptions to large scale SRM systems,
but argued for a comprehensive research program to help inform
future climate policy decisions. Dr. Fleming provided a
historical context on weather modification and its concurrent
governmental challenges, arguing that any climate engineering
initiative must be interdisciplinary, international, and
intergenerational.
During the question and answer period, the Members and
witnesses discussed: the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 as an
analog to stratospheric injections, the potential efficacy of
greenhouse gas mitigation goals, the need for continued
mitigation strategies and behavioral changes, the methane
output of livestock, the environmental impacts of stratospheric
injections, and the challenges of international collaboration
and regulation. They also reviewed: climate modeling and
simulation tools, anthropogenic climate change, the
possibilities of distributed solar panels, potential roles for
U.S. federal agencies in research and deployment, and how to
prioritize the different suggested strategies. The panelists
and Members agreed that no nation, including the United States
or the United Kingdom, should deploy any climate engineering
strategies before performing extensive research and
establishing appropriate governance mechanisms. They also
agreed that a comprehensive research program should be multi-
disciplinary and internationally coordinated.
Geoengineering II: The Scientific Basis and Engineering Challenges
On February 4, 2010, with the Honorable Brian Baird (D-WA)
presiding, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held a
hearing to explore the scientific foundation of several climate
engineering proposals and their potential engineering demands,
environmental impacts, costs, efficacy, and permanence. Four
witnesses testified before the Subcommittee:
Dr. David Keith, Canada Research Chair in
Energy and the Environment at the University of Calgary
Dr. Philip Rasch, Laboratory Fellow of the
Atmospheric Sciences & Global Change Division and Chief
Scientist for Climate Science at Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory
Dr. Klaus Lackner, Ewing-Worzel Professor of
Geophysics and Chair of the Earth & Environmental
Engineering Department at Columbia University
Dr. Robert Jackson, Nicholas Chair of Global
Environmental Change and a Professor in the Biology
Department at Duke University.
During the witness testimony, Dr. Keith emphasized the
distinction between the two types of climate engineering, and
compared climate engineering to chemotherapy as an unwanted but
potentially necessary tool in the case of an emergency
situation. Dr. Rasch described SRM strategies and suggested
first steps for developing an SRM research program, noting that
initial costs could be low but that more sensitive climate
modeling tools would be needed. Dr. Lackner described the CDR
strategies of carbon air capture and mineral sequestration. He
noted that such technologies were compatible with a continued
global dependence on fossil fuels and would address the causes,
rather than symptoms, of climate change, but that high costs
would be a challenge. Dr. Jackson discussed biological and
land-based strategies in both the CDR and SRM categories. He
explained that existing regulatory structures and expertise
could accommodate many of these strategies fairly readily, but
that both scalability and the foreseeable and unforeseeable
impacts on other natural resources, such as water and
biodiversity, would be problematic.
During the question and answer period, the Members and
witnesses discussed: the front end costs of climate engineering
compared to traditional mitigation alone, the costs and
potential impacts of atmospheric sulfate injections, and
creative strategies for chemical and geological carbon uptake.
They also explored public education and opinion on climate
engineering, the potential effects of increased structural
albedo, and the greatest political challenges of climate
management. The Members emphasized some existing tools that
could reduce the need for climate engineering, such as
unconventional carbon capture and sequestration (CCS)
strategies, the availability and economic viability of fossil
fuel alternatives, and energy conservation. All the witnesses
agreed that a basic research program on the subject is likely
needed, whether for the ultimate goal of deployment or for the
sake of risk management.
Geoengineering III: Domestic and International Research Governance
On March 18, 2010, with the Honorable Bart Gordon
presiding, the Committee held a hearing to explore the domestic
and international governance needs to initiate and guide a
climate engineering research program. The hearing also examined
which U.S. agencies and institutions have the capacity or
authorities to conduct climate engineering research. Five
witnesses, divided into two panels, testified before the
Committee.
Testifying via satellite on the first panel was Member of
Parliament Phil Willis, then Chair of the Science and
Technology Committee in the U.K. House of Commons and
Representative of Harrogate and Knaresborough. Mr. Willis has
subsequently been appointed Baron Willis of Knaresborough,
Member of the House of Lords. In his opening statement,
Chairman Gordon welcomed Chairman Willis as his honored guest.
He emphasized that the scientific evidence of anthropogenic
climate change is overwhelming and that a more robust
scientific and political understanding of climate engineering
is needed.
Chairman Willis testified on the U.K.-U.S. joint climate
engineering inquiry and introduced his Committee's official
report on the subject, The Regulation of Geoengineering.\10\ He
delineated some of the report's key findings and
recommendations, including governing principles, and stressed
that while climate engineering would be an extremely complex
and challenging venture, it would be irresponsible not to
initiate appropriate regulation and research. During the first
question and answer period, Chairman Willis and the U.S.
Committee Members discussed the potential value of a
comprehensive international database on climate engineering
information and activities, the future of research in the
United Kingdom, and additional opportunities for bilateral
cooperation between the Committees. They also discussed the
role of public opinion and the media, and how the U.K. inquiry
process engaged both the public and scientific experts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Science and Technology Committee, United Kingdom House of
Commons, The Regulation of Geoengineering (Stationery Office Limited)
(2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second panel consisted of:
Dr. Frank Rusco, Director of Natural
Resources and Environment at the Government
Accountability Office (GAO)
Dr. Scott Barrett, Lenfest Professor of
Natural Resource Economics at the School of
International and Public Affairs and the Earth
Institute at Columbia University
Dr. Jane Long, Associate Director-at-Large
and Fellow for the Center for Global Strategic Research
at Lawrence Livermore National Lab (LLNL)
Dr. Granger Morgan, Professor and Head of the
Department of Engineering and Public Policy and Lord
Chair Professor in Engineering at Carnegie Mellon
University.
During Panel II, Dr. Rusco summarized key findings of the
GAO's ongoing inquiry on climate engineering, describing some
of the existing relevant research activities in federal
agencies, as well as some relevant international treaties. He
also provided support for the near-term regulation of some
climate engineering strategies. Dr. Morgan described climate
engineering research at Carnegie Mellon University and argued
for a cautious, risk-aware research program on solar radiation
management. He also argued that the National Science Foundation
should lead initial research efforts, that transparency should
be a priority, and that the potential environmental impacts of
specific research initiatives should inform the international
agreements and laws intended to regulate them. Dr. Long
discussed the key questions and principles for governance and
risk management, and urged that the benefits of any program
must very clearly outweigh the risks. Dr. Barrett assessed the
different scenarios in which climate engineering might be
needed, warning that there would necessarily be ``winner and
losers,'' and recommended seven key governance rules.
During the discussion period with this panel, the Members
and witnesses discussed initial regulatory structures and
debated the appropriate research and management roles for the
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the National Science
Foundation (NSF), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), and other U.S. federal agencies. They
also discussed national security and geopolitical impacts of
climate change itself and the need for adaptive management. All
panelists and witnesses agreed that unilateral deployment of
climate engineering could be very dangerous and should be
avoided. There was also a consensus that climate engineering is
a highly interdisciplinary, diverse topic, and that any federal
research initiative may require several agency and university
partners.
RESEARCH NEEDS
As stated, climate engineering research will be multi-
disciplinary and require a coordinated effort to sufficiently
inform testing or deployment of any of the proposed
strategies.\11\ While, some strategies, such as forest
management, have a more extensive scientific foundation than
others, an improved understanding of the potential efficacy and
impacts of all proposals is needed.\12\ Below are several key
areas of research that may be needed to better understand the
physical and chemical processes, and assess the technical and
financial feasibility, engineering needs, and the
environmental, ecological and societal implications of various
climate engineering strategies. These areas of research are
commonly recognized by climate engineering and earth sciences
experts as fundamental to one or more of the main proposed
strategies. They include but are not limited to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ For a detailed discussion of each geoengineering strategy and
its scientific basis, see John Shepherd et al., Geoengineering the
Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty (The U.K. Royal Society)
(2009).
\12\ See Division on Earth and Life Sciences, National Research
Council, America's Climate Choices: Advancing the Science of Climate
Change p.297 (National Academies Press) (2010).
Greenhouse gas monitoring, accounting and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
verification
Hydrologic cycle modeling
Water and air quality modeling and monitoring
Atmospheric dynamics and physics
Ocean and lake dynamics and physics
Atmospheric chemical composition (e.g. carbon
dioxide, ozone, moisture, and other greenhouse gases
such as methane)
Ocean and terrestrial biology and ecosystems
Invasive plant and animal species
Risk assessment and risk management
Chemical, electrical and mechanical
engineering \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Geoengineering: Assessing the Implications of Large-Scale
Climate Intervention Hearing Before the House of Representatives
Committee on Science and Technology, 111th Cong. (2009) (John Shepherd
Testimony).
Earth systems environmental sciences \14\,
including modeling
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weather systems, including monsoon cycles
Forces impacting the ozone layer
Impacts of forestry and agricultural
practices on greenhouse gas emissions
Biochar
Terrestrial carbon sequestration
Phytoplankton
Ocean acidification and chemistry
Recyclable carbon adsorbents
Geologic/seismic imaging
Radiation measurement
Cloud microphysics
Geochemical dynamics and carbon
mineralization
Sea ice dynamics and thermodynamics
Genomic science
Energy generation and use
The tools required to support these research needs include
but are not limited to:
High performance computing systems for
modeling
Weather and climate monitoring tools,
including satellites, and ground-based and in situ
instrumentation
Land use change monitoring systems, including
environmental satellites
Networks of distributed water sampling tools
for both fresh and ocean waters
Geological imaging tools, such as
spectroscopic remote sensing
Chemical laboratories to measure and
understand the role of chemistry in the earth system
Biological and ecological observing systems
and laboratories
Engineering research laboratories with the
ability to bench test, field test, and evaluate various
climate engineering concepts
U.S. RESEARCH CAPACITIES
There is virtually no federal funding explicitly dedicated
to ``climate engineering'' or ``geoengineering'' research.
However, as discussed in their October report, GAO found that
some federal agencies already conduct activities that address
many of the research needs identified above, albeit without
``climate engineering'' as an express or intended goal.\15\
This section, in contrast with the GAO report, explores some of
the existing tools and competencies in federal agencies that
could contribute to climate engineering research. It is the
opinion of the Chair that any federal climate engineering
research program should leverage existing facilities,
instruments, skills, and partnerships within federal agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See for e.g. Staff of House of Representatives Committee on
Science and Technology, 111th Cong., Report on Geoengineering III:
Domestic and International Research Governance Before the House of
Representatives Committee on Science and Technology Hearing (Comm.
Print 2010) (Frank Rusco Responses to Questions for the Record).
National Science Foundation
The National Science Foundation (NSF) supports basic
research and education across all fields of fundamental science
and engineering. Most of NSF's budget is dedicated to
supporting investigator-initiated, merit-reviewed, and
competitively-selected awards and contracts to researchers and
teams primarily from U.S. colleges and universities, but also,
including non-profit organizations and private sector firms. A
smaller portion of NSF funding goes to support major research
centers and cutting-edge tools and facilities. NSF also has a
long history of fostering and conducting international
scientific collaborations on both small and large-scale
research projects. Therefore, of the federal research agencies,
the National Science Foundation (NSF) may have the greatest
capacity to engage in research related to the nascent field of
climate engineering, and it is the opinion of the Chair that
NSF should support merit-reviewed proposals for climate
engineering research.
An Example of an NSF Grant Researchers at Rutgers University
have received a grant, through the NSF Geosciences (GEO)
Directorate, to explore stratospheric injections and
sunshading. The team has conducted climate model simulations of
the various scenarios of artificially introduced particles in
the stratosphere. And they have investigated the potential
impacts of stratospheric injections on precipitation, as well
as the ethical implications of some climate engineering
proposals. As of November 2009 the team had produced five peer-
reviewed journal articles on its research.
Research Directorates
NSF is divided into the following seven Directorates that
support science and engineering research and education:
Biological Sciences; Computer and Information Science and
Engineering; Education and Human Resources; Engineering;
Geosciences; Mathematical and Physical Sciences; and Social,
Behavioral and Economic Sciences. Each Directorate is
subdivided into divisions. All Directorates, with the likely
exception of Education and Human Resources, support research
needs associated with climate engineering. For example, the
Engineering Directorate currently supports fundamental research
on the development of materials, methods, and innovative
processes for the separation and removal of contaminants such
as carbon dioxide from the air. The Geosciences (GEO)
Directorate supports research on the chemistry of ocean
acidification, including the interplay of acidification and the
biochemical and physiological processes of organisms, and the
implications of these effects for ecosystem structure and
function. In addition, the Biological Sciences (BIO)
Directorate supports research on the complexity and
adaptability of biological systems and their interface with the
carbon and water cycles. Research activities that could
contribute to ocean fertilization or terrestrial CDR
strategies, for example, are already being addressed under the
BIO and GEO portfolios. It is the opinion of the Chair that the
National Science Foundation (NSF) should consider how all of
its grant programs could contribute to a climate engineering
research agenda.
Centers and Facilities
While NSF does not operate its own laboratories, it
supports construction and operations for an array of advanced
instrumentation and major research facilities, including
oceanographic research vessels. For example, through its Major
Research Equipment and Facilities Construction account, NSF is
currently supporting development and construction of the
National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON, see inset) and
the Oceans Observatory Initiative. NSF is also the primary
sponsor for the National Center for Atmospheric Research
(NCAR). NCAR supports research in areas such as atmospheric
chemistry, climate change, cloud physics, solar radiation, and
related physical, biological, and social systems. NCAR is home
to a number of world-class experts and tools, including an
atmosphere-ocean general circulation model, which could
contribute to climate engineering research. In fact, NCAR
researchers have already begun to explore how sulfate particles
behave in the stratosphere and their effects on the ozone
layer.
National Ecological Observatory Network The NSF-funded
National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) ecological
observation program is the most ambitious U.S. attempt to
assess environmental change to date. The program has divided
the United States into 20 eco-climatic domains and will monitor
the regions over 30 years through site-based and geological
data and airplane observations. The results will inform how
land use change, climate change, and invasive species affect
ecosystems.
NEON's activities will include soil analysis, measuring land
use and vegetation changes, and monitoring forest canopy
heights and biomass. Its data will enable researchers to
quantify forces regulating the biosphere and predict its
response to change. NEON infrastructure will include towers and
sensor arrays, remote sensing, cutting-edge instrumentation,
and facilities for data analysis, modeling, and forecasting.
The level of detail and uninterrupted data sets expected from
NEON and the experts that analyze its data could inform
research on land-based climate engineering, such as
afforestation and reforestation, reflective crops, and biochar.
NEON could also contribute to the eventual monitoring of other
CDR strategies.
Political and Ethical Research
Understanding the full range of impacts of climate
engineering will entail a unique set of challenges outside of
the scientific and engineering categories identified earlier.
Research underlying areas such as domestic and international
governance, economics, and risk assessment and management, will
likely be required as long as climate engineering remains an
option. There are also significant ethical considerations with
the large-scale testing and deployment of climate engineering,
since some strategies may benefit certain populations at the
expense of others. Likewise, there are ethical considerations
in choosing to not deploy a strategy, should it prove viable.
NSF, with its capacity to support research in the social
and political sciences, may be an appropriate body to lead
federal research in these areas. The Social, Behavioral, and
Economic Sciences (SBE) Directorate, for example, has funded
research proposals on the societal implications of
environmental events, such as earthquakes. The Directorate's
Sociology Program recently funded a workshop to explore the
sociological dimensions of climate change and climate change
solutions, including how the social sciences might be
incorporated into existing data infrastructure.\16\ At this
time NSF is the only federal body with such formalized
capacities for research on the social and political dimensions
of science and emerging technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Joane Nagel et al., Workshop on Sociological Perspectives on
Global Climate Change (National Science Foundation) (2009). Available
at -WkspReport-09.pdf>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with any government initiative in the development of
nascent technologies that provoke some measure of controversy,
transparency, and public engagement will be critical to a
successful research program on climate engineering. Moreover,
public engagement will be most effective if it is incorporated
early, when strategies are still being considered and a
diversity of perspectives can be incorporated.\17\ The Chair
agrees with the U.K. Committee recommendation that governments
should make public engagement a priority of any climate
engineering effort. Furthermore, the National Science
Foundation (NSF), with its institutional history of engaging
the public on nascent technologies and funding research in the
social and behavioral sciences, should play a critical role in
informing public engagement strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Daniel Sarewitz, Not By Experts Alone, 466 Nature p.688
(2010).
International Collaboration
In addition to supporting basic research and early-stage
development of nascent and transformative technologies, NSF has
unique capacities for fostering international scientific
collaboration. The Office of International Science and
Engineering (OISE) supports some of its own internationally
focused research and education programs and facilitates
collaboration between NSF-funded researchers and international
partners across the Foundation. However, NSF grant programs may
fund only the U.S. portion of research projects being conducted
by international teams of scientists and engineers. For
example, the Division of Earth Sciences has recently granted
funds to researchers at the University of Maryland to explore
carbon monoxide oxidation and production, and these efforts
will be complemented by activities funded separately at the
Russian Kamchatka Institute of Volcanology and Seismology and
the Russian National Academy of Sciences.\18\ The Dimensions on
Biodiversity initiative will fund a set of coordinated
proposals researching the role of biodiversity in ecological
and evolutionary processes. The solicitation for this
initiative encourages investigators to develop international
collaborations, either through direct research partnerships or
the development of international coordination networks.\19\
NSF's support of U.S. participation in international scientific
and engineering efforts may prove critical to any significant
international climate engineering research effort, in
particular for those strategies with geographically dispersed
impacts, such as stratospheric injections, marine cloud
whitening, and ocean fertilization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ For example, Dr. Frank Robb at the University of Maryland
Biotechnology Institute received a National Science Foundation
Collaborative Research grant, number 0747394, entitled ``Carbon
Monoxide Dynamics in Geothermal Mats and Earth's Early Atmosphere.''
For more information see the National Science Foundation's website at
-visualization-noscript.jsp?org=EAR&showAward
Dollars=true&showPerCapita=true ®ion=US-MD&instId=5300000455>.
\19\ See National Science Foundation, Program Solicitation:
Dimensions of Biodiversity (Mar. 10, 2010). Available at -summ.jsp?WT.z-pims-id=503446&ods
-key=nsf10548>.
Challenges in Europe There are lessons to be learned from the
European experience with the still-nascent field of synthetic
biology. The potential applications of synthetic biology,
including its capacity to modify the genetic makeup of food
crops to increase crop yields and provide greater pest
resistance have been met with uncertainty. Public confusion
about governmental motivations for agricultural biotechnology
led to a virtual moratorium on genetically modified (GM) foods.
Having learned from these challenges, both German and British
national research councils have recently committed to a
thorough public dialogue regarding synthetic biology as they
seek to jump start development in the field.a A
number of unresolved questions on the ethical and environmental
implications of synthetic biology remain, and international
standards are minimal or nonexistent. Better public engagement
in Europe is seen as a fundamental step in the development of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
this field.
a Colin Macilwain, Talking the Talk: Without Effective
Public Engagement, There Will Be No Synthetic Biology in Europe, 465
Nature p.867 (2010).
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
through its research laboratories and partners, and the Climate
Program Office, conducts broad ranging research into complex
climate systems with the aim of improving our ability to
understand these systems and predicting climate variation and
change over a range of temporal and spatial scales. NOAA's
research capacities and monitoring and modeling tools make it
an appropriate venue for climate engineering research--to
understand how such activities could be conducted and what
effects, both desired and unknown, may occur as a result.
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research
The Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) is
NOAA's primary research body, providing the research foundation
for understanding the complex systems that support the planet.
The role of OAR is to provide unbiased science to better manage
the environment, on a national, regional, and global scale. To
do this, OAR administers collaborative partnerships with
universities and other research bodies and works with its own
research laboratories to advance climate science. As the
primary research and development organization within NOAA, OAR
explores the earth and atmosphere from the surface of the sun
to the depths of the ocean to provide products and services
that describe and predict changes in the environment and inform
effective decision making.
Current research priorities at OAR could be leveraged to
support future climate engineering research initiatives. For
example, the Climate Program Office manages and awards funding
through competitive research programs on high-priority topics
in climate science, including atmosphere, Arctic ice, the
global carbon cycle, climate variability, and oceanic
conditions. Several types of climate engineering research needs
could fit into these existing, broad research categories. In
addition, the Climate Observations and Monitoring program
maintains a highly integrated and complex network of observing
instruments to gather climate data, which are then used for
national and international assessment projects. Such a network
would be pertinent to informing the scope of potential
ecosystem impacts from climate engineering.
Another pertinent mission at OAR is Weather and Air
Quality. This mission focuses on forecasting and hazard
warnings as well as on the chemical and physical makeup of the
atmosphere, circulation patterns, and changes caused by
chemical inputs. Although many of OAR's ocean and freshwater
activities relate to traditional NOAA missions, such as
fisheries management and coastline restoration, OAR also
conducts a great measure of research on issues relevant to
climate engineering research such as aquatic invasive species,
freshwater contamination, the nutrient pollution cycle, and
ocean acidification.
OAR's laboratories support these research missions and
conduct cutting-edge technology development and analysis.
Specifically, the Geophysical Fluid Dynamic Laboratory (GFDL)
and Earth Systems Research Laboratory (ESRL) support a host of
key activities relevant to climate engineering. OAR research is
also informed by an array of cutting-edge field observation
tools and sensors, including surface networks, stratospheric
balloons, ocean buoys, and aircraft, that would be uniquely
suited to atmosphere-based climate engineering research and
monitoring. Each program office uses powerful computing systems
to assess and predict changes in the ecosystems. Any number of
OAR's ongoing research activities could directly and
immediately inform climate engineering. For example, the Arctic
Research Office could explore the potential of geographically-
localized SRM to protect polar ice. In addition, OAR expertise
on biological emission and absorption of greenhouse gases and
carbon storage in oceans could be leveraged to predict the
impacts of any potential CDR strategy.
Research at the Earth Systems Research Laboratory Scientists
at the Earth Systems Research Laboratory (ESRL) have begun to
explore the potential impacts of SRM on solar power production.
In March 2009 the Chemical Sciences Division published a paper
on how atmospheric sulfate injections may significantly
decrease power generation from solar facilities.b
The paper suggests that for every percentage of direct sunlight
reflected to outer space, solar power output would decrease by
four or five percent. In addition, there is the even more
troubling concern that atmospheric SRM could negatively impact
food crops growth and decrease yields. Any atmospheric
SRM research program must be subject to robust risk assessment
and management procedures, including modeling exercises on the
secondary impacts that a reduction in direct sunlight could
have on both solar power installations and plant growth.
b Daniel M. Murphy, Effect of Stratospheric Aerosols on
Direct Sunlight and Implications for Concentrating Solar Power, 43
Environmental Science and Technology p.2784 (2009).
National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service
The National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information
Service (NESDIS) is NOAA's satellite observation systems and
data collection service. NESDIS transmits real time data from
both orbiting and geo-stationary satellites for a host of
research objectives such as weather forecasting and earth and
ocean science, and manages the development of environmental
satellite products. Like the environmental satellite
capabilities within NASA, the NESDIS observing system can
collect data on a wide variety of environmental factors
including the motion of particles in the atmosphere, cloud, air
and ocean temperatures, ocean dynamics, global vegetation,
atmospheric humidity, and land cover. NESDIS also holds
thorough data records on Arctic sea ice, which is measured via
satellites and verified with ``ground-truthing'' equipment and
software. Long term measurements on Arctic sea ice would be
needed to verify the effectiveness of any climate engineering
program, as well as the inadvertent and indirect effects of
such programs.
The information collected by NESDIS is processed, analyzed,
and disseminated through NOAA's data centers. One of these data
centers, the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), provides for
the long-term archiving of weather and climate data and is the
world's largest active archive of these types of information.
NESDIS also oversees six Regional Climate Centers (RCCs), a
network of data management sites providing climate information
at the state and local levels, as well as nine Regional
Integrated Sciences and Assessments (RISA) offices, which
deliver climate information to regional and local decision-
makers. The National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC) maintains
physical, biological, and chemical measurements from
oceanographic observations, satellite remote sensing, and ocean
modeling. The National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) manages
the National Snow and Ice Data Center, and also holds over 400
digital and analog databases on geophysical ground- and
satellite-based measurements, including geochemical makeup and
carbonate data. Data holdings from all NESDIS Centers are
currently used to answer questions about climate change and
natural resources, and would be useful to inform the early
stages of climate engineering research. The Centers may also
serve as repositories for any new data gathered in the course
of climate engineering research.
The NOAA satellite systems provide a range of data sets on
atmospheric, oceanic, and geologic conditions, and new systems
with improved instrumentation are planned for deployment. For
example, the Geostationary Operation Environmental Satellite R-
Series (GOES-R), is a joint NOAA-NASA satellite project based
out of Goddard Space Flight Center. The two satellites in this
system are expected to launch in 2015 and 2017, and will
provide data on sea surface temperature, cloud top height and
temperature, and aerosol detection, among other baseline
products. These tools could inform research on stratospheric
aerosol injection, marine cloud whitening, ocean fertilization,
and other climate engineering strategies.
Lessons can also be learned from another NOAA-NASA joint
project, the Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS),\20\ formerly
known as the National Polar-orbiting Operation Environmental
Satellite System (NPOESS). The program was initiated in 1994
and was slated to launch six environmental monitoring
satellites starting in 2009. However, due to management
challenges, explosive growth in life-cycle cost estimates, and
schedule delays the program will instead launch two separate
satellite systems managed by NOAA and DOD, respectively, with
NASA serving as NOAA's technical support arm. The first JPSS
satellite is scheduled to launch in 2014. While JPSS promises
to deliver robust capabilities for weather and climate
forecasting, due to the aforementioned issues, the system's
capabilities will be significantly reduced. For instance, the
aerosol polarimetry sensors, which retrieve specific
measurements on clouds and aerosols in the atmosphere, were
cancelled from two of the satellites, thus cancelling two of
the key information products, aerosol refractive index and
cloud particle size and distribution, which could have provided
the types of data that atmospheric-based climate engineering
research requires. The NPOESS/JPSS project also demonstrates
how easily large and complex research projects can fall victim
to financial and management challenges, as well as the
importance of mission consistency and data continuity in the
success of any comprehensive research program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ The U.S. Science and Technology Committee held seven hearings
on challenges facing the NPOESS program over the last seven years
before the Investigations and Oversight and Energy and Environment
Subcommittees. See for e.g. Continuing Independent Assessment of the
National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System
Hearing Before the House of Representatives Committee on Science and
Technology Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, 111th Cong. (2009).
Available at -markups.aspx>.
Environmental Impact Research: The Oceans
Ocean fertilization is the intentional introduction of
nutrients, such as iron, into the surface waters of the ocean
to stimulate the growth of phytoplankton and thereby the uptake
of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Phytoplankton are
photosynthetic; they use energy from the sun to naturally
convert carbon dioxide and water into organic compounds and
oxygen. Iron is necessary for photosynthesis to occur and in
many areas of the ocean iron is not abundant, thereby limiting
the growth of phytoplankton. The idea behind ocean
fertilization projects is to use relatively small amounts of
iron in iron-deficient zones to trigger large phytoplankton
blooms. At least half of the carbon-rich biomass generated by
such plankton blooms would be consumed by animals such as
zooplankton and small fish, and about a third would sink into
the cold, deep ocean water where it would be effectively
isolated from the atmosphere for centuries. Fertilization does
occur through natural processes such as glacial runoff, dust
storms, and through ocean upwelling that carries cold, nutrient
rich water to the surface. Since the early 1990s, a number of
scientists and entrepreneurs from around the world have
explored ocean fertilization as a means to sequester
atmospheric carbon dioxide in the deep ocean.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ P.W. Boyd et al., Mesoscale Iron Enrichment Experiments 1993-
2005: Synthesis and Future Directions, 315 Science p.612 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several concerns have been voiced from the scientific
community over the efficacy and ethics of ocean fertilization.
For example, some phytoplankton blooms (e.g., harmful algal
blooms or HABs) produce toxins that are extremely detrimental
to human health and coastal economies. HABs impacts in the
Great Lakes, Gulf of Mexico, and the Pacific Northwest have
been particularly severe and have led to the creation of ``dead
zones.'' \22\ The increase of HABs is a concern from ocean
fertilization projects because it is not known what types of
plankton will ``bloom'' after fertilization. Research is
ongoing to understand how to control, mitigate, and effectively
respond to HABs events. That said, much research remains to be
done in this arena, and the potential to exacerbate HABs is
only one of the ecological hazards that could be caused by
large-scale iron fertilization. In addition to this and other
potential ecological effects, the efficiency of fertilization
as well as the ability to verify the resulting sequestration of
carbon dioxide are issues that have yet to be resolved.\23\
Therefore, it is the opinion of the Chair that the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), with its unique
expertise and research capacities on ocean chemistry, should
have a lead role in researching and assessing the environmental
impacts of any climate engineering strategy involving chemical
inputs into the environment that would directly or indirectly
impact ocean waters, e.g. stratospheric sulfate injections and
ocean fertilization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Harmful Algal Blooms: Formulating an Action Plan, 2009:
Hearing on The Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control
Act Hearing Before House of Representatives Committee on Science and
Technology Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, 111th Cong. (2009)
(Hearing Charter).
\23\ Anand Gnanadesikan et al., Effects of Patchy Ocean
Fertilization on Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Biological Production,
17 Global Biogeochemical Cycles p.1050 (2003).
Environmental Impact Research: The Ozone Layer
Some researchers have expressed concern that aerosols from
stratospheric sulfate injections will exacerbate the effects of
materials remaining in the atmosphere from the past usage of
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).\24\ CFCs were once sold in popular
consumer products such as aerosol spray cans and refrigerants,
but were found to decay the atmospheric ozone layer that
moderates the amount of ultraviolet light reaching the earth's
surface. In response to these risks, the United States
initiated bans on CFCs beginning in 1978, and these substances
were essentially phased out of commerce worldwide via the
Montreal Protocol. Since these bans have taken effect, the
ozone layer has shown a marked recovery, but the atmospheric
system will remain sensitive to damage in the future from CFCs
or other hazardous compounds that have yet to be identified. In
addition, human activities that stimulate ozone-destructive
materials could slow or even reverse the recovery process.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ David Keith, Geoengineering the Climate: History and Prospect,
25 Annual Review of Energy and the Environment p.245 (2000).
\25\ Simone Tilmes et al., The Sensitivity of Polar Ozone Depletion
to Proposed Geoengineering Schemes, 320 Science Express p.1201 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOAA scientists were among the first to identify the risks
presented by ozone-depleting chemicals, and OAR remains the
federal government's primary authority on the ozone layer. NOAA
uses satellite and ground-based measurements to continually
monitor stratospheric ozone as well as other conditions, such
as the presence of certain chemicals which can detrimentally
impact the atmosphere. NOAA's Earth Systems Research Laboratory
(ESRL), the Climate Prediction Center, and the National
Climatic Data Center (NCDC) are all engaged in improving data
holdings and information on ozone. It is the opinion of the
Chair that due to its experience in researching ozone and the
chemicals that could harm the ozone layer, the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) should lead federal
efforts to explore the potential impacts of sulfates on the
stratospheric ozone layer.
Department of Energy
Several program offices within the Department of Energy
(DOE) house activities and expertise that could inform research
on climate engineering strategies.
Office of Science
The bulk of climate change research expertise at DOE may be
found within the Office of Science, which is responsible for
about 40% of the overall federal R&D investment in the physical
sciences. Of the six program offices within the Office of
Science, at least three contain climate engineering-relevant
research capabilities: Biological and Environmental Research
(BER), Basic Energy Sciences (BES), and Advanced Scientific
Computing Research (ASCR).
Biological and Environmental Research Program
The Biological and Environmental Research (BER) program
office supports interdisciplinary research and user facilities
to explore biological sciences, bioenergy, climate change,
carbon sequestration, subsurface contamination, hydrology, and
the interface between biological and physical sciences, among
other topics. While the program is most widely known for its
work in human genome sequencing, and many BER activities are
not directly related to climate engineering, a major relevant
focus of BER is its work in genomics and biosequestration. BER
studies the fundamental biological processes found in microbes
and plants, and specifically how these processes influence the
highly complex and interlinked global carbon cycle. As part of
that charge, BER explores the potential of biosequestration, or
the storage of organic carbon in ecosystems, and how it might
contribute to future climate change adaptation and mitigation
strategies. Additionally, BER genomics activities are at the
frontier of biotechnology research, using innovative
technologies to influence the uptake, fixation, and storage of
carbon in microbes and plants. In this regard, BER's
capabilities could help inform land-based climate engineering
strategies for large-scale planting of indigenous or non-
indigenous plants to encourage biological carbon consumption.
Additionally, some strategies call for the genetic altering or
cross-breeding of plants or trees to enhance their capacities
to reflect sunlight, to accelerate carbon uptake, or both.
In addition, BER's Climate and Environmental Sciences
Division (CESD) supports basic research in a broad variety of
relevant subject areas, including atmospheric systems, high
performance computer modeling, the role of terrestrial
ecosystems in carbon cycling, subsurface biogeochemical
processes, and other multi-scale processes and anthropogenic
and natural activities that affect the climate. This division
of BER supports the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
(CDIAC) located at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. CDIAC is the
primary climate-change data and information analysis center of
DOE, and is considered to be one of the world's most
comprehensive archives and managers of diverse climate data
sets. CDIAC gathers and consolidates environmental data from a
wide variety of sources, maintains and regularly updates that
data, and makes the data available for free to a large
international user database. A major source of data for CDIAC
is the AmeriFlux observation network. Established in 1996,
AmeriFlux tracks the carbon, water, and energy cycles in North
America from approximately 100 sites distributed primarily
throughout North America, with some sites in Central and South
America. Ameriflux could contribute to carbon accounting and
verification programs needed to monitor the effectiveness of
carbon dioxide removal (CDR) climate engineering strategies.
Ameriflux also coordinates with the global ``network of
regional networks,'' FLUXNET, to share and validate data
measurements worldwide. The networks comprising FLUXNET utilize
complementary methodologies and instrumentation, and perform
cross-comparisons of data sets to verify their results. The
internationally-coordinated mission and the collaborative,
communicative structure of AmeriFlux and FLUXNET could provide
a model for what would be required to identify the global
impacts and effectiveness of any climate engineering strategy,
in particular carbon removal strategies.
BER also manages several user facilities that could support
climate engineering research. The Atmospheric Radiation
Measurement (ARM) Climate Research Facility (ACRF) conducts
aerial and land-based sampling over different climate regions
to measure changes in sea surface temperatures, cloud life
cycle, and other radiative properties of the atmosphere. The
ACRF collects and archives data, and makes it available to the
scientific community. This information is used to illuminate
how particles in the atmosphere affect the earth's radiation
balance, information that would be critical to any atmospheric-
based climate engineering strategies. And like Ameriflux, ACRF
can also contribute to carbon accounting and verification
programs that would be needed to understand the effectiveness
of any carbon dioxide removal (CDR) program. BER also funds the
Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory (EMSL) at Pacific
Northwest National Lab. EMSL supports research in
biogeochemistry and atmospheric chemistry at the molecular
level, including research in areas such as aerosol formation,
with capabilities that include supercomputing for modeling
molecular-level processes and advanced terrestrial imaging. The
scientific and technical experts and unique tools at EMSL could
inform climate engineering research in areas such as geological
and biological sequestration and stratospheric injections.
Aerosol Research A working group within the Atmospheric
Radiation Measurement program has recently published a paper on
predicting which types of atmospheric particles will act as
cloud condensation nuclei, or CCN. CNN are the tiny airborne
``seeds'' around which water vapor will condense and form
droplets. Different types of CCN influence a cloud's particular
brightness and lifetime. A better understanding of CCN is
critical to informing marine cloud whitening, because specific
types of CCN would be needed to most effectively increase a
cloud's size and reflectivity.c
c S.M. King et al., Cloud Droplet Activation of Mixed
Organic-Sulfate Particles Produced by the Photooxidation of Isoprene,
10 Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics p.3593 (2010).
Basic Energy Sciences Program
The Basic Energy Sciences (BES) program office supports
fundamental research on materials sciences, physics, chemistry,
and engineering, with an emphasis on energy applications. Its
work is divided into three divisions: Materials Sciences and
Engineering; Chemical Sciences, Geosciences and Biosciences;
and Scientific User Facilities. BER's work in geosciences and
chemical research may be particularly pertinent to climate
engineering research. The Geosciences Research program promotes
understanding of earth processes and materials, such as the
basic properties of rocks, minerals, and fluids, and it
supports computational modeling and imaging of geophysical
landscapes over a wide range of spatial and time scales. These
activities are often conducted at DOE national labs and in
concert with NSF or the USGS. Thus, Geosciences Research at BER
may inform the fundamental chemical and technological
requirements, as well as the long-term viability of potential
sites, for non-traditional carbon sequestration, in which
captured carbon would be stored and mineralized into a solid or
liquid form in specific types of geologic systems, such as
basalt sands. The Chemical Research program could support
unconventional carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) by
informing the chemical processes through which carbon dioxide
or other greenhouse gases can be mineralized for storage, as
well as the characterization and development of chemicals, such
as amines, to capture carbon from the air.
BES also manages the Energy Frontier Research Centers, a
set of temporary, highly focused, transformative energy
research collaborations. The EFRC program is structured to fund
the country's best talent in research to address fundamental
scientific barriers to energy security and key energy
challenges. Forty-six EFRCs are currently being funded over a
five year period, and several of these are intended to address
geologic capture and storage of CO2.\26\ The new
information from these EFRCs can contribute greatly to the body
of information on unconventional CCS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ For example, the objective of the Energy Frontier Research
Center located at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is to establish
the scientific foundations for the geological storage of carbon
dioxide. For more information see the Energy Frontier Research Center
website -NCGC.html>.
Advanced Scientific Computing Research Program
The Office of Science's Advanced Scientific Computing
Research (ASCR) program stewards several of the largest
computational facilities in the world dedicated to unclassified
scientific research. Its broad and varied capabilities include
producing high-fidelity, highly complex simulations of the
earth's systems and the potential changes they might undergo.
This allows scientists, from both the private and public
sectors, to analyze theories and experiments on weather
patterns, the water cycle, changes in atmospheric carbon, and
others that are too dangerous, expensive, or simply impossible
to test otherwise. The Scientific Discovery through Advanced
Computing (SciDAC) Program within ASCR integrates with other
research efforts at DOE to explore application-focused research
initiatives, including climate activities. For example, SciDAC
has provided detailed climate simulations to the Biological and
Environmental Research (BER) program. One SciDAC project will
develop and test a global cloud resolving model (GCRM) that
divides global atmospheric circulation into grid cells
approximately 3 km in size.\27\ The level of complexity and
number of variables in the atmospheric system can only be
modeled at such a refined spatial resolution through highly
powerful computing systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ David A. Randall, On a Cloudy Day--the Role of Clouds in
Global Climate (Colorado State University) (2007). Available at .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the wide variety of climate engineering's potential
unintended impacts on earth systems, exhaustive efforts must be
made to identify and avoid the most dangerous of those before a
climate engineering program is tested or deployed at any scale.
The complex modeling capacities through ASCR could provide
valuable predictions as to the potential impacts of climate
engineering without the risks of large scale field testing.
Therefore, it is the opinion of the Chair that the expertise
and the high-end computing facilities overseen by the Advanced
Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program, or other
comparable high-performance computing tools, should be used to
model the impacts of climate engineering before field testing
is performed.
Other Research Activities at DOE
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)
is responsible for working with industry and other stakeholders
to advance a diverse supply of energy efficient and clean
energy technologies and practices, through research in areas
such as wind and solar energy generation and advanced vehicle
technologies. In contrast to the basic research activities in
the Office of Science's BER program, the Biomass Program within
EERE represents the application side of DOE's biomass efforts,
consolidating research on biomass feedstocks and conversion
technologies, biofuels, bioproducts, and biopower. The Program
works closely with BER and in coordination with the USDA to
translate basic scientific information to deployable and
commercializeable technologies. In this way, the Biomass
Program could inform land and biological-based strategies by
drawing on its collective expertise on biochar and biomass-
related carbon sinks and releases from land use changes. For
example, the Biomass Program examines how biomass is converted
to both biochar (solid) and bio-oil (liquid) by heating it in
the absence of air, a conversion technology process called
pyrolysis. Biochar may have potential as an efficient method of
atmospheric carbon removal, via plant growth, for storage in
soil. Biochar is a stable charcoal-solid that is rich in carbon
content, and thus can potentially be used to lock significant
amounts of carbon in the soil. The bio-oil can be converted to
a biofuel after an additional, costly conversion process. The
Biomass Program focuses on how to reduce costs of the
conversion process and how to manipulate product ratios for
more or less bio-oil and biochar. Additionally, the Biomass
Program has funded joint research with the EPA and USDA to
develop quantitative models of international land use changes
associated with increased biofuel production, including life-
cycle analyses. These types of activities would help in
determining the life-cycle carbon impacts of large scale
biomass production.
Office of Fossil Energy
The Office of Fossil (FE) seeks to develop technologies to
enhance the clean use of domestic fossil fuels, reduce
emissions from fossil-fueled power plants, and maintain secure
and reasonably priced fossil energy supplies. FE's mission is
supported by research activities at the National Energy
Technology Lab (NETL), which has sites in five U.S. cities.
Through the Office of Fossil Energy and in part, the
National Labs, DOE has spent a number of years on near- and
long-term strategies to accelerate research, development, and
demonstration of carbon capture from fossil-fueled power plants
and geologic storage in deep saline aquifers, depleted oil and
gas fields, and sedimentary formations. Its activities have
included the Clean Coal power Initiative, FutureGen, the
Innovations for Existing Plants Program, the Advanced
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) Program, and the
Carbon Sequestration Regional Partnerships. DOE has also
represented the United States in international research
consortia on CCS such as the Carbon Sequestration Leadership
Forum (CSLF). The CSLF is comprised of 24 member countries and
the European Commission, and is organized by DOE. The purpose
of the CSLF is, through international cooperation, to
facilitate CCS technology development, and to overcome
technical, economic, environmental, regulatory, and financial
obstacles.
The climate engineering strategy of air capture, by
comparison, captures carbon dioxide directly from ambient air
rather than from a point source like the flue gas stream of a
coal-fired power plant. The captured gases could be stored in
``alternative'' geologic formations such as basalt sands, in
formations under the oceans, or converted to different products
altogether. The existing skill sets and resources at DOE could
readily translate to research on air capture and unconventional
sequestration. In fact, NETL has already awarded grant funding
to explore the options for carbon storage in alternative
materials for ``beneficial reuse,'' such as a concrete, rather
than storage in the more commonly suggested depleted oil fields
and sedimentary geologic formations.\28\ Therefore, it is the
opinion of the Chair that the Department of Energy (DOE) should
lead any federal research program into air capture and non-
traditional carbon sequestration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Winning projects were announced on July 22, 2010 and will
receive funding via the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA).
See -reuse.html>.
``Because of the similarities with CCS, it makes some sense to
augment current research by DOE's Fossil Energy program in CCS
to include separation technology related to air capture of
CO2. There are technical synergies in the chemical
engineering of these processes and the researchers are in some
cases the same. The research is complementary. The governance
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
issues related to geologic storage are exactly the same.''
--Dr. Jane Long, Geoengineering III: Domestic and
International Research Governance (hearing testimony) (2010).
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
houses robust airborne and satellite-based environmental
monitoring capacities and facilities devoted to studying
geologic and atmospheric conditions. In addition, NASA employs
to high-performance modeling tools that could support climate
engineering research.
Earth Science Division
NASA's Earth Science Division, under its Science Mission
Directorate, is responsible for advancing understanding of the
earth's systems and demonstrating new technologies and
capabilities through research and development of environmental
satellites. The Earth Science Division measures climate
variability through various satellite and airborne missions and
performs basic research and advanced modeling of earth's
systems.\29\ The tools and expertise located within the Earth
Science Division could inform any number of climate engineering
applications through modeling, observing, and analyzing land
use and atmospheric change to attempt to predict, and
ultimately monitor, the impacts of large scale testing and
deployment of such climate engineering applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Responding
to the Challenge of Climate of Environmental Change: NASA's Plan for a
Climate-Centric Architecture for Earth Observations and Applications
from Space (2010). Available at .
Satellites
The Earth Science Division operates a set of coordinated
satellites that could contribute to climate engineering
research in a number of ways. These satellites record
perturbations in a variety of earth systems, including the land
surface, biosphere, sea ice, atmosphere, and oceans. These
measurements help construct a detailed picture of global
change, especially when augmented by land- and ocean-based data
from other sources. In addition, some of these missions involve
international partnerships, which, in the case of deployment of
climate engineering applications, would likely be necessary to
ensure global coverage in monitoring. Two currently operating
satellites systems and one being planned for launch are
profiled as examples below. A host of other NASA observing data
and instruments may be useful for informing climate engineering
strategies. Ultimately, the chosen climate engineering strategy
would determine the specific requirements of the space-based
system intended to monitor its effects.
Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment
First launched in 1979, the Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas
Experiment (SAGE) series, which measures changes in the ozone
layer and the presence of aerosols in the atmosphere. SAGE I
measured sunlight absorption from 1979-1981. Launched in 1984,
SAGE II provided information about the ozone layer and
atmospheric water vapor for over twenty-one years. SAGE III was
launched in 2001 and provided information on ozone and the
presence of water vapor and aerosols in the atmosphere. It was
terminated in 2006 due to loss of communication with the
satellite. At the first Committee hearing, Dr. Alan Robock
noted in his testimony:
LWhile the current climate observing system can do a
fairly good job of measuring temperature,
precipitation, and other weather elements, we currently
have no system to measure clouds of particles in the
stratosphere. After the 1991 Pinatubo eruption,
observations with the SAGE II instrument . . . showed
how the aerosols spread, but it is no longer operating.
To be able to measure the vertical distribution of the
aerosols, a limb-scanning design, such as that of SAGE
II, is optimal.
As volcanic eruptions can serve as a natural analog for
stratospheric injections, careful monitoring of major eruptions
through satellites could greatly inform certain SRM
strategies.\30\ Marine cloud whitening and stratospheric
injections strategies would also require robust information on
atmospheric particles and aerosol movement and distribution.
Many experts have argued that the U.S. research and monitoring
infrastructure on the behavior of atmospheric particles would
require significant improvement to sufficiently inform climate
engineering. For these reasons instruments for measuring
atmospheric aerosols would be critical to a climate engineering
research program, in particular for the atmosphere-based
strategies.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Committee witness, Dr. Granger Morgan, equated volcanic
eruptions to ``natural SRM experiments.'' See Geoengineering III:
Domestic and International Research Governance Hearing Before the House
of Representatives Committee on Science and Technology, 111th Cong.
(2010) (Granger Morgan Written Testimony).
\31\ NASA has begun plans to refurbish SAGE III with the
President's Fiscal Year 2011 budget request. Its launch date goal is as
early as late 2014. See NASA, Responding to the Challenge of Climate
and Environmental Change: NASA's Plan for a Climate-Centric
Architecture for Earth Observations and Applications from Space (2010).
Available at .
Landsat
Landsat is a series of seven satellites constructed by NASA
and operated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The first
satellite was launched in the early 1970s to collect spectral
information from the earth's surface. The program has since
produced an archive of over thirty-seven years of uninterrupted
data on land cover, making it the world's oldest continuous
record of global imagery.\32\ This information, taken at a
spatial resolution of just 30 m units, can be used in
comparison with local and regional climate data to determine
the impacts of specific land use changes on temperature,
precipitation, evapotranspiration, and reflectivity. In this
manner Landsat could be used for researching and monitoring
land-based geoengineering strategies, such as aggressive
afforestation and reforestation and reflective crops. In fact,
Brazil already leads a forest carbon tracking program largely
based on Landsat data. However, at present only two satellites,
Landsat-5 and Landsat-7, launched in 1984 and 1999
respectively, continue to supply imagery, and have already
outlived their projected lifespans. In anticipation of service
interruption, NASA and USGS are developing a follow-on
satellite as part of the Landsat Data Continuity Mission
(LDCM), and hope to launch it in late 2012.\33\ Success of the
LDCM is critical to maintaining data continuity of moderate
resolution remote sensing imagery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ The data continuity of Landsat is required by law. 15 U.S.C.
Sec. 5601 et seq.
\33\ Carl E. Behrens, Landsat and the Data Continuity Mission p.4
(U.S. Congressional Research Service) (2010).
The Orbiting Carbon Observatory Several experts have noted
the role that Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) might have
played in researching topics related to climate engineering.
The project, initiated in NASA's Earth System Science
Pathfinder Program, was intended to take precise space-based
measurements of the carbon concentrations in Earth's atmosphere
and improve understanding of the processes that regulate
atmospheric CO2. However, a launch-related failure
caused the OCO to crash into the Pacific Ocean upon launch in
February 2009. This data could have informed the effectiveness
of any CDR strategy. This capability could be realized again if
NASA successfully launches and deploys its second version of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the satellite by 2013, as planned.
MODIS
Data collected by the Moderate Resolution Imaging
Spectroradiometer (MODIS) instrument is an example of how NASA
could inform ocean-based climate engineering strategies.
Launched in 1999 on board the Terra Satellite, and in 2002 on
the Aqua satellite, MODIS instruments work in-tandem to record
changes occurring on land, in the oceans, the lower atmosphere,
and the water cycle. MODIS' ocean color sensing capabilities
could be used to identify the growth and motion of carbon-
consuming plankton, which is purported to be stimulated by the
inputs of iron or other chemicals into ocean waters. MODIS can
measure carbon levels on land, as well, by recording the levels
of photosynthesis conducted by plants. MODIS also records
measurements on sea surface height and temperature that could
monitor the effectiveness of a strategy once it has been
deployed. It records data on cloud type, the percentage of the
earth's surface that is covered by clouds on a given day, and
the amounts of aerosols present in the troposphere. In fact,
the MODIS instruments on both Terra and Aqua were key to
distinguishing clouds from the ash plume created by 2010
eruption of the Eyjafjallajokull volcano in Iceland.\34\ Each
of these capacities would be pertinent to one or more
strategies, most notably marine cloud whitening and
stratospheric injections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Mitigating the Impact of Volcanic Ash Clouds on Aviation--What
Do We Need to Know? Hearing Before the House of Representatives
Committee on Science and Technology Subcommittee on Space and
Aeronautics, 111th Cong. (2010) (Jack Kaye Testimony).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Landsats 5 and 7, Terra and Aqua are among the 13
monitoring satellites NASA has in operation, and an additional
20 satellites, including OCO-2, are being planned as of July
19, 2010. NASA's existing satellite-based information could not
only help increase understanding of global processes and
feedback, but could also provide the long-term data sets needed
to identify the ``fingerprints'' of human activity, both
unintentional and intentional. The Chairman recommends that the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA)
previously collected earth systems data and its future
observations of any relevant naturally occurring environmental
event, such as volcanic eruptions, be integrated as appropriate
into any comprehensive federal climate engineering research
program.
Basic Research and Modeling
Complementing the satellite portfolio, NASA's Earth Science
Research program supports a variety of climate engineering-
relevant research activities, including carbon cycling, global
climate and environmental models, ozone trends, and
biogeochemistry. The Earth Science Division also supports high-
end computing capabilities, in particular through the Ames
Research Center and Goddard Space Flight Center. In June 2010
the Goddard Space Flight Center introduced its NASA Center for
Climate Simulation (NCCS), which more than doubles the
computing capacity at Goddard and will provide visualization
and data interaction technologies for climate prediction and
modeling elements of the biosphere such as ice cover. The
Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) is the research
center housing NASA's primary climate modeling and research
capabilities, including general circulation models (GCMs) that
study the potential for humans to impact the climate. Computing
modeling capacities at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies
have already been used to carry out simulations of sulfate
aerosols at different various altitudes and latitudes in the
atmosphere through climate modeling grants.\35\ Researchers at
GISS also perform data analysis on key climate information that
could eventually inform the effectiveness of climate
engineering applications. In the last year, for example, GISS
has launched at least two new research campaigns on the
behavior of aerosols in the atmosphere,\36\ which may help
inform the scientific theory behind atmosphere-based climate
engineering. Basic climate research, modeling, and computing at
NASA could contribute in a number of ways to a federal climate
engineering research program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Philip J. Rasch et al., An overview of Geoengineering of
Climate Using Stratospheric Sulphate Aerosols, 366 Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society A p.4007 (2008).
\36\ See for e.g. NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)
research initiative on carbonaceous aerosols, which is contributing to
the U.S. Department of Energy's larger Carbonaceous Aerosol and
Radiation Effects Study (CARES) campaign. Available at .
Adaptive Management and Complex Missions
NASA scientists and engineers may also be uniquely suited
to research some climate engineering applications due to an
institutional capacity for complex, technical missions and
highly adaptive design capabilities. Space-based applications
at NASA are original designs, developed to fulfill specific,
and often changing, mission objectives. For this reason NASA
has a unique capacity for risk assessment, managing complex
operating environments and accommodating significant unknowns.
As Dr. Jane Long noted in her testimony, these skills, known as
``adaptive management,'' would be critical to modifying a
complex, non-linear system, such as the climate,
successfully.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Geoengineering III: Domestic and International Research
Governance Hearing Before the House of Representatives Committee on
Science and Technology, 111th Cong. (2010) (Jane Long Testimony).
Environmental Protection Agency
As the federal body responsible for protecting human health
and safeguarding the natural environment, including air
quality, water quality, soils, and biodiversity, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would be needed to
regulate many of the proposed climate engineering activities if
tested or deployed. The Agency also contains a broad set of
research capacities that could contribute to the scientific
foundation of climate engineering. The Office of Research and
Development (ORD), one of EPA's twelve headquartered offices,
serves as the Agency's primary research arm to inform a variety
of environmental topics, such as nanotechnology and global
climate change, as well as risk assessment, risk management and
region-specific technical support. Contained within ORD are
seven Research Fields:
National Center for Environmental Assessment
(NCEA)
National Center for Environmental Research
(NCER)
National Center for Computational Toxicology
(NCCT)
National Homeland Security Research Center
(NHSRT)
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
(NRMRL)
National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL)
National Health and Environmental Effects
Research Laboratory (NHEERL)
The information gathered and synthesized at ORD provides
the scientific foundation for the other EPA program offices,
such as Office of Air and Radiation, to most appropriately
regulate activities that impact the environment.
ORD's research on potential climate engineering activities
could inform EPA's position on which strategies have
unacceptable environmental risks, how specific strategies are
likely to impact natural resources, and the potential
consequences to human health. It is the opinion of the Chair
that as the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) steward of
basic research, the Office of Research and Development (ORD)
should be a partner in any climate engineering research
program.
National Center for Environmental Economics
The National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE)
within EPA's Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation (OPEI)
is responsible for developing cost-benefit analyses of
environmental policies and their secondary impacts. NCEE
releases journal articles, Environmental Economics reports, and
research papers to compare costs and assess risks in specific
cases, such as the effects of acidic air pollutants on crop
yields. Such analysis could be used to compare climate
engineering strategies and provide an economic baseline to help
determine which strategies appear economically undesirable in
comparison with traditional mitigation strategies. Tools such
as those within NCEE may also be particularly important with
regards to those climate engineering strategies where financial
cost is not a significant consideration when compared to
alternatives. Stratospheric aerosols, for example, are expected
to be deployable at a relatively low direct cost. However,
their indirect economic impacts, such as changes to natural
resources and the productivity of solar power arrays, could far
outweigh the immediate expense of deployment. NCEE could
analyze and report on the potential secondary costs of climate
engineering in order to properly incorporate them in objective
economic cost-benefit analyses. NCEE could also provide useful
risk assessment information and identify avenues to link
climate engineering to the social sciences.
Early Regulatory Needs
Outside of its potential contributions to the basic
research needs associated with climate engineering, EPA may
also be needed to explore the regulatory needs and options as
the science develops. At this time the Agency is finalizing its
rules on carbon sequestration in underground geological
formations, via its authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA). In developing these regulations EPA has sought to use
the best science in order to perform risk assessments and
identify and qualify the events that might endanger drinking
water safety and human health, such as the potential for
contaminant leakage. If climate engineering deployment becomes
a more serious option, EPA should stay abreast of the evolving
science and be prepared with the most appropriate regulatory
options. Furthermore, EPA may be needed to regulate research in
the case of large-scale field tests. One common concern about
climate engineering research is that because the climate system
is so complex and interconnected, for field testing to be
useful, it would have to be conducted at near-deployment scale
to fully determine a strategy's effectiveness and secondary
impacts. While overly-restrictive regulations that
unnecessarily hinder our ability to inform the risks and
opportunities of climate engineering should be avoided, some
proposed field research activities could have meaningful
impacts on our ecosystems. In the interest of protecting human
health and natural resources, EPA may be needed to apply
existing regulations or develop frameworks for new regulations
should large-scale field testing commence.
U.S. Department of Agriculture
The United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA)
ability to monitor and research land use change, agriculture
practices, forestry, and biological sequestration could be
informative to a range of climate engineering strategies. The
USDA is broken into several sub-agencies based on program
missions, and of these, the Agricultural Research Service
houses a number of relevant tools and skill sets, along with
the U.S. Forest Service and the Economic Research Service.
Agricultural Research Service
The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) is the USDA's
primary research arm and is responsible for, among other
activities, exploring the interaction of agriculture and the
environment. Its activities are organized into National
Programs (NPs) that focus on specific topics, and several of
the active NPs have clear relationships to climate engineering,
such as Soil Resource Management, Air Quality; Global Change;
Integrated Agricultural Systems; and Climate Change, Soils and
Emissions.
The Bioenergy NP, for example, is the USDA initiative
primarily responsible for research on the production and use of
biochar and bioenergy. As described earlier in the section on
Department of Energy activities, biochar, a charcoal produced
from carbon-rich organic materials, could be developed and
deployed as a biological climate engineering strategy. Biochar
may be used for several purposes: to produce energy, to produce
soil fertilizers, and simply to biologically sequester carbon
from the atmosphere. USDA, along with DOE, has been responsible
for the bulk of research on biochar feedstocks and land issues
at the federal level, and could use its expertise to inform
scientific research and biomass related strategies. It is to be
noted that while the USDA and DOE have done significant
research on biochar, it has been in pursuit of beneficial soil
amendments and/or bio-oil, which can be used for fuel, with a
lesser focus on carbon sequestration goals. The USDA has not
examined in detail the singular goal of using biochar to
achieve climate engineering-scale changes in atmospheric carbon
levels. Biological or land-based strategies would likely be
needed over vast parcels of land, perhaps millions of
acres,\38\ in order to be effective. Biochar deployment
activities at this scale would entail considerable economic
challenges. The USDA's Economic Research Service, described
below, has the skill set to inform the economic viability of
biochar at a climate engineering scale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Geoengineering II: The Scientific Basis and Engineering
Challenges Hearing Before the House of Representatives Committee on
Science and Technology Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, 111th
Cong. (2010) (Robert Jackson Testimony).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The potential contributions of ARS extend beyond
understanding the impacts of land-based climate engineering
strategies. Atmosphere-based strategies for increasing global
albedo would purportedly control temperature increases that
could be harmful to agriculture and forest growth, at least for
some period of time. However, reflecting 1-2% of incoming solar
radiation, as most SRM strategies recommend, may also be
detrimental to plant growth. All plants require sunlight for
photosynthesis to grow and reproduce, so a decrease in direct
sunlight could negatively impact crop yields. In addition, it
remains unclear how chemical inputs to the atmosphere could
affect plant growth and soils. Atmospheric modeling suggests
that particles injected into the stratosphere, such as sulfates
and salts, would eventually fall into the troposphere and
``rain out'' onto land and water surfaces below. In sufficient
quantities, these materials could have negative impacts on both
existing plants and soil content. Both to protect the
livelihood of farmers and to protect the health of food sources
and ecosystems in general, ARS could help predict and quantify
the extent of these negative impacts on land and water and
provide a valuable contribution to the overall risk analysis of
climate engineering.
U.S. Forest Service
The U.S. Forest Service, which manages the 155 U.S.
national forests and 20 U.S. national grasslands, since 1905
has maintained its own Research and Development organization.
The R&D branch collaborates closely with the ARS, and its more
than 500 researchers study, among other topics: forest and
grassland health, sustainable forest management, invasive
species, aquatic ecosystems, tree growth and mortality, and
forest inventories. The institutional knowledge and management
skills within the R&D branch could be used to inform aggressive
afforestation and reforestation strategies, both by issuing
projections on how effective a strategy might be and also for
identifying key risks associated with climate engineering-scale
forest management. For example, its Invasive Species Research
Program develops tools to predict and prevent the introduction
of invasive species. Modification to plant growth at a large-
scale, in particular via monoculture cropping, can make an area
particularly susceptible to damage from non-native and invasive
insects or plants. A research program on man-made forests for
carbon storage or reflective grasses intended to increase local
albedo, might benefit from such expertise.
Forest Service R&D also performs a wide variety of research
activities on the sequestration capacity of soils, vegetation,
and forests. Additional research is conducted to inform our
understanding of how soil capacity will change over time with
the climate. Higher atmospheric carbon levels and changes in
the earth's water cycles caused by climate change may make the
sequestration potential of plant growth better or worse, and at
a very large scale, these potential fluctuations could
significantly alter the impacts of carbon-sensitive land
management. Furthermore, resource specialists in the Forest
Service work with the Economic Research Service to explore land
use competition and prioritize uses for economical and
environmental activities. Such analysis could be important
because of the economic pressure these activities will put on
natural resources.
In addition, the U.S. Forest Service recently established a
National Roadmap for Responding to Climate Change to guide
forest managers in implementing the USDA climate change
strategy. The program details the potential of forests and
soils to mitigate atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration
through biological storage. This information could ultimately
inform forest management as part of a larger climate
engineering program. In addition, while the Roadmap is intended
for climate change mitigation and adaptation, and does not
address climate engineering specifically, it proposes
frameworks for a communication network with regional managers
regarding short- and long-term goals and best practices, plans
for public education and outreach, and thorough coordination
with other agencies and groups. The plan's emphasis on
adaptation needs and a communications strategy is somewhat
unique to current federal climate change efforts. These
elements would augment any large-scale climate engineering
effort, and, as such, the Forest Service Roadmap may be a
valuable model for coordinating activities to educate land
managers on climate engineering-scale forestry and biological
sequestration.
Economic Research Service
The USDA's Economic Research Service (ERS) informs public
and private decision-making on economic issues related to
agriculture and natural resources. This resource could be
adapted to assess the economic viability of biological climate
engineering activities. Any strategy would alter and create
competition for natural resources.
``Biological and land-based geoengineering alters carbon
uptake, sunlight absorption, and other biophysical factors that
affect climate together. Geoengineering for carbon or climate
will alter the abundance of water, biodiversity, and other
things we value.''
--Dr. Robert Jackson, Geoengineering II: The Scientific
Basis and Engineering Challenges (written hearing testimony)
(2010).
For example, large-scale afforestation could require a
significant input of water, so benefits such as air quality and
decreases in atmospheric carbon concentrations would be
balanced against greater competition for local water resources
that could be needed for other uses. Similarly, since certain
strategies could be particularly land-intensive, climate
engineering could cause added competition for land use. The
ERS, which employs both economists and social scientists to
conduct its research, may be needed to explore potential trade-
offs and inform how a land-based strategy could be economically
viable. The ERS also conducts research on financial
instruments, such as tax credits, that might encourage private
landowners to undertake specific climate engineering
strategies, such as distributed carbon management
activities.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See for e.g. Jan Lewandrowski et al., Economics of
Sequestering Carbon in the U.S. Agricultural Sector (U.S. Department of
Agriculture--Economic Research Service) (2004). Available at .
Other Federal Agencies
A number of other federal agencies have capacities that
could inform climate engineering research.
The Department of Defense (DoD) has significant expertise
and experience in relevant areas such as large-scale
engineering projects and airborne missions. Several experts
recommend that this knowledge-base could complement climate
engineering-specific programs. However, it should be noted that
given the lack of transparency of defense research and
programs, leveraging the capabilities of DoD could result in an
adverse impact on the goal of public engagement and education
on the issue of climate engineering. It is the opinion of the
Chair that if the Department of Defense's (DoD) expertise were
to be engaged in a national climate engineering research
strategy, special attention must be paid to public engagement
and transparency, and all research efforts must be committed
solely to peaceful purposes.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), within the Department of
the Interior, would also have a role in research on land- and
bio-based climate engineering strategies. The diverse USGS
team, which includes geoscientists, biologists, chemists,
geographers, hydrologists, statisticians, and ecologists,
supports a breadth of scientific research, monitoring, and
analysis. For example, the USGS conducts programs to detect,
monitor, and control invasive species, catalogue land use and
the impacts of land use change, and examine the biological,
chemical, and environmental factors affecting water quality. In
addition to its contributions to joint research and satellite
monitoring programs such as Landsat, USGS has unique remote
sensing capabilities that provide data on natural resources and
how they are affected by change. These data sets, such as those
managed through the USGS' National Satellite Land Remote
Sensing Data Archive, can work in concert with ``ground-
truthing'' data gathered by researchers within the agency or
outside groups. The USGS also has institutional expertise in
basic science and monitoring capacities to augment carbon
mineralization research. Recently USGS established a
methodology to define and map a comprehensive inventory of
underground pore space in the U.S. that could be used for
mineral sequestration of carbon, such as basalt sands.
Furthermore, some strategies call for the distribution of
certain chemicals over land or oceans to stimulate processes
that consume carbon, either by mineralizing the carbon into a
solid through chemical reactions, by stimulating the growth of
carbon-consuming organisms, or by increasing the ocean's
capacity to store CO2. The USGS maintains the
federal government's most comprehensive commodities survey on
mineral resources, and may be needed to inform the available
quantities and ease of access to specific materials, if any of
these mineral distribution strategies are deemed to be
scientifically plausible. In addition, if climate engineering
were ultimately deployed, the USGS would be needed to monitor
program impacts on natural resources. The USGS maintains a
commitment to scientific integrity and the sharing of
information freely with the public.\40\ Objective and
transparent science will be especially critical for identifying
and analyzing negative and unintended consequences on
ecosystems that may emerge if climate engineering is deployed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ U.S. Geological Survey, Fundamental Science Practices (2006).
Available at .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of State is the best equipped federal
body to facilitate an international forum for guiding research
and regulation and pursuing intergovernmental consensuses as
the discipline develops. The State Department coordinates
cooperative research between the United States and other
nations, represents the U.S. in international climate
negotiations, and also acts as the official point of contact to
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Furthermore, the United States Agency for International
Development (USAID), a division of the State Department,
contributes funding to the U.S. Global Change Research Program
(USGCRP). While basic research activities within U.S. federal
agencies may not require participation from the State
Department, the potential impacts of climate engineering are
necessarily international in scale. Those strategies that would
result in trans-boundary impacts, such as changes in monsoon
patterns and sunlight availability, would necessitate
international coordination and governance at an early stage. If
the United States were to formalize research activities on
climate engineering, complementary international discussions on
regulatory frameworks would be required.
ORGANIZATIONAL MODELS
As noted above, there is growing consensus that a
comprehensive climate engineering research strategy would
require the engagement of a wide range of disciplines, and
would likely call for an interagency initiative to coordinate
research activities and findings. Several models and lessons on
interagency coordination are profiled below. However, any
attempt to field test or deploy large scale climate engineering
would likely require coordination at far greater scales and
with international partners.
``In my opinion before a nation (or the world) ever decided to
deploy a full-scale geoengineering project . . . it would
require an enormous activity, equivalent to that presently
occurring within the modeling and assessment activities
associated with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) activities, or a Manhattan Project, or both. It would
involve hundreds or thousands of scientists and engineers and
require the involvement of politicians, ethicists, social
scientists, and possibly the military.''
--Dr. Philip Rasch, Geoengineering II: The Scientific Basis
and Engineering Challenges (written hearing testimony) (2010).
Council on Environmental Quality
The White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
coordinates Federal environmental efforts and works closely
with agencies and other White House offices in the development
of environmental policies and initiatives. The Council's
Chairman also serves as the principal environmental advisor to
the President. CEQ provides recommendations on comprehensive
national environmental strategies to the President on specific
issues, such as carbon capture and storage, Gulf Coast
ecosystem restoration, and climate change adaptation. The CEQ
also has a unique capacity to engage a range of stakeholders
and balance the competing interests among federal agencies and
state and local governments.
In pursuit of environmental goals on specific topics, CEQ
may establish a task force and other comprehensive, interagency
initiatives, when appropriate. For example, in June 2009 the
President distributed a memorandum to the leaders of executive
departments and federal agencies establishing an Interagency
Ocean Policy Task force, to be led by CEQ. This Task Force is
charged with developing recommendations over several government
agencies on how to enhance ocean stewardship and resource use.
The Task Force has since released interim reports, containing
recommendations on ocean governance and interagency
coordination, and received comments from a wide variety of
stakeholders. As the national and international discussion
advances, it may be helpful for CEQ to explore options for a
similarly-structured body that will provide a forum for
stakeholder input and early, foundational coordination between
agencies.
Office of Science and Technology Policy
The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
(OSTP), established in 1976, advises the President on broad
science and technology issues, provides scientific assessments
to inform Executive Branch policies, and coordinates scientific
and technical work within the Executive Branch. In order to
accomplish this broad mission, OSTP often hosts public and
private sector summits, issues reports, coordinates activities
within existing Committees and interagency bodies, and
publicizes work conducted by federal bodies. OSTP is divided
into four divisions--Science, Technology, Energy & Environment,
and National Security & International Affairs--each of which
could be instrumental in coordinating early-stage climate
engineering research. Two initiatives under OSTP in the last
few years may be useful models for structuring a federal
research program. The National Nanotechnology Initiative,
profiled below, and the Networking Information Technology
Research and Development (NITR-D) program are both of examples
of interagency entities established to address complex and
interdisciplinary emerging technologies.
The OSTP also serves as co-chair of the President's Council
of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), a council of
independent experts that provide advice to the President.
Established in 2001, PCAST consists of 35 individuals drawn
from industry, academia, and other nongovernment organizations,
as well as the Director of the OSTP. The Council receives
information from the private and academic sectors on a variety
of issues in science and technology and prepares
recommendations on specific topics, most often at the
President's request. While its efficacy and influence is
somewhat fluid and may change over different Presidential
administrations, PCAST has experience guiding policy on nascent
technologies. PCAST may be needed to provide the President with
reliable and independent assessments of how federal policy
should best regulate climate engineering research.
U.S. Global Change Research Program
The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), initiated
in 1989 and mandated by Congress in 1990, coordinates and
integrates federal research on changes in the global
environment and impacts on the public.\41\ The program is
managed by the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources
under OSTP. Thirteen federal departments and agencies
participate in USGCRP, with the biggest contributions coming
from DOE, NOAA, NASA and NSF. USGCRP's mission is to improve
knowledge of earth's climate, environment, and natural and
anthropogenic variability; to better understand the forces of
change in earth's climate and related systems; to predict and
reduce uncertainty in projections for climate change in the
future; understand the sensitivity and adaptability of
ecosystems and human systems to global change; and manage risks
and opportunities related to global change. To support these
goals the participating agencies coordinate their activities
through ten Interagency Working Groups that address specific
challenges of climate change. The multi-disciplinary,
coordinated structure of the USGCRP makes it an appropriate
model for, and possible steward of, climate engineering
research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Global Change Research Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 2931 et seq. The
USGCRP was known as the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP)
between 2002 and 2008. Interagency climate research and technology
activities have undergone several iterations over the last two years.
See generally Michael Simpson & John Justus, Climate Change: Federal
Expenditures for Science and Technology (U.S. Congressional Research
Service) (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One proposal for incorporating climate engineering into
USGCRP's jurisdiction includes the creation of one or more new
working groups exclusively focused on the strategies not
otherwise informed by existing USGCRP activities. Another
proposal is to accommodate climate engineering within existing
working groups according to the key research needs associated
with particular strategies. However, it has been noted that an
evaluation of USGCRP's successes and challenges would be needed
before attempting to incorporate another large, comprehensive
agenda into this program. There has been some concern that
introducing climate engineering into USGCRP's jurisdiction
would draw resources and attention away from the primary
Program mission of understanding, assessing, predicting and
responding to climate change through mitigation and adaptation
programs. However, it appears that a comprehensive interagency
research agenda on climate engineering would call for
participation from the same agencies in the USGCRP and would
likely be managed under a similar structure.
U.S. Group on Earth Observations
The U.S. Group on Earth Observations (USGEO) is charged
with developing, coordinating, and managing an integrated U.S.
earth-observation system through ground, airborne, and
satellite measurements. The group was established in 2005 under
the National Science and Technology Council's Committee on
Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability within the
OSTP. USGEO is made up of representatives from 17 federal
agencies with a role in earth observations,\42\ and is co-
chaired by representatives of OSTP, NOAA, and NASA. USGEO also
supports the Global Earth Observation System of Systems
(GEOSS), an international effort to share environmental data to
support decision-making in nine societal benefit areas. The
goal of this initiative is to provide the overall conceptual
framework needed to move toward globally-integrated earth
observations. By 2009, seventy-nine countries, the European
Commission and several dozen international organizations had
joined the GEOSS, which will deliver detailed and verifiable
climate data at local, regional, and global scales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ USGEO is comprised of all the agencies including the USGCRP,
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and
OSTP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In several recent reports on the state of U.S. satellite
systems, GAO identified some challenges for USGEO \43\--namely,
that its required Strategic Assessment Report on opportunities
and priorities for space observation has not yet been approved
by the USGEO managers in OSTP, and as of July 2010 had not
scheduled a date for releasing the final Report. The GAO
expressed concern that the draft version of this report did not
address costs, schedules or plans for long-term satellite data
needs, and that even once the Strategic Report is finalized, it
is not clear how the OSTP and Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) will ensure the interagency strategy is consistent with
the individual agencies' plans and budgets. These difficulties
demonstrate that coordinating data sources between federal
agencies, not to mention between several nations, requires
careful planning and execution. Any successful inter-agency
effort will require open and frequent communication, effective
leadership, and a clear delineation of responsibilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ See U.S. Government Accountability Office, Environmental
Satellites: Planning Required to Mitigate Near-Term Risks and Ensure
Long-Term Continuity (Publication No. GAO-10-858T) (2010) and U.S.
Government Accountability Office, Environmental Satellites: Strategy
Needed to Sustain Critical Climate and Space Weather Measurements
(Publication No. GAO-10-456) (2010).
National Nanotechnology Initiative
The United States' experience with nanotechnology research
across federal agencies can provide valuable insight into a
potential federal, interagency research initiative on climate
engineering. Nanotechnology, the collective term for nano-scale
science and technology applications, is a nascent field that is
rapidly attracting public interest and investment around the
world. In 2000, President Clinton launched the National
Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) to coordinate federal research
and development on nanotechnology, and in 2003, Congress
enacted the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and
Development Act \44\ to provide a statutory foundation and
organize the Initiative. The America COMPETES Reauthorization
Act of 2010, which contains a number of amendments to NNI, was
approved by the House in May 2010.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Sec. 15 U.S.C. Sec. 7501 et seq.
\45\ H.R. 5116, 111th Cong. (2010). Also see H. Rep. No. 111-478.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While nanotechnology may eventually contribute
revolutionary advances to any number of public goods, concerns
have been raised about the potential negative impacts of
nanotechnologies on human health and the environment.\46\ For
example, it has been proposed that the small size of nanoscale
particles could allow them to penetrate and damage human
organs, such as the lungs. In its June 2, 2010 report the
Congressional Research Service (CRS) observed that public
attitudes and perception of risks leaves the still-nascent
nanotechnology industry and research community vulnerable to a
negative event, such as an accidental or harmful release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ See John F. Sargent Jr., Nanotechnology: A Policy Primer (U.S.
Congressional Research Service) (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NNI is comprised of thirteen federal agencies that
conduct nanotechnology research and development and another
twelve that would regulate and enable education and training on
nanotechnology. In addition to conducting research and
exploring regulatory issues related to the environmental,
health and safety issues, the NNI also conducts public outreach
activities through written materials, public meetings, a
comprehensive website, and other educational resources to the
public. NNI agencies also engage with international consortia
such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) to address nano-safety issues. By
recognizing that risks and impacts of nanotechnology must be
better understood by key stakeholders, and that public
acceptance is critical to realizing the full benefits it may
ultimately bring to bear, NNI can serve as a model for what
might be needed if climate engineering research is undertaken
at the federal level.
It should also be noted that NNI has had an immense impact
on global interest in nanotechnology. Before the U.S. initiated
the NNI, nanotechnology research worldwide was generally
piecemeal and modest. Since the establishment of NNI, over
sixty countries have initiated government-led nanotechnology
programs. While a heightened profile for technology development
and commercialization has been a positive development for
nanotechnology, increased interest in climate engineering may
introduce new risks, such as the possibility of unilateral
deployment. The existence of a dedicated research program on
the part of the U.S. or its partners might serve to legitimize
efforts by other nations to act on their own.
Lastly, the NNI has had to address the fundamental question
of what is included in the category of nanotechnology.
Initially, federal agencies were unclear about what activities
should be reported as nanotechnology, and which would instead
qualify as chemistry or materials science research. The Office
of Management and Budget identified explicit criteria on
nanotechnology for the purposes of quantify funding levels for
research. International standards for nanotechnology also
continue to evolve; for five years the International Standards
Organization has been working to identify core parameters.
Climate engineering would be faced with a similar challenge.
There is no clear consensus as to which strategies constitute
climate engineering, and for what purposes the category must be
defined. For instance, for the purpose of developing
regulations and restrictions, the term could be used to apply
to a smaller set of higher-risk strategies than might otherwise
be included for the purpose of developing a broad interagency
research effort. If research were initiated and coordinated at
the federal level, a more consistent vocabulary that takes into
consideration the gaps in funding, research, risk assessment,
and governance would be required.
National Academy of Public Administration
The National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) is a
non-profit and non-partisan coalition of management and
organizational experts chartered by Congress to improve the
effectiveness of public programs. NAPA was established in 1967
and advises federal agencies, Congress, state and local
governments, academia, and various foundations on how to manage
the structure, administration, operation and performance of
existing programs and helps identify potential emerging
management challenges. NAPA also assesses the proposed
effectiveness, structure, administration, and implications for
proposed public programs, policies, and processes and
recommends specific changes to improve the proposed program.
The NAPA coalition of experts is comprised of several hundred
Fellows with robust and varied management experience, including
former members of Congress, governors and mayors, business
executives, foundation executives, and academia.
NAPA carries out activities both at its own discretion and
by Congressional request. For example, NAPA recently completed
a congressionally mandated study \47\ on structuring a NOAA
Climate Service.\48\ A Climate Service would coordinate and
distribute climate change information gleaned from a variety of
research programs and monitoring systems to aid the public and
local, state, and federal decision makers. While the overall
goal of a NOAA Climate Service is very different than a
potential coordinated climate engineering research strategy,
the two would share a number of key objectives and challenges.
Both must gather information and expertise from a wide range of
sources and organize and disseminate it in a consistent and
usable format and both must leverage specific program office
strengths and ensure stakeholder communication. NAPA has
explored these topics in great detail, as well as how private,
university, and non-governmental organizations might contribute
to data holdings and communication efforts, how the proposed
NOAA Climate Service would help support public understanding
and inter-user dialogue, and how to increase usability of
existing climate data. With its established format for
exploring these considerations, as well as a robust body of
work consisting of other relevant independent projects and
publications, NAPA may be needed to study in greater depth the
potential organizational tools and other useful model programs
that could support and inform a climate engineering program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ H. Rep. Nos. 111-366 of P.L. 111-117 (2009).
\48\ See Expanding Climate Services at the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): Developing the National Climate
Service Hearing Before the House of Representatives Committee on
Science and Technology, 111th Cong. (2009) (Hearing Charter).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Immediacy
In The Regulation of Geoengineering report, the U.K.
Committee recommended that serious consideration of the
regulatory frameworks for climate engineering technologies
start now, and not be delayed until either highly disruptive
effects of climate change are observed or deployment of a
climate engineering scheme is underway. Similarly, a robust
understanding of the potential environmental impacts will be
needed in advance of a ``climate emergency'' so that the most
effective and risk-averse strategies are well understood. It is
the opinion of the Chair that broad consideration of
comprehensive and multi-disciplinary climate engineering
research at the federal level begin as soon as possible in
order to ensure scientific preparedness for future climate
events.
Defining Climate Engineering
At this time, the definitional boundaries between some
climate engineering strategies and traditional mitigation
remain unclear. It is generally agreed that ``climate
engineering'' or ``geoengineering'' implies a willful intent to
produce meaningful impacts on the global climate.\49\ In
contrast, while human activities have already greatly impacted
our global climate, they were not undertaken for that express
purpose. However, what remains unclear is how activities should
be distinguished from traditional mitigation and adaptation,
and at what scale of application they amount to ``climate
engineering.'' Many of these activities are already being
undertaken at smaller scales, whether or not for the express
goal of reflecting solar radiation or absorbing greenhouse
gases. For example, reforestation in pursuit of environmental
and public goods, other than carbon management, has existed for
hundreds of years. Some experts argue that CDR strategies
should not be designated as climate engineering because, like
traditional mitigation, they seek to manage climate change by
reducing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. Still
others argue that CDR does belong in the category of climate
engineering as it distracts from the primary goal of mitigation
through emissions reductions. As climate engineering will
likely remain a controversial topic, the designation itself may
provoke a negative public opinion or even inappropriately
strict regulation on relatively low-risk strategies. A
moratorium on all climate engineering ``activities,'' for
example, without an adequate scientific basis for what specific
strategies and at what scales fall under this definition, could
effectively ban low-risk and commonplace activities such as
small-scale afforestation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Innovative Energy Strategies for CO2 Stabilization
p.412 (Robert G. Watts, ed., Cambridge University Press) (2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, uncertainty about what research activities
fall under the climate engineering umbrella may create
challenges for agencies, Congress, and the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) in determining appropriate funding levels for
these activities. When the United States first began to
coordinate federal work on nanoscience and explore the
aggregate of existing federal research, agencies were uncertain
as to which activities could be classified as nanotechnology,
and would often report their nano-scale research activities as
materials science or basic chemistry. Only after OMB
established explicit guidelines for what might fall under the
umbrella of ``nanotechnology'' was there a clearer picture of
existing capacities in the federal agencies. Certainly if
climate engineering research is formally authorized by the
federal government, a more certain definition will be required
to help U.S. agencies, and ultimately the international
community, identify their relevant research activities. The
GAO's efforts to quantify existing federal efforts in its
October 2010 report provide a useful foundation for this
process.
At this time, a consistent and comprehensive definition of
climate engineering may not be feasible. For the purposes of
organizing research, potential strategies should be considered
on a case-by-case basis, accommodating the political,
environmental, and social risks associated with them.
Furthermore, as noted earlier and used throughout this report,
the term ``climate engineering'' is a more appropriate tool for
communicating the concept to policymakers and the public than
``geoengineering.'' It is the opinion of the Chair that there
must ultimately be an international consensus on climate
engineering terminology that will best communicate the
strategies and desired effects to the scientific community,
policy makers, and the public.
In addition, there has been considerable discussion as to
whether techniques designed for the purposes of altering
specific weather event, rather than the larger climate, should
fall under the definition of climate engineering. The express
goal of weather modification techniques, such as cloud seeding,
is to impact weather patterns, such as hurricane intensity and
precipitation, on a geographically limited scale and with
little or no lasting effectiveness. It is the opinion of the
Chair, and in agreement with the U.K. Committee,\50\ that
weather modification techniques such as cloud seeding should
not be included within the definition of climate engineering.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Science and Technology Committee, United Kingdom House of
Commons, The Regulation of Geoengineering p.16 (Stationery Office
Limited) (2010).
Defining a ``Climate Emergency''
As previously noted, it is the opinion of the Chair that
some SRM strategies such as stratospheric injections, if proven
viable, should be reserved as an option of last resort to be
used only in the case of a ``climate emergency,'' and when
other options have been exhausted. The majority of stakeholders
appear to agree that climate engineering should not be
considered an alternative to stringent emissions reductions,
and, if deployed, SRM should be used only as a temporary
measure. Experts predict that large-scale SRM methods, if
prepared in advance, could be deployed very quickly and would
exert a nearly immediate impact on global albedo. However, as
the National Research Council notes in its report America's
Climate Choices: Advancing the Science of Climate Change, if
the intended strategy is to withhold SRM until a dangerous
tipping point is imminent, there must be some collective
understanding of what constitutes such a tipping point ahead of
time. At this time there is no consensus on what events would
constitute a ``climate emergency,'' and there is much to
consider about the complexity of the climate system, the
potentially long timescales over which an emergency might
occur, and the global tolerance of climate changes in defining
the term.\51\ Furthermore, because the impacts of climate
engineering are not yet well-understood, it is not clear how a
particular strategy might be used to offset specific impacts if
a climate emergency did arise.\52\ It is the opinion of the
Chair that the global climate science and policy communities
should work towards a consensus on what constitutes a ``climate
emergency'' warranting deployment of SRM technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Division on Earth and Life Sciences, National Research
Council, America's Climate Choices: Advancing the Science of Climate
Change p.299 (National Academies Press) (2010).
\52\ David Victor, et al., The Geoengineering Option: A Last Resort
Against Global Warming?, March/April Foreign Affairs p.5 (2009).
Categories of Climate Engineering
In The Regulation of Geoengineering,\53\ the U.K. Committee
recommended that because climate engineering as currently
defined covers such a broad range of CDR and SRM technologies
and techniques, any regulatory framework for climate
engineering cannot be uniform. Similarly, the associated
research needs vary greatly among the different suggested
strategies. While general climate science information today
could likely inform all climate engineering strategies, the
anticipated ecological impacts and scientific basis for a
particular strategy would require a unique and focused set of
research priorities. Many CDR activities, for example, have a
sizable scientific foundation from related research activities,
while SRM has not been tested at any meaningful scale in the
field or in a laboratory. The divergent and unique research
needs for CDR and SRM must be accounted for when research
activities are authorized in various federal agencies and
program offices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ Science and Technology Committee, United Kingdom House of
Commons, The Regulation of Geoengineering p.16 (Stationery Office
Limited) (2010).
``[A] solar radiation management (SRM) R&D program should be
organized separately from the air capture (AC) R&D program.
Exploring SRM entails tasks that differ from those needed to
explore AC. Disparate tasks demand disparate skills. Also, if
research on AC were ever to be successful it might well devolve
to the private sector; whereas, SRM is likely to remain under
direct government control. Yoking together two such different
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
efforts would be certain to impede the progress of both.''
--Mr. Lee Lane, Geoengineering: Assessing the Implications
of Large-Scale Climate Intervention (responses to questions for
the record) (2009).
Geographically Localized Climate Engineering
Several witnesses and outside academic experts have
explored the possibility of climate engineering to address only
geographically specific areas. This strategy is intended to
protect specific environmental features that are particularly
sensitive to climate change and/or pivotal elements of global
sustainability. It has been suggested that localized climate
engineering could offer more ``bang for the buck,'' requiring a
smaller, somewhat more controlled scale operation to produce
appreciable positive impacts.
Isolating the Ice Caps? The impacts of climate change on the
polar ice caps is of great concern, not only because melting
will contribute to major sea level rises, threatening low-
altitude coastal communities, but because the ice contains vast
stores of frozen methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Melting
could cause the release of huge quantities of methane, warming
the climate further and encouraging dangerous feedback loops.
Some scientists have suggested that SRM could be somewhat
localized to help protect polar ice and to prevent such
feedback loops.
However, as Dr. Shepherd of the Royal Society noted, ``It
would . . . be generally undesirable to attempt to localize SRM
methods, because any localized radiative forcing would need to
be proportionally larger to achieve the same global effect, and
this is likely to induce modifications to normal spatial
patterns of weather systems including winds, clouds,
precipitation and ocean currents and upwelling patterns.'' \54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Staff of House of Representatives Committee on Science and
Technology, 111th Cong., Report on Geoengineering: Assessing the
Implications of a Large Scale Climate Intervention Hearing (Comm. Print
2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At this time there is no consensus on the likelihood that
geographically localized applications would work as desired and
without unacceptable secondary consequences. However, models
have suggested that while the global ecosystem is highly
interconnected and no large-scale intervention can be isolated,
the desired and unanticipated impacts of some strategies would
be maximized at the location in which they are deployed.\55\
Therefore, it is the opinion of the Chair that a climate
engineering research program should explore the unique range of
possibilities and risks associated with geographically
localized climate engineering. Furthermore, any proposed
application of climate engineering to protect polar ice
specifically should be reviewed by the Arctic Council, an
intergovernmental forum representing the world's circumpolar
nations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Staff of House of Representatives Committee on Science and
Technology, 111th Cong., Report on Geoengineering II: The Scientific
Basis and Engineering Challenges Hearing (Comm. Print 2010).
Space-Based Reflectors
One suggested climate engineering proposal entails placing
large-scale sunlight deflectors in space to reduce the amount
of solar energy reaching the earth. Some suggestions include a
great number of reflective surfaces, mirrors, or light-colored
materials, in a near-earth orbit, or a lesser number of
reflectors positioned at the L-1 point, also referred to as a
LaGrange point, where the gravitational attractions of the
earth and sun are equal. Development and deployment costs of
such strategies are projected to be extremely high, as they
would require the development of new technologies likely much
larger in scale and far more complex than any space program
ever attempted.\56\ For this reason project development and
deployment is also estimated to take several decades, making it
an unviable option for rapid deployment in an emergency
situation. Also, solar applications represent potentially the
most serious type of the ``termination problem,'' in which the
intentional or accidental termination of SRM activities could
result in a rapid and potentially catastrophic increase in
global temperatures unless strict, congruent controls on
greenhouse gases had been undertaken while the solar
applications were in effect. An international team of
scientists recently reported that space-based reflectors would
do little to combat rising sea levels, as sea levels respond
slowly to changes in the earth's atmosphere.\57\ Furthermore,
like all SRM strategies, space-based reflectors would do
nothing to address the problem of ocean acidification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ See John Shepherd et al., Geoengineering the Climate: Science,
Governance and Uncertainty p.34 (The U.K. Royal Society) (2009).
\57\ J.C. Moore et al., Efficacy of Geoengineering to Limit 21st
Century Sea-level Rise, 10.1073/pnas.1008153107, Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences (published online Aug. 23, 2010).
Available at .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, there is considerable agreement among climate
engineering experts and international policy analysts that
deployment of space-based reflectors would introduce an
extremely precipitous geopolitical scenario. Space-based
applications would likely have considerable impacts on all
earth systems, including effects on precipitation patterns and
agricultural yields. However, the system would likely be
controlled by a single, technologically-sophisticated group. In
such a scenario a host of legal issues would arise regarding
the negative environmental changes caused, or perceived to be
caused, by the reflectors.\58\ This scenario would complicate
both public acceptance and international agreement on how such
a project should be undertaken, and run counter to the U.K. and
U.S. Committees' objectives of forming sufficient international
consensus and giving equitable consideration to third world
interests. Therefore, it is the opinion of the Chair that due
to high projected costs, technological infeasibility and
unacceptable environmental and political risks, the solar
radiation management (SRM) strategy of space-based mirrors
should be a low priority consideration for research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ Claire L. Parkinson, Coming Climate Crisis? Consider the Past,
Beware the Big Fix (Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.) (2010).
Mirrors in Space ``The space sunshade concept is an
unappealing approach to SRM. It offers few benefits that might
not be achieved at vastly lower costs with other SRM
techniques, and the very large up-front infrastructure costs
would simply be so much waste if the project were to be fail or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
be abandoned for any reason.''
--Dr. Lee Lane, Geoengineering: Assessing the Implications
of Large-Scale Climate Intervention (responses to questions for
the record) (2009).
Desert-Based Reflectors
Another proposal is to cover large spans of desert with
white or reflective materials to greatly increase the local
albedo, therefore decreasing the overall global solar intake.
Its proponents would argue that landforms unsuited to
agriculture or human inhabitance may be suitable for SRM.
However, as the Royal Society noted in its report, this
strategy would certainly conflict with other desirable land
uses and may cause great ecological damage to the desert
ecosystem. Furthermore, as the application itself would be
highly localized, some of the unintended effects would also be
highly localized, causing potentially severe changes in
atmospheric circulation and precipitation patterns. Each of the
expert witnesses appearing before the Committee that addressed
this proposal expressed significant doubts about the potential
merits and technological feasibility of such a policy. As Dr.
Robert Jackson noted in his responses to Committee questions:
L``This suggestion [of desert-based reflectors] strikes
me as a poor idea, environmentally and scientifically.
Deserts are unique ecosystems with a diverse array of
life. They are not a wasteland to be covered over and
forgotten. Based on the best science available, I
believe that placing reflective shields over desert . .
. is likely to be both unsustainable and harmful to
native species and ecosystems. Take as one example the
suggestion to use a reflective polyethylene-aluminum
surface. This shield would alter almost every
fundamental aspect of the native habitat, from the
amount of sunlight received (by definition) to the way
that rainfall reaches the ground. Implemented over the
millions of acres required to make a difference to
climate, such a shield could also alter cloud cover,
weather, and many other important factors.'' \59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ Staff of House of Representatives Committee on Science and
Technology, 111th Cong., Report on Geoengineering II: The Scientific
Basis and Engineering Challenges Hearing (Comm. Print 2010).
Therefore it is the opinion of the Chair that due to wide
array of potentially harmful impacts on ecosystems, such as
water cycles and wildlife, the solar radiation management (SRM)
strategy of desert-based reflectors should be a low priority
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
consideration for research.
International Collaboration
International collaboration on climate engineering is key.
The U.S. Science and Technology Committee began its
consideration of climate engineering upon meeting with the
then-Chair of the U.K. Science and Technology Committee, MP
Phil Willis, in April 2009. Chair Willis and Chairman Gordon
agreed to work together on a joint inquiry into climate
engineering, and each Committee initiated public hearings to
establish a public record through expert testimony on the
subject. The U.K. Committee published a comprehensive report on
its findings on March 18, 2010.
It is the opinion of the Chair, in agreement with U.K.
Committee,\60\ that further collaborative work between national
legislatures on topics with international reach, such as
climate engineering, should be pursued. The Chair also agrees
that there are a range of measures that could be taken to
streamline the process and enhance the effectiveness of
collaboration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ Science and Technology Committee, United Kingdom House of
Commons, The Regulation of Geoengineering p.47 (Stationery Office
Limited) (2010).
It is the opinion of the Chair, in agreement with the U.K.
Committee,\61\ that the U.S. Government should press for an
international database of climate engineering research to
encourage and facilitate transparency and open publication of
results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Id. at p.32.
It is the opinion of the Chair that others topics such as
synthetic biology, nanotechnology, and strategic raw materials
may be of international significance and mutual interest to the
U.S. and U.K. committees, and that these topics may be
appropriate for bilateral or multilateral collaboration in the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
future.
It is the opinion of the Chair that this joint inquiry
should serve as a model for future inter-Committee
collaboration between the U.S. and the U.K. or other inter-
Parliamentary partnerships.
ADDITIONAL SOURCES
Challenges of Our Own Making, 465 Nature p.397 (2010).
Scott Barrett, The Incredible Economics of Geoengineering, 39
Environmental and Resource Economics p.45 (2008).
J.J. Blackstock et al., Climate Engineering Responses to
Climate Emergencies (Novim) (2009). Available at
.
J.G. Canadell & M.R. Raupach, Managing forests for climate
change mitigation, 320 Science p.1456 (2008).
Ralph J. Cicerone, Geoengineering: Encouraging Research and
Overseeing Implementation, 77 Climatic Change p.221
(2006).
James R. Fleming, Fixing the Sky: The Checkered History of
Weather and Climate Control (Columbia University Press)
(2010).
Michael Garstang et al., Committee on the Status of and Future
Directions in U.S. Weather Modification Research and
Operations, National Research Council, Critical Issues
in Weather Modification Research (The National
Academies Press) (2003).
P.Y. Groisman, Possible Regional Climate Consequences of the
Pinatubo Eruption: An Empirical Approach, 19
Geophysical Research Letters p.1603 (1992).
Eli Kintisch, Hack the Planet: Science's Best Hope--or Worst
Nightmare--for Averting Climate Catastrophe (John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.) (2010).
Richard Lattanzio & Emily Barbour, Memorandum Regarding
International Governance of Geoengineering (U.S.
Congressional Research Service) (2010).
Michael C. MacCracken, Geoengineering: Getting a Start on a
Possible Insurance Policy, International Seminar on
Nuclear War and Planetary Emergencies--40th Session
p.747 (2008).
Colin Macilwain, Talking the Talk: Without Effective Public
Engagement, There Will Be No Synthetic biology in
Europe, 465 Nature p.867 (2010).
Daniel M. Murphy, Effect of Stratospheric Aerosols on Direct
Sunlight and Implications for Concentrating Solar
Power, 43 Environmental Science and Technology p.2784
(2009).
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Responding to
the Challenge of Climate and Environmental Change:
NASA's Plan for a Climate-Centric Architecture for
Earth Observations and Applications from Space (2010).
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA Fiscal Year
2011 Budget Estimates (2010).
National Environmental Research Council, Experiment Earth?
Report on a Public Dialogue on Geoengineering (Ipsos
Mori Publications) (2010). Available at .
Alan Robock, 20 Reasons Why Geoengineering May Be a Bad Idea,
May/June Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (2008).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report of the Interagency
Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage (2010).
Available at .
U.S. Government Accountability Office, Polar-Orbiting
Environmental Satellites: Agencies Must Act Quickly to
Address Risks that Jeopardize the Continuity of Weather
and Climate Data (Publication No. GAO 10-558) (2010).
T.M.L. Wigley, A Combined Mitigation/Geoengineering Approach to
Climate Change, 314 Science p.452 (2006).
Appendix:
----------
United States-United Kingdom Joint Agreement