Science and Technology Committee - Fifth Report The Regulation of Geoengineering

UK House of Commons: "The Regulation of Geoengineering"

Friday, 19 March 2010 06:17

House of Commons Session 2009-10 Publications on the internet Science and Technology  Committee Publications Science and Technology  Committee - Fifth Report The Regulation of Geoengineering Here you can browse the report together with the Proceedings of the Committee. The published report was ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 10 March 2010. HTML Report: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/221/22102.htm PDF Report: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/221/221.pdf Summary Geoengineering describes activities specifically and deliberately designed to effect a change in the global climate with the aim of minimising or reversing anthropogenic (that is human caused) climate change. Geoengineering covers many techniques and technologies but splits into two broad categories: those that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere such as sequestering and locking carbon dioxide in geological formations; and those that reflect solar radiation. Techniques in this category include the injection of sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere to mimic the cooling effect caused by large volcanic eruptions. The technologies and techniques vary so much that any regulatory framework for geoengineering cannot be uniform. Instead, those techniques, particularly carbon removal, that are closely related to familiar existing technologies, could be regulated by developing the international regulation of the existing regimes to encompass geoengineering. For other technologies, especially solar refection, new regulatory arrangements will have to be developed. There are three reasons why, we believe, regulation is needed. First, in the future some geoengineering techniques may allow a single country unilaterally to affect the climate. Second, some—albeit very small scale—geoengineering testing is already underway. Third, we may need geoengineering as a "Plan B" if, in the event of the failure of "Plan A"—the reduction of greenhouse gases—we are faced with highly disruptive climate change. If we start work now it will provide the opportunity to explore fully the technological, environmental, political and regulatory issues. We are not calling for an international treaty but for the groundwork for regulatory arrangements to begin. Geoengineering techniques should be graded with consideration to factors such as trans-boundary effect, the dispersal of potentially hazardous materials in the environment and the direct effect on ecosystems. The regulatory regimes for geoengineering should then be tailored accordingly. The controls should be based on a set of principles that command widespread agreement—for example, the disclosure of geoengineering research and open publication of results and the development of governance arrangements before the deployment of geoengineering techniques. The UN is the route by which, eventually, we envisage the regulatory framework operating but first the UK and other governments need to push geoengineering up the international agenda and get processes moving. This inquiry was innovative in that we worked collaboratively with the US House of Representatives Science and Technology Committee, the first international joint working of this kind for a House of Commons select committee. We found the experience constructive and rewarding and, we hope, successful. We are enthusiastic supporters of collaborative working between national legislatures on topics such as geoengineering with international reach. Our Report covering the regulation of geoengineering will now dovetail into a wider inquiry that the House of Representatives Committee is carrying out on geoengineering. Science, technology and engineering are key to solving global challenges and we commend to our successor committee international collaboration as an innovative way to meet these challenges. GAO Testimony: "Preliminary Observations on Geoengineering Science, Federal Efforts, and Governance Issues" Thursday, 18 March 2010 05:58 GAO - United States Government Accountability Office Testimony Before the Committee on Science and Technology, House of Representatives "CLIMATE CHANGE - Preliminary Observations on Geoengineering Science, Federal Efforts, and Governance Issues" Statement of Frank Rusco, Director Natural Resources and Environment http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10546t.pdf Bipartisan Policy Center creates geoengineering task force Thursday, 18 March 2010 05:54 CLIMATE: Energy commission launches geoengineering task force By Jenny Mandel E&E News, Greenwire Mar. 18, 2010 http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/news/articles/2010/03/climate-energy-commission-launches-geoengineering-task-force The bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy has created a task force to examine research and policy issues associated with geoengineering -- modifying the environment on a large scale to change the Earth's atmosphere. The task force aims to make recommendations to Congress and the Obama administration this summer. "We cannot rule out the possibility that climate change will come upon us faster and harder than we can manage," said Jane Long, co-chairwoman of the new group and associate director of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's Energy and Environment directorate. "Prudence dictates we try to create more options to help manage the problem and learn whether these are good options or bad options." Long is slated to testify today at a House Science and Technology Committee hearing on domestic and international research on geoengineering. Chairman Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.) is working on legislation to establish a federal research program on the subject, likely within the Energy Department (ClimateWire, Feb. 26). "The exploration of geoengineering must be bipartisan, international, and transparent in order to properly address these complex challenges," Gordon said in a statement on the new task force. "The bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy will provide an essential forum for intelligent discourse on viable policy options informed by science." Stephen Rademaker, the other co-chairman of the commission and a former State Department official who now works at BGR Government Affairs, said the task force would look at the appropriate U.S. role in geoengineering to address an "international policy void" on the issue and reduce the risks associated with a haphazard global approach. "Some geoengineering techniques ... can, in theory, be implemented cheaply and quickly, but naturally it is important to be alert to the potential unintended consequences," he said. The task force, which encompasses experts in science, technology, national security, ethics and other fields, met for the first time last week. NCEP Research Director Sasha Mackler is the staff lead for the group. Other members of the task force: James Anderson, Harvard University professor of atmospheric chemistry. Richard Benedick, senior adviser at the Joint Global Change Research Institute, and former chief U.S. negotiator for the Montreal Protocol. Ken Caldeira, senior scientist with the Carnegie Institution. Joe Chaisson, research and technical director with the Clean Air Task Force. Stephen Gardiner, associate professor, the University of Washington's philosophy department. David Goldston, director of government affairs at the Natural Resources Defense Council and former staff director for the House Science Committee. Steven Hamburg, chief scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund. David Keith, director of ISEEE Energy and Environmental Systems Group, Earth Sciences University of Calgary. Ron Lehman, director of the Center for Global Security Research, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Frank Loy, former undersecretary for global affairs, State Department. Granger Morgan, engineering professor, Carnegie Mellon University. Daniel Sarewitz, director of the Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes, Arizona State University. Thomas Schelling, professor emeritus, University of Maryland. John Shepherd, professorial research fellow in earth system science, University of Southampton, and chairman of the Royal Society's geoengineering report. David Victor, professor at the School of International Relations and Pacific Studies, University of California, San Diego. David Whelan, Boeing Integrated Defense Systems chief scientist and vice president of Boeing Corp., and former director of the tactical technology office of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. David Winickoff, assistant professor in the Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, University of California, Berkeley. Royal Society launches geoengineering governance initiative Thursday, 18 March 2010 05:48 Royal Society launches major study on the governance of geoengineering Published Date: 18 March 2010 http://royalsociety.org/Royal-Society-launches-major-study-on-the-governance-of-geoengineering/ A major new initiative to ensure strict governance of any plans for solar radiation management (SRM) geoengineering (counteracting global warming by reflecting a small percentage of the sun’s light and heat back into space), will be undertaken this year by the Royal Society, in partnership with the TWAS, the academy of sciences for the developing world, and the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF).   The first output of the Initiative will be a set of recommendations for the governance of geoengineering research, to be released late in 2010. Proposed geoengineering techniques that reflect the sun’s light and heat back into space may offer valuable opportunities to reduce global warming, and could do so quite rapidly, but it is likely that their impacts would also affect rainfall, regional weather patterns and ocean currents.  These impacts would not be restricted by national boundaries, so actions in one country could have highly significant effects in another, for example by changing rainfall and so affecting agriculture and water supply. Professor John Shepherd FRS (who chaired the Royal Society’s Geoengineering the climate: Science, governance and uncertainty report published in September 2009) said, “The disappointing outcome of Copenhagen has shown that achieving global agreement to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases is not easy. Some countries or organisations may consider geoengineering methods by which they could deliberately alter our climate. Large scale field trials of some solar radiation management techniques could cause damaging side-effects.  It is essential that we consider beforehand what legislative mechanisms and guidelines are needed, to ensure that any research that is undertaken will be done in a highly responsible and controlled manner with full international agreement where necessary.” The Initiative being launched by the Royal Society and its partners, EDF and TWAS, will engage with a variety of organisations, concerned with natural and social science, governance and legal issues, as well as environmental and development NGOs, industry and civil society organisations, from across the globe.   This will ensure that evidence and opinion is sought from a wide range of stakeholders with appropriate expertise, leading to outputs that will centre on providing: Recommendations for the governance of both research and possible deployment of SRM techniques Best practice guidelines for any emerging research into SRM technique A suggested framework for how SRM research could be undertaken through international cooperation This initiative is being supported by a range of funders and partners, including Zennström Philanthropies. House Hearing: Geoengineering III: Domestic and International Research Governance [Scheduled March 18th, 2010] Monday, 15 March 2010 06:06 Geoengineering III: Domestic and International Research Governance House Select Committee on Science and Technology http://science.house.gov/publications/hearings_markups_details.aspx?NewsID=2764 Scheduled March 18th, 2010 Location 2318 Rayburn House Office Building 12:00PM - 2:00PM Witness Statements Panel 1 MP Phil Willis Panel 2 Dr. Frank Rusco Dr. Granger Morgan Dr. Scott Barrett Dr. Jane Long   Digital Journal: The plan to save the world from climate change: Plan B Monday, 22 February 2010 05:50 The plan to save the world from climate change: Plan B Feb 22, 2010 by ■ Stephanie Dearing http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/287917 Plan B. It doesn't sound dangerous or insidious. It sounds more like being prepared for the unexpected, for contingencies. But a Canadian organization, Etc. Group has issued a warning about the Plan B conspiracy. Ottawa, ON - The Canadian non-profit called Etc. Group, has issued a press release titled ' Top-down Planet Hackers Call for Bottom-up Governance -- Geoengineers Bid to Establish Voluntary Testing Regime Must be Opposed.' Known for having criticized geoengineering as 'geo-piracy,' the group is warning the world about Plan B, saying "... a small group of geoengineering advocates came away [from Copenhagen] emboldened by the summit’s weak outcome and uncertain road ahead. This group of scientists aims to get on with research and experimentation in controversial geoengineering technologies." Now most people are scratching their heads and wondering what all the fuss is about. Geoengineering -- that's where they're heating and cooling houses by running hoses down into the earth, right? Actually, geoengineering is a term that covers a lot of ground, and encompasses techniques designed to reduce the effects of climate change and global warming. It's strange that geoengineering hasn't been in the public eye much, as the science has been promoted to government leaders for the past ten years as a viable way to prevent continued heating of the earth through reflecting some of the sun's rays back into space. Geoengineer pioneer Edward Teller characterized the science as "sunscreen for the planet." Teller had proposed seeding the atmosphere with chemicals and microscopic particles that would reflect sunlight back into space. While most of the people who are working to curb climate change want to change human behaviour and values before our activities permanently affect the earth's biospheres, geoengineers propose utilizing techniques that will prevent climate change without requiring any changes. The appeal is enormous, and when coupled with the promulgation of the science as our last chance to save the earth, the appeal of geoengineering is downright seductive. One key promoter of geoengineering is the Canadian-based scientist, David Keith. Keith has himself pitched a proposal for a giant mirror stationed in space between the earth and the sun. His idea for a 600,000 square mile deflecting mirror got the attention of the American government in 2001. Keith not only acts as a spokesman for the science, he is a University of Calgary professor, and has started up his own geoengineering company, Carbon Engineering Ltd. The idea of geoengineering the climate raises the hackles of most environmentalists, and Etc. Group said Solar Radiation Management (SRM), the ominously identified "Plan B," will proceed whether approved by world leaders or not. Diana Bronson from Etc. Group warned “This lobbying offensive has been underway for more than a year now but it has moved into a critical new phase. The world needs to pay attention. Geoengineers are now advocating real-world experiments with some of the most high-risk climate changing technologies and many of them have no intention of waiting for an international regulatory agreement." The influential David Keith has got the ear of Bill Gates, warns Etc. Group. Keith has been advocating for "... an international programme of SRM research to grow one-hundred-fold (from $10 million to $1 billion over ten years). This would include experiments at a scale that is large enough for the climate to notice but small enough to “limit risks.”" Keith says action is required soon because climate change has the potential for impacting the earth for a very long time -- and because we really do no know what all the risks are. Thus Keith advocates for 'heading off climate change at the pass,' so to speak. According to reports, the Gates Foundation itself is not supporting geoengineering. Rather, Bill Gates is said to be directly funding research on the science from his own bank account since 2007. So far, Bill Gates has not funded any real-life experiments. However, this is about to change, warns Etc. Group. With heavy hitters like Richard Branson staking out a piece of the climate pie, there is a possibility that experimentation with SRM techniques may enter the activation phase through experiments, which are being advocated by Keith. A new organization has sprung up to finance geoengineering efforts. Called the Climate Response Fund, the non-profit was "... created to stimulate and support discussion and research into 'geoengineering' or climate intervention techniques and other activities needed to explore innovative solutions to the climate crisis facing the world." The problem, according to Etc. Group, is that geoengineering is dangerous. The primary danger is the erosion of choice, should a handful of scientists and their backers proceed with experiments. There are the unknown physical effects, which vary depending on the method of SRM being examined. Another danger is attempts to alter human behaviour to prevent climate change will fail because of the ease and simplicity of dealing with climate change through solar radiation management. Solar radiation management techniques are being favoured because of their comparatively low-cost to implement as well as their capacity to be de-activated quickly. And the likelihood that geoengineering techniques will be deployed, even as experiments? The jury is still out, but there has been strong interest in the science for the last year from the United States. The real push, though, has come from the scientists experimenting with geoengineering techniques. Scientists and policy experts are meeting next month in California to discuss field trials. The conference, scheduled for March 22 to 26, was organized by the Climate Response Fund and Guttman Initiatives. The Etc Group "... is dedicated to the conservation and sustainable advancement of cultural and ecological diversity and human rights. To this end, TC Group supports socially responsible developments of technologies useful to the poor and marginalized Smattering of Activists Protest Geoengineering, 'Chemtrails' by Eli Kintisch on February 20, 2010 6:37 PM | Permanent Link SAN DIEGO—I wasn’t the only one underwhelmed by the size of the anti-geoengineering “rally,” as it was billed. The event, slated for this morning to coincide with one of three sessions on geoengineering at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (which publishes ScienceNOW), focused on the chemtrails conspiracy theory: the idea that the government is spraying particles into the sky in a clandestine program to reverse global warming. It was organized by California activists and held across the street from the convention center. “This is the [blank] turnout?” said Ray Switzer, a local activist in sunglasses. “I’m appalled. This is a disease on our country. This is the wildest thing. I thought there would be people from all over the country here. The apathy is pathetic. They could care less if I’m getting sprayed like a cockroach.” The advertisement for the event had blared: “ALERT- Geo-Engineering Scientists to Meet in San Diego ACTIVISTS, STAY TUNED at this URL in THIS SECTION” Beforehand, I’d spoken to the organizer, a mulitmedia producer and farmer named Mauro Oliveira. I’d asked him what chemtrails were. “The government or whoever” was adding compounds to certain aircraft exhausts, and evidence of its existence was found in elevated levels of aluminum particles recorded by activists using home test kits, he explained. The protest had attracted about a dozen people, about half of them with video or digital cameras. A small prayer circle had convened off to the side; someone played a drum, and a long smoking wooden pipe was passed around. Several girls joined the protest and held signs on the periphery. Oliviera used a megaphone to call to passersby. Among his allegations was that Ken Caldiera, a geochemist at the Carnegie Institution who has led much of the goeengineering research efforts, was a “weapons-optimization scientist” (more allegations here). “Geoengineering will reduce the effects of the [greenhouse] emissions, but it will do nothing to lower the emissions,” they said. Passersby were given handouts describing “Alarming Local Lab Tests Reveal Accumulated Contamination: Another handout suggested that citizens check the skies for “persistent jet trails/man-made clouds,” and if any were seen, to “Protect Your Family and Pets” by using “a respirator mask designed to remove toxic chemicals from the air.” “I worked at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory with Edward Teller and Lowell Wood,” Caldiera said later, citing the father of the H-Bomb and his acolyte. He feared the use of geoengineering as a weapon, not schemed to develop it as one. “They couldn’t get money for this work—I doubt anyone else can.” More photos: and it addresses international governance issues and corporate power."