Full text of "R41371 Geoengineering Governance and Technology Policy"

See other formats

Congressional 
Research Service 

Informing the legislative debate since 1914 



Geoengineering: 

Governance and Technology Policy 

Kelsi Bracmort 

Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural Resources Policy 

Richard K. Lattanzio 

Analyst in Environmental Policy 

November 26 , 2013 



Congressional Research Service 

7-5700 

www.crs.gov 

R41371 



CRS REPORT 

Prepared for Members and 
Committees of Congress — 



Geoengineering: Governance and Technology Policy 



Summary 

Climate change policies at both the national and international levels have traditionally focused on 
measures to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and to adapt to the actual or anticipated 
impacts of changes in the climate. As a participant in several international agreements on climate 
change, the United States has joined with other nations to express concern about climate change. 
Some recent technological advances and hypotheses, generally referred to as “geoengineering” 
technologies, have created alternatives to traditional approaches to mitigating climate change. If 
deployed, these new technologies could modify the Earth’s climate on a large scale. Moreover, 
these new technologies may become available to foreign governments and entities in the private 
sector to use unilaterally — without authorization from the United States government or an 
international treaty — as was done in the summer of 2012 when an American citizen conducted an 
ocean fertilization experiment off the coast of Canada. 

The term “geoengineering” describes an array of technologies that aim, through large-scale and 
deliberate modifications of the Earth’s energy balance, to reduce temperatures and counteract 
anthropogenic climate change. Most of these technologies are at the conceptual and research 
stages, and their effectiveness at reducing global temperatures has yet to be proven. Moreover, 
very few studies have been published that document the cost, environmental effects, socio- 
political impacts, and legal implications of geoengineering. If geoengineering technologies were 
to be deployed, they are expected to have the potential to cause significant transboundary effects. 

In general, geo engineering technologies are categorized as either a carbon dioxide removal 
(CDR) method or a solar radiation management (SRM) method. CDR methods address the 
warming effects of greenhouse gases by removing carbon dioxide (CCE) from the atmosphere. 
CDR methods include ocean fertilization, and carbon capture and sequestration. SRM methods 
address climate change by increasing the reflectivity of the Earth’s atmosphere or surface. 
Aerosol injection and space-based reflectors are examples of SRM methods. SRM methods do 
not remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, but can be deployed faster with relatively 
immediate global cooling results compared to CDR methods. 

To date, there is limited federal involvement in, or oversight of, geoengineering. However, some 
states as well as some federal agencies, notably the Environmental Protection Agency, 
Department of Energy, Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Defense, have taken 
actions related to geoengineering research or projects. At the international level, there is no 
international agreement or organization governing the full spectrum of possible geoengineering 
activities. Nevertheless, provisions of many international agreements, including those relating to 
climate change, maritime pollution, and air pollution, would likely inform the types of 
geoengineering activities that state parties to these agreements might choose to pursue. In 2010, 
the Convention on Biological Diversity adopted provisions calling for member parties to abstain 
from geoengineering unless the parties have fully considered the risks and impacts of those 
activities on biodiversity. 

With the possibility that geo engineering technologies may be developed and that climate change 
will remain an issue of global concern, policymakers may determine whether geoengineering 
warrants attention at either the federal or international level. If so, policymakers will also need to 
consider whether geoengineering can be effectively addressed by amendments to existing laws 
and international agreements or, alternatively, whether new laws and international treaties woidd 
need to be developed. 



Congressional Research Service 



Geoengineering: Governance and Technology Policy 



Contents 

Introduction 1 

Geoengineering Governance 3 

Risk Factors 4 

Policy Considerations 6 

Geoengineering Technologies 9 

Carbon Dioxide Removal 10 

Carbon Capture and Sequestration 10 

Ocean Fertilization 12 

Afforestation 13 

Enhanced Weathering 14 

Solar Radiation Management 15 

Enhanced Albedo (Surface and Cloud) 16 

Aerosol Injection 18 

Space-Based Reflectors 19 

The Debate over the Methods of Oversight 20 

The Status Quo 20 

Threshold for Oversight 20 

Methods for Oversight 21 

Moratoriums or Bans 23 

The Debate over Oversight and Governmental Involvement 23 

State Policies Addressing Geoengineering 23 

National Policies Addressing Geoengineering 24 

Current U.S. Policies Addressing Geoengineering 24 

Potential Roles for Federal Agencies and Other Federally Funded Entities 26 

International Cooperation on Geoengineering 29 

Conclusion 38 

Figures 

Figure 1. Geoengineering Technology Options 9 

Figure 2. Cloud Whitening Schematic 18 

Tables 

Table 1 . Scientific Underpinnings for Different Perspectives on Geoengineering 7 

Table 2. Six Types of Functions Federal Entities Can Perform and Selected Federal 
Entities Authorized to Perform Them 27 

Contacts 

Author Contact Information 39 



Congressional Research Service 



Geoengineering: Governance and Technology Policy 



Introduction 

Climate change has received considerable policy attention in the past several years both 
internationally and within the United States. 1 A major report released by the Intergovernmental 
Panel on Climate Change in 20 1 3 found widespread evidence of climate warming, and many are 
concerned that climate change may be severe and rapid with potentially catastrophic 
consequences for humans and the functioning of ecosystems. 2 The National Academies maintains 
that the climate change challenge is unlikely to be solved with any single strategy or by the 
people of any single country. 3 

Policy efforts to address climate change use a variety of methods, frequently including mitigation 
and adaptation. 4 Mitigation activities aim to reduce greenhouse gases (GHGs) from the Earth’s 
atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is the dominant greenhouse gas emitted naturally through the carbon 
cycle and through human activities like the burning of fossil fuels. Other commonly discussed 
GHGs include methane, nitrous oxide, hydroflourocarbons, perflourocarbons, and sulfur 
hexaflouride. Adaptation activities seek to improve an individual’s or institution’s ability to cope 
with or avoid harmful impacts of climate change, and to take advantage of potential beneficial 
ones. 

Some observers are concerned that current mitigation and adaptation strategies may not prevent 
change quickly enough to avoid extreme climate disruptions. Geoengineering has been suggested 
by some as a timely additional method to mitigation and adaptation that could be included in 
climate change policy efforts. Geoengineering technologies, applied to climate, aim to achieve 
large-scale and deliberate modifications of the Earth’s energy balance in order to reduce 
temperatures and counteract anthropogenic (i.e., human-made) climate change; these climate 
modifications would not be limited by country boundaries. As an unproven concept, 
geoengineering raises substantial environmental and ethical concerns for some observers. 5 Others 
respond that the uncertainties of geoengineering may only be resolved through further scientific 
and technical examination. 6 

Proposed geoengineering technologies vary greatly in terms of their technological characteristics 
and possible consequences. They are generally classified in two main groups: 



1 For more information on the policy issues associated with climate change, see CRS Report R41973, Climate Change: 
Conceptual Approaches and Policy Tools and CRS Report R43230, Climate Change Legislation in the 113 th Congress. 

2 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2013, the Physical Science Basis: Working Group I 
Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC, 2013 (AR5), http://www.ipcc. ch/report/ar5/wgl/#.Uo-dF- 
JiMcs . 

3 The National Academies, Ecological Impacts of Climate Change , 2009, http://dels-old.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/ 
ecological_impacts.pdf. 

4 H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (Waxman/Markey), and S. 1733, the Clean Energy 
Jobs and American Power Act (Kerry/Boxer), were the primary energy and climate change legislative vehicles in the 

1 1 1 th Congress. For a comparison of key greenhouse gas emission control provisions in both the House and Senate, see 
CRS Report R40556, Market-Based Greenhouse Gas Control: Selected Proposals in the 111 th Congress. 

5 Alan Robock, “20 Reasons Why Geoengineering May Be a Bad Idea,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, May/June 
2008. 

6 Jamais Cascio, “It’s Time to Cool the Planet,” The Wall Street Journal, June 15, 2009; and American Meteorological 
Society, “Proposals to Geoengineer Climate Require More Research,” press release, July 21, 2009, 
http://www.ametsoc.org/amsnews/2009geoengineering.pdf. 



Congressional Research Service 



1 



Geoengineering: Governance and Technology Policy 



• Solar radiation management (SRM) method: technologies that would increase the 
reflectivity, or albedo, of the Earth’s atmosphere or surface, and 

• Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) method: technologies or practices that would 
remove CO 2 and other GHGs from the atmosphere. 

Much of the geo engineering technology discussion centers on SRM methods (e.g., enhanced 
albedo, aerosol injection). SRM methods could be deployed relatively quickly if necessary, and 
their impact on the climate would be more immediate than that of CDR methods. Because SRM 
methods do not reduce GHG from the atmosphere, global warming could resume at a rapid pace 
if a deployed SRM method fails or is terminated at any time. At least one relatively simple SRM 
method is already being deployed with government assistance. 7 Other proposed SRM methods 
are at the conceptualization stage. CDR methods include afforestation, ocean fertilization, and the 
use of biomass to capture and store carbon. 

Prior to 2013, neither the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 
nor the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1PCC) had made any official mention of 
geoengineering science or technology in their negotiation texts or their reports. Flowever, in the 
IPCC’s Scientific-Technical Assessment for its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), released on 
September 26, 2013, the Panel addressed for the first time the current status of geoengineering 
research and its potential impacts as follows: 

Methods that aim to deliberately alter the climate system to counter climate change, termed 
geoengineering, have been proposed. Limited evidence precludes a comprehensive 
quantitative assessment of both Solar Radiation Management (SRM) and Carbon Dioxide 
Removal (CDR) and their impact on the climate system. CDR methods have biogeochemical 
and technological limitations to their potential on a global scale. There is insufficient 
knowledge to quantify how much CO2 emissions could be partially offset by CDR on a 
century timescale. Modeling indicates that SRM methods, if realizable, have the potential to 
substantially offset a global temperature rise, but they would also modify the global water 
cycle, and would not reduce ocean acidification. [Additionally, scaling SRM to substantial 
levels would carry the risk that if] SRM were terminated for any reason, there is high 
confidence that global surface temperatures would rise very rapidly to values consistent with 
the greenhouse gas forcing. CDR and SRM methods carry side effects and long-term 
consequences on a global scale . 8 

Neither the 1 12 th nor the 1 13 th Congress, thus far, has taken any legislative action on 
geoengineering. In 2009, the Flouse Science and Technology Committee of the 111 th Congress 
held hearings on geoengineering that examined the “potential environmental risks and benefits of 
various proposals, associated domestic and international governance issues, evaluation 
mechanisms and criteria, research and development (R&D) needs, and economic rationales 
supporting the deployment of geoengineering activities.” 9 Some foreign governments, including 
the United Kingdom’s, as well as scientists from Germany and India, have considered engaging in 



7 Enhanced albedo is one SRM effort currently being undertaken by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. See the 
Enhanced Albedo section below for more information. 

8 This summary statement is excerpted from IPCC AR5 op cit., Summary for Policy Makers, p. 27, http://www.ipcc.ch/ 
report/ar5/wgl/#.Uo_HV-JiMcs. More detailed discussion of geoengineering can be found in the following sections of 
the foil report: "Box TS.7,” “Chapter 6: Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles,” and “Chapter 7: Clouds and 
Aerosols.” 

9 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Science and Technology, Geoengineering: Assessing the Implications of Large- 
Scale Climate Intervention, 1 1 1 th Cong., 1 st sess., November 5, 2009. 



Congressional Research Service 



2