Climate Intervention News

UK House of Commons: "The Regulation of Geoengineering"

2010-03-19T06:17:53Z

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"

2010-03-18T05:58:00Z

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

2010-03-18T05:54:22Z

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

2010-03-18T05:48:49Z

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]

2010-03-15T06:06:25Z

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

Digital Journal: The plan to save the world from climate change: Plan B

2010-02-22T05:50:23Z

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 and it addresses international governance issues and corporate power."

Science Now: Smattering of Activists Protest Geoengineering, 'Chemtrails'

2010-02-20T05:56:55Z

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:

House S&T Committee Holds Second Hearing on Geoengineering

2010-02-13T13:39:51Z

The House Science and Technology Committee, headed by Rep Bart Gordon (D-TN), held the second hearing on geoengineering Feb 4, in what they have announced will be a series of three. This hearing was chaired by subcommittee head, Rep Brian Baird (D-WA). The witnesses included Dr. David Keith (U Calgary), Dr. Philip Rasch (PNNL), Dr. Klaus Lackner (Columbia U), and Dr. Rob Jackson (Duke U). Their testimony is available on the committee website.

Environmental Leader: Bill Gates sink $4.5M into 'Transparent' Climate Change Research

2010-02-01T08:08:30Z

Bill Gates Sinks $4.5M into ‘Transparent’ Climate Change Research

http://www.environmentalleader.com/2010/02/01/bill-gates-sinks-4-5m-into-transparent-climate-change-research/

Posted By Environmental Leader On February 1, 2010 @ 9:30 am

Bill Gates is investing at least $4.5 million of his own money into geoengineering research, aimed at combating global climate change, with an emphasis on transparency, reports Wired [1]. At the same time, in light of the hacked climate e-mails, a former Commander of the Pacific fleet is asking President Obama Administration to establish an independent panel to evaluate the link between climate change and security.

Administered by two high-level scientists at the forefront of geoengineering research, climate scientist Ken Caldeira, of Stanford’s Carnegie Department of Global Ecology, and physicist David Keith of the University of Calgary will decide which technologies will receive funding for research that includes reducing solar radiation and filtering carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, reports Wired.

One goal would be to develop governance structures to provide transparent risk analysis, as well as manage feedback from global participants.

Keith co-authored a Nature editorial calling for an international fund for “solar-radiation management” in addition to traditional carbon emissions cuts, reports Wired.

He and his co-authors, Edward Parson at the University of Michigan and Granger Morgan at Carnegie Mellon University, propose a $10 million a year budget now for solar-radiation management, growing to $1 billion annually by the end of 2020, reports Wired.

In the wake of climate-change scandals [2], Adm. James A. Lyons, Jr., USN (Ret.), former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet and Chairman of the Center for Security Policy’s Military Committee, is asking President Barack Obama to appoint an independent panel of experts to evaluate the link between climate change and national security, reports the Center for Security Policy [3].

In the open letter, Lyons states: “I recommend that you consider establishing an independent commission of military and national security experts to examine the implications of climate change and related policies to national security. It is too important an issue to be driven by unsubstantiated claims, tainted by scandal and to result in counterproductive policies.”

Slate: The Earth Trials

2010-01-28T07:08:54Z

http://www.slate.com/id/2242931/

The Earth TrialsCan we test our geoengineering schemes before we have to use them?

By Eli Kintisch

Posted Thursday, Jan. 28, 2010, at 5:53 PM ET

Mount Pinatubo erupting in 1991The Copenhagen climate meeting was a big disappointment. Sen. Lindsey Graham now says the cap-and-trade bills "are going nowhere." So despite continued work toward cutting greenhouse emissions, we may see in the coming months a renewed interest in geoengineering—the deliberate, large-scale manipulation of the atmosphere—in an attempt to ward off the dangers of climate change.

The once-rogue concept of planet-hacking has come a long way in just three years: from key private meetings among scientists, to sophisticated computer modeling papers (PDF), to serious investigations of the idea by the British Royal Society and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. This week the discussion moves into a new phase: a debate over how actual field tests for geoengineering should be implemented, regulated and, in fact, whether their results would even help us to understand the most severe risks of deployment at all. In three opinion pieces published in the premiere science journals—one in Nature yesterday, and two in Science today—scientists from across the world offered differing takes on the future of internationally coordinated testing. But their back-and-forth over which experiments might be best and what sort of political treaties would be necessary raises a distressing possibility: It's not just that geoengineering tests will be difficult. It's that the problems they invite would be so diverse—and their results so inconclusive—that we're likely to skip the testing altogether. If countries are going to hack the stratosphere, they may just do it full-bore in the face of disaster.

The three papers naturally focus on what's considered the fastest and most feasible form of geoengineering—the sun-blocking method some call the Pinatubo Option. If deployed, this would mimic the cooling effect of volcanoes by putting a cloud of particles in the upper atmosphere, where they could scatter a small percentage of the sun's rays. (It's named after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991. That event cooled the globe 1 degree Farenheit in less than a year by spewing 10 million tons of sulfur pollution into the stratosphere.) Scientists have proposed creating a cloud of sulfuric acid or other particles using airplanes, naval guns, or hoses suspended by balloons. So, can we do a practice run of the Pinatubo Option?