Climate Change
A Coordinated Strategy Could Focus Federal Geoengineering Research and Inform Governance Efforts Gao ID: GAO-10-903 September 23, 2010Policymakers have raised questions about geoengineering--large-scale deliberate interventions in the earth's climate system to diminish climate change or its impacts--and its role in a broader strategy of mitigating and adapting to climate change. Most geoengineering proposals fall into two categories: carbon dioxide removal (CDR), which would remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, and solar radiation management (SRM), which would offset temperature increases by reflecting sunlight back into space. GAO was asked to examine (1) the state of geoengineering science, (2) federal involvement in geoengineering, and (3) the views of experts and federal officials about the extent to which federal laws and international agreements apply to geoengineering, and any governance challenges. GAO examined relevant scientific and policy studies, relevant domestic laws and international agreements, analyzed agency data describing relevant research for fiscal years 2009 and 2010, and interviewed federal officials and selected recognized experts in the field.
Few geoengineering experiments or modeling studies have been conducted, and major uncertainties remain on the efficacy and potential consequences of geoengineering approaches. GAO's review of relevant studies and discussions with selected experts indicated that relatively more laboratory and field research relevant to certain CDR approaches exists, although most of this research was not designed to apply to geoengineering. In contrast, few modeling studies or field experiments have focused on SRM approaches, according to experts and recent studies. Experts identified only one SRM field experiment with published results--a 2009 Russian experiment that injected aerosols into the middle troposphere to measure their reflectivity. Experts, as well as relevant studies, identified several major uncertainties in need of further investigation for CDR and SRM. Federal agencies identified 52 research activities, totaling about $100.9 million, relevant to geoengineering during fiscal years 2009 and 2010. GAO's analysis found that 43 activities, totaling about $99 million, focused either on mitigation strategies or basic science. Most of the research focused on mitigation efforts, such as geological sequestration of CO2, which were identified as relevant to CDR approaches but not designed to address them directly. GAO found that nine activities, totaling about $1.9 million, directly investigated SRM or less conventional CDR approaches. Officials from interagency bodies coordinating federal responses to climate change indicated that their offices have not developed a coordinated strategy, and believe that, due to limited federal investment, it is premature to coordinate geoengineering activities. However, federal officials also noted that a large share of existing federal climate science research could be relevant to geoengineering. Agencies requested roughly $2 billion for such activities in fiscal year 2010. Without a coordinated federal strategy for geoengineering, it is difficult for agencies to determine the extent of relevant research, and policymakers may lack key information to inform subsequent decisions on geoengineering and existing climate science efforts. According to legal experts and federal officials, the extent to which federal laws and international agreements apply to geoengineering is unclear. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has taken steps to regulate one CDR approach and has determined that it has sufficient authority to regulate two other approaches. EPA officials said EPA has not assessed the applicability of other laws because geoengineering research is in its initial stages. Similarly, legal experts and Department of State officials said that, except for three instances, parties to international agreements have not addressed their agreements' applicability to geoengineering, largely due to limited geoengineering activity and awareness of the issue. Legal experts' and officials' views differed on the best approach for international governance, but generally agreed that the federal government should take a coordinated, interagency approach on domestic regulation. Experts and officials also identified governance challenges, such as the need to address liability. GAO recommends that within the Executive Office of the President, the appropriate entities, such as the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), establish a clear strategy for geoengineering research in the context of the federal response to climate change to ensure a coordinated federal approach. OSTP neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation, but provided technical comments.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Franklin W. Rusco Team: Government Accountability Office: Natural Resources and Environment Phone: (202) 512-4597GAO-10-903, Climate Change: A Coordinated Strategy Could Focus Federal Geoengineering Research and Inform Governance Efforts
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-903
entitled 'Climate Change: A Coordinated Strategy Could Focus Federal
Geoengineering Research and Inform Governance Efforts' which was
released on October 26, 2010.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Chairman, Committee on Science and Technology, House of
Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
September 2010:
Climate Change:
A Coordinated Strategy Could Focus Federal Geoengineering Research and
Inform Governance Efforts:
GAO-10-903:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-10-903, a report to the Chairman, Committee on
Science and Technology, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Policymakers have raised questions about geoengineering”large-scale
deliberate interventions in the earth‘s climate system to diminish
climate change or its impacts”and its role in a broader strategy of
mitigating and adapting to climate change. Most geoengineering
proposals fall into two categories: carbon dioxide removal (CDR),
which would remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, and solar
radiation management (SRM), which would offset temperature increases
by reflecting sunlight back into space.
GAO was asked to examine (1) the state of geoengineering science, (2)
federal involvement in geoengineering, and (3) the views of experts
and federal officials about the extent to which federal laws and
international agreements apply to geoengineering, and any governance
challenges. GAO examined relevant scientific and policy studies,
relevant domestic laws and international agreements, analyzed agency
data describing relevant research for fiscal years 2009 and 2010, and
interviewed federal officials and selected recognized experts in the
field.
What GAO Found:
Few geoengineering experiments or modeling studies have been
conducted, and major uncertainties remain on the efficacy and
potential consequences of geoengineering approaches. GAO‘s review of
relevant studies and discussions with selected experts indicated that
relatively more laboratory and field research relevant to certain CDR
approaches exists, although most of this research was not designed to
apply to geoengineering. In contrast, few modeling studies or field
experiments have focused on SRM approaches, according to experts and
recent studies. Experts identified only one SRM field experiment with
published results”a 2009 Russian experiment that injected aerosols
into the middle troposphere to measure their reflectivity. Experts, as
well as relevant studies, identified several major uncertainties in
need of further investigation for CDR and SRM.
Federal agencies identified 52 research activities, totaling about
$100.9 million, relevant to geoengineering during fiscal years 2009
and 2010. GAO‘s analysis found that 43 activities, totaling about $99
million, focused either on mitigation strategies or basic science.
Most of the research focused on mitigation efforts, such as geological
sequestration of CO2, which were identified as relevant to CDR
approaches but not designed to address them directly. GAO found that
nine activities, totaling about $1.9 million, directly investigated
SRM or less conventional CDR approaches. Officials from interagency
bodies coordinating federal responses to climate change indicated that
their offices have not developed a coordinated strategy, and believe
that, due to limited federal investment, it is premature to coordinate
geoengineering activities. However, federal officials also noted that
a large share of existing federal climate science research could be
relevant to geoengineering. Agencies requested roughly $2 billion for
such activities in fiscal year 2010. Without a coordinated federal
strategy for geoengineering, it is difficult for agencies to determine
the extent of relevant research, and policymakers may lack key
information to inform subsequent decisions on geoengineering and
existing climate science efforts.
According to legal experts and federal officials, the extent to which
federal laws and international agreements apply to geoengineering is
unclear. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has taken steps to
regulate one CDR approach and has determined that it has sufficient
authority to regulate two other approaches. EPA officials said EPA has
not assessed the applicability of other laws because geoengineering
research is in its initial stages. Similarly, legal experts and
Department of State officials said that, except for three instances,
parties to international agreements have not addressed their agreements‘
applicability to geoengineering, largely due to limited geoengineering
activity and awareness of the issue. Legal experts‘ and officials‘
views differed on the best approach for international governance, but
generally agreed that the federal government should take a
coordinated, interagency approach on domestic regulation. Experts and
officials also identified governance challenges, such as the need to
address liability.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that within the Executive Office of the President, the
appropriate entities, such as the Office of Science and Technology
Policy (OSTP), establish a clear strategy for geoengineering research
in the context of the federal response to climate change to ensure a
coordinated federal approach. OSTP neither agreed nor disagreed with
our recommendation, but provided technical comments.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-903] or key
components. For more information, contact Frank Rusco at (202) 512-
3841 or ruscof@gao.gov, or John Stephenson at (202) 512-3841 or
stephensonj@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
Geoengineering Is an Emerging Field with Major Uncertainties,
Including Potential Effects:
Federal Agencies Are Sponsoring Research Relevant to Geoengineering,
but There Is No Coordinated Federal Strategy, Making It Difficult to
Determine the Extent of Relevant Research:
The Extent to Which Existing Federal Laws and International Agreements
Apply to Geoengineering Is Unclear, and Experts and Officials
Identified Governance Challenges:
Conclusions:
Recommendation:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Geoengineering Experts Selected for This Review:
Appendix III: Geoengineering Description Provided To USGCRP Agencies:
Appendix IV: Data from USGCRP Agencies on Geoengineering-Related
Activities:
Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Summary of Reported Research Activities Relevant to
Geoengineering at USGCRP Agencies, Combined Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010:
Table 2: Summary of Reported Mitigation-Related Research and
Fundamental Scientific Research Relevant to Geoengineering, by USGCRP
Agency, Combined Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010:
Table 3: Summary of Reported Direct Geoengineering Research, by USGCRP
Agency, Combined Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010:
Table 4: Examples of International Agreements Potentially Applicable
to Geoengineering, as Identified by Legal Experts and Relevant Studies:
Table 5: Reported Mitigation-Related Research Relevant to
Geoengineering, by USGCRP Agency and Related Geoengineering Approach,
Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010:
Table 6: Reported Fundamental Scientific Research Activities Relevant
to Geoengineering, by USGCRP Agency and Related Geoengineering
Approach, Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010:
Table 7: Reported Direct Geoengineering Research by USGCRP Agency and
Related Geoengineering Approach, Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010:
Figures:
Figure 1: Examples of CDR Approaches:
Figure 2: Examples of SRM Approaches:
Abbreviations:
BECS: biomass energy with carbon dioxide capture and sequestration:
CCS: carbon capture and storage:
CDR: carbon dioxide removal:
CEQ: Council on Environmental Quality:
CERCLA: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980:
CO2: carbon dioxide:
Commerce: Department of Commerce:
DOD: Department of Defense:
DOE: Department of Energy:
EOP: Executive Office of the President:
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency:
IEA: International Energy Agency:
Interior: Department of the Interior:
London Convention: Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by
Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter:
London Protocol: 1996 Protocol to the London Convention:
NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act of 1969:
NIAC: NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts:
NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:
NRC: National Research Council:
NSF: National Science Foundation:
OSTP: Office of Science and Technology Policy:
RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976:
SRM: solar radiation management:
State: Department of State:
UNFCCC: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change:
USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture:
USGCRP: U.S. Global Change Research Program:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
September 23, 2010:
The Honorable Bart Gordon:
Chairman:
Committee on Science and Technology:
House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Changes in the earth's climate attributable to increased
concentrations of greenhouse gases may have significant environmental
and economic effects within the United States and internationally.
These effects are expected to vary across regions, countries, and
economic sectors. In its recent study Advancing the Science of Climate
Change, the National Research Council (NRC)[Footnote 1] stated that
temperature increases related to rising greenhouse gas levels are
closely associated with a broad spectrum of climate impacts, such as
changes in rainfall and widespread ocean acidification.[Footnote 2]
These impacts pose significant risks for--and in many cases are
already affecting--a wide range of human and environmental systems,
including freshwater resources, the coastal environment, agriculture,
fisheries, human health, ecosystems, and national security, according
to the study. Furthermore, NRC previously reported that human
alterations of the climate system may increase the possibility of
large and abrupt regional or global climatic events. NRC also found
that because abrupt climate changes of the past have not yet been
fully explained, future abrupt changes cannot be predicted, and
climate surprises are to be expected.[Footnote 3]
Key scientific assessments have underscored the urgency of reducing
emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the most prevalent greenhouse gas
produced by human activity, as a risk-management strategy to help
reduce or limit the negative effects of climate change--also known as
mitigation.[Footnote 4] However, many countries with significant
greenhouse gas emissions, including the United States, China, and
India, have not committed to binding limits on CO2 emissions, and
atmospheric CO2 levels continue to rise. Another strategy for
responding to climate change is adaptation. We have reported that
policies to prepare for and adapt to the potential adverse effects of
climate change could help reduce the vulnerability of countries and
regions and, in conjunction with emissions reductions, may be viewed
as part of a risk-management strategy for responding to climate
change.[Footnote 5] In particular, we reported that federal entities
such as the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), the
Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), and the U.S. Global
Change Research Program (USGCRP) had begun to develop governmentwide
strategies to address adaptation and reduce the nation's vulnerability
to adverse impacts from climate change. We recommended that the
appropriate entities within the Executive Office of the President
(EOP), such as CEQ and OSTP, develop a national strategic plan to
guide the nation's efforts to adapt to a changing climate.
Furthermore, we recommended that the plan, among other things, define
federal priorities related to adaptation and build on and integrate
ongoing federal efforts related to adaptation.[Footnote 6]
Recently, policymakers and scientific organizations have begun to
raise questions about a third possible risk-management strategy for
climate change--geoengineering. The Royal Society,[Footnote 7] the
United Kingdom's national academy of sciences, provided the definition
of geoengineering that we use in this report: deliberate large-scale
interventions in the earth's climate system to diminish climate change
or its impacts.[Footnote 8] At the same time, some scientists and
nongovernmental organizations have raised concerns that exploration of
geoengineering as a policy option could further decrease incentives to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
A September 2009 study from the Royal Society divided most
geoengineering proposals into two main categories: carbon dioxide
removal (CDR) and solar radiation management (SRM). CDR addresses what
scientists currently view as the root cause of climate change by
removing CO2 from the atmosphere.[Footnote 9] For example, one
approach to CDR would be to enhance the biological processes for
removal and storage of CO2 by microorganisms in the ocean. In
contrast, SRM offsets temperature increases by reflecting a small
percentage of the sun's light back into space. For example, one SRM
approach would be to add reflective particles to the upper atmosphere
to reflect incoming sunlight back into space. More recently, NRC
addressed geoengineering in a series of studies requested by Congress,
collectively titled America's Climate Choices.[Footnote 10] In
addressing the subject of geoengineering, NRC utilized the Royal
Society's definition and categorization of geoengineering approaches,
but noted that there is no consensus regarding the extent to which the
term geoengineering should be applied to various widely accepted
practices that remove CO2 from the atmosphere, such as reforestation.
[Footnote 11]
According to the Royal Society, CDR would work more slowly than SRM to
reduce global temperatures but, with some exceptions, would involve
fewer potential environmental risks. This is because CDR is intended
to return the climate closer to its preindustrial state by reducing
atmospheric concentrations of CO2. In contrast, the study reported
that SRM would begin to reduce temperatures more quickly than CDR, but
would create an artificial and approximate balance between increased
atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and reduced sunlight. This
artificial state would introduce additional environmental risks and
require long-term maintenance. Additionally, SRM approaches generally
have greater potential to cause uneven environmental impacts beyond
national or regional boundaries. This creates social, ethical, legal,
and political implications that should be addressed before many of the
SRM technologies are implemented on a large scale, according to the
Royal Society.
The House Committee on Science and Technology held hearings on
geoengineering science and governance issues, and as part of those
hearings, the committee asked expert witnesses to testify about the
extent of existing geoengineering research and areas where additional
study is needed to better understand geoengineering approaches and
their potential impacts. In March 2010, we provided preliminary
observations on our work to the committee as part of these
hearings.[Footnote 12] Additionally, due to the interest of the
committee and the strategic relevance of this topic, we have initiated
a technology assessment on geoengineering. Internationally, the
European Union has initiated a research program to study the
scientific issues, as well as the policy implications of SRM
geoengineering approaches. Furthermore, some nongovernmental
organizations have begun to examine the scientific and policy issues
surrounding geoengineering.[Footnote 13]
Within this context, you asked us to review geoengineering. Our
objectives were to examine (1) the general state of the science
regarding geoengineering approaches and their potential effects; (2)
the extent to which the federal government is sponsoring or
participating in geoengineering research or deployment; and (3) the
views of legal experts and federal officials about the extent to which
federal laws and international agreements apply to geoengineering
activities, and associated challenges, if any, to geoengineering
governance.
To address these objectives, we reviewed relevant studies from peer-
reviewed journals, law reviews, scientific organizations, and
nongovernmental organizations related to geoengineering. We also
selected 10 knowledgeable scientific or policy experts and 8 legal
experts to interview based on criteria, including participation in one
of several expert panels related to geoengineering, the number of
articles authored in peer-reviewed journals or law reviews, and
recommendations from other recognized experts in their respective
fields. To determine the extent to which the federal government is
sponsoring or participating in geoengineering research or deployment,
we provided a document defining geoengineering and describing proposed
geoengineering approaches based on the Royal Society study to
officials from the 13 USGCRP-participating agencies, and asked them to
identify relevant federal activities during fiscal years 2009 and 2010
that fit these descriptions.[Footnote 14] Because the federal
government does not have a formal policy on geoengineering, we relied
on agency officials' professional judgment to identify relevant
activities. We collected these data through July 2010. We analyzed the
officials' responses and removed 12 activities that did not appear
related to geoengineering based on the definition we provided.
[Footnote 15] We then categorized the remaining activities into three
broad types: (1) activities related to conventional carbon mitigation
efforts that are directly applicable to a proposed geoengineering
approach, although not designated as such; (2) activities related to
improving basic scientific understanding of earth systems, processes,
or technologies that could be applied generally to geoengineering; and
(3) activities designed specifically to address a proposed
geoengineering approach that does not overlap with a conventional
carbon mitigation strategy. In addition, we met with officials and
staff from interagency bodies coordinating federal responses to
climate change, including OSTP, CEQ, and USGCRP, as well as the
Department of Energy (DOE), which coordinates the Climate Change
Technology Program--a multiagency research and development program for
climate change technology. We also reviewed federal laws and
international agreements, interviewed 7 legal experts,[Footnote 16]
and interviewed officials from the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the Department of State (State) to identify potentially
relevant federal laws and international agreements and discuss how
these laws and international agreements might apply to future
geoengineering efforts, and associated challenges, if any, to
geoengineering governance.
We conducted our work from December 2009 through September 2010 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Background:
Geoengineering proposals to deliberately alter the climate in response
to the greenhouse effect have appeared in scientific advisory reports
since at least the 1960s. Until recently, these proposals generally
remained outside the mainstream discussions of climate policy, which
focused either on strategies to reduce emissions or adapt to climate
change impacts. However, there is growing concern among many
scientists that the lack of progress on emissions reductions will lead
to gradual increases in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 beyond a
threshold that could prevent substantial impacts to human health and
environmental systems. Furthermore, there is also concern about the
existence of "tipping points," where the earth's climate system
reaches a threshold that unexpectedly results in abrupt and severe
changes. One example would be the rapid collapse of the West Antarctic
Ice Sheet--which would lead to a large and sudden contribution to sea
level rise.[Footnote 17] These concerns have led to increased interest
in geoengineering as a potential tool to help reduce the impacts of
climate change, although the NRC study noted that few, if any,
individuals are promoting geoengineering as a near-term alternative to
emissions reductions.
While both CDR and SRM are intended to reduce global temperatures,
there are substantial differences in how CDR and SRM operate on the
climate system, the timescales required for results, and their
associated risks and trade-offs. Consequently, CDR and SRM are often
discussed separately. The Royal Society identified several CDR
approaches that would directly remove CO2 from the atmosphere, as
shown in figure 1. Many of these methods are designed to enhance
natural physical, biological, or chemical processes that capture and
store CO2 in the ocean or on land. Examples of ocean-based CDR
approaches include:
* Enhanced removal by physical processes. Enhanced upwelling/
downwelling--altering ocean circulation patterns to bring deep,
nutrient rich water to the ocean's surface (upwelling), to promote
phytoplankton growth--which removes CO2 from the atmosphere, as
described below--and accelerating the transfer of CO2-rich water from
the surface of the ocean to the deep-sea (downwelling).
* Enhanced removal by biological processes. Ocean fertilization--
introducing nutrients such as iron, phosphorus, or nitrogen to the
ocean surface to promote phytoplankton growth. The phytoplankton
remove CO2 from the atmosphere during photosynthesis, and some of the
CO2 is transported to the deep ocean as detritus.
* Enhanced removal by chemical processes. Ocean-based enhanced
weathering--accelerating chemical reactions between certain minerals
and CO2, which convert the CO2 to a nongaseous state. Methods include
adding chemically reactive alkaline minerals, such as limestone or
silicates, to the ocean to increase the ocean's natural ability to
absorb and store CO2. (Not shown in figure 1.)
Examples of land-based CDR approaches include:
* Physical removal by industrial processes. Direct air capture--
technology-based processing of ambient air to remove CO2 from the
atmosphere. The resulting stream of pure CO2 can either be used or
injected into geological formations for storage (geological
sequestration).
* Enhanced removal by biological processes.[Footnote 18]
- Biomass energy with CO2 capture and geological sequestration--
harvesting vegetation and using it as a fuel source with capture and
storage of the resulting emissions in geological formations
(geological sequestration).
- Biomass for sequestration--harvesting of vegetation and sequestering
it as organic material by burying trees or crop wastes, or as charcoal
(biochar).
- Afforestation and land-use management--the planting of trees on
lands that historically have not been forested, or otherwise managing
vegetation cover to maximize CO2 sequestration in soil or biomass.
* Enhanced removal by chemical processes. Land-based enhanced
weathering--accelerating chemical reactions between certain minerals
and CO2, which convert the CO2 to a nongaseous state. Methods include
mining reactive minerals such as silicates, and then exposing them to
the air by spreading them on agricultural fields, or injecting a
stream of CO2 into a geological formation of reactive minerals.
Figure 1: Examples of CDR Approaches:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
The illustration depicts the following:
1. Enhanced upwelling/downwelling (100 to 200 meters).
2. Ocean fertilization with nutrients to promote phytoplankton growth.
3. Direct air capture with geological sequestration.
4. Biomass for energy with CO2 capture and geological sequestration.
5. Biomass for sequestration by burial or biochar.
6. Afforestration and land-use management.
7. Land-based enhanced weathering.
Sources: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and GAO analysis of
various sources.
[End of figure]
The Royal Society identified several SRM approaches that would reflect
a small percentage of incoming sunlight back to space, as shown in
figure 2. SRM approaches are generally discussed in terms of which
sphere they would act upon--space, the atmosphere, or the earth's
surface. Examples of SRM approaches include:
* Space-based methods. Reflecting or deflecting incoming solar
radiation using space-based shielding materials, such as mirrors.
* Atmosphere-based methods.
- Stratospheric aerosol injection--injecting reflective aerosol
particles into the stratosphere to scatter sunlight back into space.
Although it is possible that a wide range of particles could serve
this purpose, most attention has been on sulfur particles--partly
because temporary global cooling has been produced in the past by
volcanic eruptions.
- Cloud-brightening--adding sea salt or other cloud condensation
surfaces to low-level marine clouds to increase their ability to
reflect sunlight before it reaches the earth's surface.
* Surface-based methods. Increasing the reflectivity of the earth's
land or ocean surfaces[Footnote 19] through activities such as
painting roofs white, planting more reflective crops or other
vegetation, or covering desert or ocean surfaces with reflective
materials.
Figure 2: Examples of SRM Approaches:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
The illustration depicts the following:
1. Space-based reflective mirrors (Space).
2. Stratospheric aerosol injection (Stratosphere).
3. Cloud-brightening (Troposphere).
4. Painting roofs white.
5. Planting more reflective crops.
6. Covering desert surfaces with reflective material.
Sources: Lawrence Livermore Laboratory and GAO analysis of various
sources.
[End of figure]
According to the NRC and Royal Society studies, geoengineering is one
of several potential tools to limit the impact and consequences of
climate change. However, these studies state that geoengineering is a
potential complement to, rather than a substitute for, sharp
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while
geoengineering includes a range of approaches with varying degrees of
potential effectiveness and consequences--no geoengineering approach
can provide an easy or risk-free alternative solution to the problem
of climate change, according to the Royal Society study. For example,
compared to current CDR proposals, using SRM to divert incoming
sunlight would relatively quickly produce a cooling effect to
counteract the warming influence of increased atmospheric
concentrations of greenhouse gases. However, SRM does not address the
rising atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases produced by human
activity, and therefore would not reduce other serious climate change
impacts such as ocean acidification.
Furthermore, according to these studies, both CDR and SRM involve
additional environmental risks or other trade-offs. For example, ocean-
based CDR approaches, such as ocean fertilization, could have
unanticipated negative impacts on ocean ecosystems. Additionally, the
large-scale deployment of certain land-based CDR approaches, such as
afforestation, land-use management for sequestration, and biomass for
energy or burial, create trade-offs for land use. In general, the
Royal Society study found that compared to CDR, most SRM approaches
are associated with a higher risk of negative environmental effects,
such as negative impacts on regional temperature or precipitation. For
example, one study found that combining a reduction of incoming solar
radiation with high levels of atmospheric CO2 could have substantial
impacts on regional precipitation--potentially leading to reductions
that could create droughts in some areas.[Footnote 20] Additionally,
the Royal Society study said that increasing the reflectivity of
desert or ocean surfaces could have major impacts on desert or ocean
ecosystems. Moreover, this study indicated that the artificial balance
between increased greenhouse gas concentrations and reduced solar
radiation created by large-scale deployment of an SRM approach would
need to be maintained over decades and possibly centuries or longer.
[Footnote 21]
Geoengineering Is an Emerging Field with Major Uncertainties,
Including Potential Effects:
Experts said that geoengineering is an emerging field, with relatively
few experiments or other studies conducted and with major
uncertainties remaining. We found that more is known about certain CDR
approaches, since related laboratory and field experiments have been
conducted, whereas there is limited understanding of other CDR
approaches and SRM. Moreover, major uncertainties remain regarding the
scientific, legal, political, economic, and ethical implications of
researching or deploying geoengineering.
More Relevant Modeling Studies and Experiments Have Focused on CDR
than on SRM:
We found that relatively more laboratory and field research relevant
to certain CDR approaches exists, although most of this research was
not designed to apply to geoengineering. For example, according to the
International Energy Agency (IEA),[Footnote 22] there are several
projects injecting CO2 into geological formations and monitoring it.
The oldest of these is a private-sector project in Sleipner, Norway,
that began in 1996, according to the IEA. However, these projects are
primarily associated with public and private initiatives to study,
develop, and promote carbon capture and storage technologies as a
greenhouse gas emissions reduction strategy, rather than the large-
scale deployment of geological sequestration that would be required to
significantly alter the climate through geoengineering. For direct air
capture, one expert we selected said in a recent article that a system
could be created using existing technologies, and that a handful of
academic groups and small start-up companies have initiated direct air
capture research projects. However, the NRC study, Advancing the
Science of Climate Change, stated that major challenges remained in
making direct air capture systems viable in terms of cost, energy
requirements, and scalability.[Footnote 23] Similarly, the Royal
Society study found that both land-and ocean-based enhanced weathering
CDR approaches could potentially store a large amount of carbon, but
face barriers to deployment such as scale, cost, and possible
environmental consequences. This report also found that while some
other land-based CDR approaches--such as afforestation, land-use
management techniques, and biomass for energy or burial--can remove
CO2 from the atmosphere, their relative potential to significantly
reduce atmospheric concentrations of CO2 on a global scale is low.
[Footnote 24]
Other CDR approaches have been the focus of relatively few laboratory
and field experiments, and fundamental questions remain about their
potential efficacy. For example, according to the Royal Society and
NRC studies, while ocean fertilization has received some sustained
research activity, its potential to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and
keep it sequestered remains unclear. Specifically, we found that
several ocean fertilization experiments using iron have been conducted
as part of existing marine research studies or small-scale commercial
operations. However, one scientific researcher familiar with these
experiments noted that they were designed to improve scientific
understanding of the role of iron in ocean ecosystems and the carbon
cycle, not to investigate geoengineering.[Footnote 25] For example,
according to researchers who designed a 2009 joint German and Indian
iron fertilization experiment, their experiment was designed to test a
range of scientific hypotheses pertaining to the structure and
functioning of Southern Ocean ecosystems and their potential impact on
global cycles of biologically-generated elements, such as carbon and
nitrogen.[Footnote 26] Furthermore, these researchers noted that
future long-term experiments to study phytoplankton blooms and their
effect on the deep ocean and underlying sediments would have to be
much larger than experiments to date.
According to our review of relevant studies and expert interviews,
understanding of SRM is more limited than that of CDR because there
have been few laboratory experiments, field experiments, or computer
modeling efforts. Two of the most frequently discussed SRM approaches
are stratospheric aerosol injection and cloud-brightening, according
to many of the scientific experts we spoke with. For stratospheric
aerosol injection, some of the experts said that research to date
consisted primarily of a few modeling analyses. They also said that
more work would need to be done to assess whether this approach could
reduce incoming solar radiation without serious consequences. For
example, one study identified the potential for regional impacts on
precipitation--potentially leading to drought in some areas.[Footnote
27] Based on our literature review and interviews with experts, to
date only one study has been published for a field experiment related
to SRM technologies--a 2009 Russian experiment that injected aerosols
into the middle troposphere to measure their reflectivity.[Footnote
28] Similarly, in the case of cloud-brightening, several experts said
that there currently is not enough research to assess its
effectiveness or impacts. According to the 2010 NRC study, other
methods for SRM, including using space-based reflectors and increasing
the solar reflectivity of buildings or plants, have limited potential,
either due to the cost of deployment or the limited potential to
affect the climate.
Experts and Relevant Studies Identified Major Uncertainties that Merit
Further Investigation:
Experts we interviewed and relevant studies identified several major
uncertainties in the field of geoengineering that are in need of
further investigation. These uncertainties ranged from important
scientific questions for CDR and SRM, to political, ethical, and
regulatory issues. Areas that merit further investigation include:
* Technical feasibility and effectiveness of SRM and certain CDR
approaches. Experts we interviewed and the Royal Society and NRC
studies agreed that SRM approaches generally were not researched
sufficiently to be considered well-understood or technically feasible.
Additionally, questions remain regarding the effectiveness of certain
CDR approaches, such as ocean fertilization and some land-based
methods, to significantly reduce atmospheric concentrations of CO2 on
a global scale, or sequester CO2 over the long term, according to
relevant studies.
* Unintended consequences. According to the NRC and Royal Society
studies as well as some of the experts we interviewed, modeling
studies indicate that stratospheric aerosol injection could change
regional precipitation and that other unintended effects are
possible.[Footnote 29] The Royal Society study also noted that large-
scale deployment of CDR approaches, such as methods requiring
substantial mineral extraction--including land-or ocean-based enhanced
weathering--may have unintended and significant impacts within and
beyond national borders. For example, the study noted that impacts
from enhanced weathering approaches could include localized
environmental damage caused by increased mineral extraction activity,
as well as changes to soil and ocean surface water pH that could
affect vegetation and marine life. Several of the experts that we
spoke with agreed that potential unintended consequences of
geoengineering approaches require further study.[Footnote 30]
* Better understanding of the climate and a way to determine when a
"climate emergency" is reached. The NRC study recommended additional
basic climate science research, including (1) improved detection and
attribution of climate change to distinguish the effects of
intentional intervention in the climate system from other causes of
climate change, and (2) information on climate system thresholds,
reversibility, and abrupt changes to inform societal debate and
decision-making over what would constitute a "climate emergency" and
whether deployment of a geoengineering approach would be merited.
* How best to regulate geoengineering internationally. Several of the
experts we interviewed as well as the NRC study emphasized the
potential for international tension, distrust, or even conflict over
geoengineering deployment. The NRC study also stated that global-scale
geoengineering deployment creates the potential for uneven positive
and negative regional outcomes, and this raises questions of decision-
making and national security. Further research can help clarify what
type of governance might be useful and when, both for deployment and
for field experiments that may involve risks of negative consequences.
* Political, economic, and ethical concerns. Some experts we
interviewed and relevant studies said that geoengineering introduces
important political, economic, and ethical questions. For example,
several experts said that pursuing geoengineering research could
unintentionally reduce interest in reducing CO2 emissions and that
social science research would be needed to assess this potential
effect. The NRC studies stated that major questions remain regarding
the economic viability of certain CDR approaches, such as direct air
capture and enhanced weathering.[Footnote 31] Additionally, one expert
raised concerns over the potential economic costs associated with
unintended impacts from deploying SRM.[Footnote 32] Furthermore, NRC
reported that public involvement is critical to making decisions about
whether to pursue testing and deployment of geoengineering and that
research is needed to determine how best to involve the public in such
a decision-making process.
Federal Agencies Are Sponsoring Research Relevant to Geoengineering,
but There Is No Coordinated Federal Strategy, Making It Difficult to
Determine the Extent of Relevant Research:
USGCRP agencies reported funding at least 52 research activities
relevant to geoengineering in fiscal years 2009 and 2010. We found
that, of these 52 activities, 43 were either related to conventional
mitigation strategies or were fundamental scientific research, whereas
9 directly investigated a particular geoengineering approach. We
identified approximately $100.9 million in geoengineering-related
funding across USGCRP agencies in fiscal years 2009 and 2010, with
about $1.9 million of this amount related to research directly
investigating a particular geoengineering approach. The other roughly
$99 million was related to research concerning conventional mitigation
strategies that could be applied directly to a particular
geoengineering approach or basic science that could be applied
generally to geoengineering. However, there is no coordinated federal
strategy or operational definition for geoengineering, so agencies and
policymakers may not know the full extent of relevant federal research.
Most Federal Research Activities Focused on Mitigation or Basic
Science, but a Few Specifically Addressed Geoengineering:
The 13 agencies participating in USGCRP identified 52 research
activities relevant to geoengineering--accounting for approximately
$100.9 million in federal funding for fiscal years 2009 and 2010.
[Footnote 33] Twenty-eight of these activities--funded at
approximately $54.4 million--were related to conventional mitigation
strategies that are directly applicable to a particular CDR approach,
such as enhancing land-based biological removal of CO2 or geological
sequestration of CO2, according to our analysis. Fifteen of the
reported activities--funded at approximately $44.6 million--were
fundamental scientific efforts that could be generally applied to
geoengineering, such as modeling the interactions between the
atmosphere and the climate and basic research into processes to
separate gas streams into their individual components, such as CO2 or
methane. The remaining nine activities--funded at approximately $1.9
million--directly investigated a particular geoengineering approach,
such as stratospheric aerosol injection that does not overlap with a
conventional mitigation strategy. Table 1 summarizes the reported
funding for the 52 identified activities by each geoengineering
approach and our categorization of the results. For more detailed
information on reported activities, see appendix IV.
Table 1: Summary of Reported Research Activities Relevant to
Geoengineering at USGCRP Agencies, Combined Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010:
(In thousands of dollars):
Geoengineering approach: CDR: Biological carbon removal and
sequestration;
Fundamental research with general applicability: Activities: 2;
Fundamental research with general applicability: Reported funding:
$26,308;
Mitigation-related research with direct applicability: Activities: 10;
Mitigation-related research with direct applicability: Reported
funding: $27,323;
Direct geoengineering research: Activities: 1;
Direct geoengineering research: Reported funding: $474;
Total[A]: Activities: 13;
Total[A]: Reported funding: $54,105.
Geoengineering approach: CDR: Physical carbon removal and
sequestration;
Fundamental research with general applicability: Activities: 10;
Fundamental research with general applicability: Reported funding:
$2,076;
Mitigation-related research with direct applicability: Activities: 16;
Mitigation-related research with direct applicability: Reported
funding: $26,695;
Direct geoengineering research: Activities: 2;
Direct geoengineering research: Reported funding: 293;
Total[A]: Activities: 28;
Total[A]: Reported funding: $29,064.
Geoengineering approach: CDR: Chemical carbon removal and
sequestration;
Fundamental research with general applicability: Activities: [Empty];
Fundamental research with general applicability: Reported funding:
[Empty];
Mitigation-related research with direct applicability: Activities: 2;
Mitigation-related research with direct applicability: Reported
funding: $334;
Direct geoengineering research: Activities: [Empty];
Direct geoengineering research: Reported funding: [Empty];
Total[A]: Activities: 2;
Total[A]: Reported funding: $334.
Geoengineering approach: SRM: Multiple approaches;
Fundamental research with general applicability: Activities: [Empty];
Fundamental research with general applicability: Reported funding:
[Empty];
Mitigation-related research with direct applicability: Activities:
[Empty];
Mitigation-related research with direct applicability: Reported
funding: [Empty];
Direct geoengineering research: Activities: 4;
Direct geoengineering research: Reported funding: $904;
Total[A]: Activities: 4;
Total[A]: Reported funding: $904.
Geoengineering approach: SRM: Stratospheric aerosol injection;
Fundamental research with general applicability: Activities: [Empty];
Fundamental research with general applicability: Reported funding:
[Empty];
Mitigation-related research with direct applicability: Activities:
[Empty];
Mitigation-related research with direct applicability: Reported
funding: [Empty];
Direct geoengineering research: Activities: 1;
Direct geoengineering research: Reported funding: $45;
Total[A]: Activities: 1;
Total[A]: Reported funding: $45.
Geoengineering approach: Other greenhouse gas removal;
Fundamental research with general applicability: Activities: 2;
Fundamental research with general applicability: Reported funding:
$400;
Mitigation-related research with direct applicability: Activities:
[Empty];
Mitigation-related research with direct applicability: Reported
funding: [Empty];
Direct geoengineering research: Activities: [Empty];
Direct geoengineering research: Reported funding: [Empty];
Total[A]: Activities: 2;
Total[A]: Reported funding: $400.
Geoengineering approach: General geoengineering;
Fundamental research with general applicability: Activities: 1;
Fundamental research with general applicability: Reported funding:
$15,840;
Mitigation-related research with direct applicability: Activities:
[Empty];
Mitigation-related research with direct applicability: Reported
funding: [Empty];
Direct geoengineering research: Activities: 1;
Direct geoengineering research: Reported funding: $170;
[Empty];
Total[A]: Activities: 2;
Total[A]: Reported funding: $16,010.
Geoengineering approach: Approximate total[B];
Fundamental research with general applicability: Activities: 15;
Fundamental research with general applicability: Reported funding:
$44,624;
Mitigation-related research with direct applicability: Activities: 28;
Mitigation-related research with direct applicability: Reported
funding: $54,352;
Direct geoengineering research: Activities: 9;
Direct geoengineering research: Reported funding: $1,886;
Total[A]: Activities: 52;
Total[A]: Reported funding: $100,862.
Source: GAO analysis of the agencies' responses to our data collection
instrument, which provided a definition and description of
geoengineering to officials. The data collection instrument also
included some examples of potentially relevant activities based on our
work for our March testimony on geoengineering.
Note: We collected data on agency activities through July 2010.
Accordingly, additional activities relevant to geoengineering may
receive funding during fiscal year 2010.
[A] Reported funding totals for each approach may not add across
tables 1, 2, and 3 due to rounding.
[B] We present an approximate total because agencies used different
measures to report funding data. For example, while most agencies
provided obligations data, EPA reported enacted budget authority.
Additionally, the Department of the Interior (Interior) reported
planned obligations for a grant that had not yet been awarded.
[End of table]
Of the 43 activities related to fundamental research or mitigation
efforts relevant to geoengineering but not designed to address it
directly, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) reported the most
funding--approximately $41.6 million. This was largely due to the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) climate
modeling and monitoring of biological emissions and absorption of
greenhouse gases, which NOAA officials said could be relevant for
assessing the impacts and efficacy of various geoengineering
approaches. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), DOE, the
Department of the Interior (Interior), and EPA reported similar levels
of funding--from about $11.3 million to $13.9 million. These efforts
were largely directed at measuring and monitoring carbon sequestration
potential in soils and biomass and assessing the impacts and storage
potential for geological sequestration of CO2. Although these
activities are associated with efforts to reduce or offset emissions,
agency officials identified them as relevant to certain CDR
approaches--such as large-scale afforestation, and direct air capture--
based on the working definition we provided. Table 2 summarizes the
approximately $99 million in reported funding for the 43 relevant
activities related to conventional mitigation efforts and fundamental
scientific research, by agency.
Table 2: Summary of Reported Mitigation-Related Research and
Fundamental Scientific Research Relevant to Geoengineering, by USGCRP
Agency, Combined Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010:
(In thousands of dollars):
Geoengineering approach: CDR: Biological carbon removal and
sequestration;
Reported funding: Commerce: $25,800;
Reported funding: USDA: $13,900;
Reported funding: Interior: $7,652;
Reported funding: DOE: $5,078;
Reported funding: EPA: $300;
Reported funding: Other[A]: $900;
Total[B]: Activities: 12;
Total[B]: Reported funding: $53,630.
Geoengineering approach: CDR: Physical carbon removal and
sequestration;
Reported funding: Commerce: [Empty];
Reported funding: USDA:[Empty];
Reported funding: Interior: $5,250;
Reported funding: DOE: $6,759;
Reported funding: EPA: $11,000;
Reported funding: Other[A]: $5,763;
Total[B]: Activities: 26;
Total[B]: Reported funding: $28,772.
Geoengineering approach: CDR: Chemical carbon removal and
sequestration;
Reported funding: Commerce: [Empty];
Reported funding: USDA: [Empty];
Reported funding: Interior: [Empty];
Reported funding: DOE: [Empty];
Reported funding: EPA: [Empty];
Reported funding: Other[A]: $334;
Total[B]: Activities: 2;
Total[B]: Reported funding: $334.
Geoengineering approach: Other greenhouse gas removal;
Reported funding: Commerce: [Empty];
Reported funding: USDA: [Empty];
Reported funding: Interior: [Empty];
Reported funding: DOE: [Empty];
Reported funding: EPA: [Empty];
Reported funding: Other[A]: $400;
Total[B]: Activities: 2;
Total[B]: Reported funding: $400.
Geoengineering approach: General geoengineering;
Reported funding: Commerce: $15,840;
Reported funding: USDA: [Empty];
Reported funding: Interior: [Empty];
Reported funding: DOE: [Empty];
Reported funding: EPA: [Empty];
Reported funding: Other[A]: [Empty];
Total[B]: Activities: 1;
Total[B]: Reported funding: $15,840.
Geoengineering approach: Approximate total[C];
Reported funding: Commerce: $41,640;
Reported funding: USDA: $13,900;
Reported funding: Interior: $12,902;
Reported funding: DOE: $11,837;
Reported funding: EPA: $11,300;
Reported funding: Other[A]: $7,397;
Total[B]: Activities: 43;
Total[B]: Reported funding: $98,976.
Source: GAO analysis of the agencies' responses to our data collection
instrument, which provided a definition and description of
geoengineering to officials. The data collection instrument also
included some examples of potentially relevant activities based on our
work for our March testimony on geoengineering.
Note: We collected data on agency activities through July 2010.
Accordingly, additional activities relevant to geoengineering may
receive funding during fiscal year 2010.
[A] Other represents the eight other agencies participating in the
USGCRP.
[B] Reported funding totals for each approach may not add across
tables 1, 2, and 3 due to rounding.
[C] We present an approximate total because agencies used different
measures to report funding data. For example, while most agencies
provided obligations data, EPA reported enacted budget authority.
Additionally, Interior reported planned obligations for a grant that
had not yet been awarded.
[End of table]
The National Science Foundation (NSF), DOE, and Commerce were the only
agencies that reported funding for activities directly supporting
geoengineering research during fiscal years 2009 and 2010. Of these
agencies, NSF reported the most funding--approximately $1.1 million--
directed to three research activities: a study on the potential
impacts of ocean iron fertilization, a study to examine the moral
challenges associated with SRM, and a modeling effort investigating
stratospheric aerosol injection and space-based SRM approaches. DOE
reported funding research--approximately $700,000--for two studies
about direct air capture technologies, a modeling activity for
stratospheric aerosol injection and cloud-brightening, as well as a
study investigating the unintended consequences of climate change
responses, including CDR and SRM approaches. Commerce reported funding
two relevant research efforts--for about $70,000--examining the
unintended impacts of SRM approaches, with one study focused on
climate-related impacts and the other study exploring potential
effects on solar electricity generation. Table 3 summarizes the
approximately $1.9 million in reported funding for the nine relevant
activities directly supporting geoengineering research, by agency.
Table 3: Summary of Reported Direct Geoengineering Research, by USGCRP
Agency, Combined Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010:
(In thousands of dollars):
Geoengineering approach: CDR: Biological carbon removal and
sequestration;
Reported funding: Commerce: [Empty];
Reported funding: [Empty];
Reported funding: DOE: [Empty];
Reported funding: [Empty];
Reported funding: NSF: $474;
Total[A]: Activities: 1;
Total[A]: Reported funding: $474.
Geoengineering approach: CDR: Physical carbon removal and
sequestration;
Reported funding: Commerce: [Empty];
Reported funding: [Empty];
Reported funding: DOE: $293;
Reported funding: [Empty];
Reported funding: NSF: [Empty];
Total[A]: Activities: 2;
Total[A]: Reported funding: $293.
Geoengineering approach: SRM: Multiple approaches;
Reported funding: Commerce: $25;
Reported funding: [Empty];
Reported funding: DOE: $266;
Reported funding: [Empty];
Reported funding: NSF: $613;
Total[A]: Activities: 4;
Total[A]: Reported funding: $904.
Geoengineering approach: SRM: Stratospheric aerosol injection;
Reported funding: Commerce: $45;
Reported funding: [Empty];
Reported funding: DOE: [Empty];
Reported funding: [Empty];
Reported funding: NSF: [Empty];
Total[A]: Activities: 1;
Total[A]: Reported funding: $45.
Geoengineering approach: General geoengineering;
Reported funding: Commerce: [Empty];
Reported funding: [Empty];
Reported funding: DOE: $170;
Reported funding: [Empty];
Reported funding: NSF: [Empty];
Total[A]: Activities: 1;
Total[A]: Reported funding: $170.
Geoengineering approach: Approximate total[B];
Reported funding: Commerce: $70;
Reported funding: [Empty];
Reported funding: DOE: $729;
Reported funding: [Empty];
Reported funding: NSF: $1,087;
Total[A]: Activities: 9;
Total[A]: Reported funding: $1,886.
Source: GAO analysis of the agencies' responses to our data collection
instrument, which provided a definition and description of
geoengineering to officials. The data collection instrument also
included some examples of potentially relevant activities based on our
work for our March testimony on geoengineering.
Note: We collected data on agency activities through July 2010.
Accordingly, additional activities relevant to geoengineering may
receive funding during fiscal year 2010.
[A] Reported funding totals for each approach may not add across
tables 1, 2, and 3 due to rounding.
[B] We present an approximate total because agencies used different
measures to report funding data. For example, while most agencies
provided obligations data, EPA reported enacted budget authority.
Additionally, Interior reported planned obligations for a grant that
had not yet been awarded.
[End of table]
During our review, we also found examples of other relevant activities
sponsored by USGCRP agencies that were outside the scope of our data
request, mostly because they occurred prior to 2009. These activities
included:
* DOE sponsored studies on ocean-based carbon sequestration
approaches, such as ocean fertilization and direct injection of CO2
into deep ocean sediments, from 2000 to 2006. From 2007 to 2008, DOE
also sponsored research investigating the potential application of
porous glass materials for SRM approaches.
* From 2006 to 2007, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) funded a research study investigating the practicality of using
a solar shield in space to deflect sunlight and reduce global
temperatures as part of its former independent Institute for Advanced
Concepts program.[Footnote 34] Additionally, scientists at NASA's Ames
Research Center held a conference on SRM approaches in 2006, in
conjunction with the Carnegie Institution of Washington. NASA also
funded atmospheric modeling studies, which were used by independent
researchers, in part, to assess the potential impact of stratospheric
aerosols on the ozone layer.
* In 2008, NSF sponsored studies examining the long-term carbon
storage potential of soils and the impact of increased nitrogen on
biological carbon sequestration.
* A Department of Defense (DOD) advisory group sponsored a 1-day
workshop at Stanford University on geoengineering in 2009; however,
DOD officials said that no funded research projects resulted from this
workshop.
* In 2007, EPA funded research relevant to the economic implications
of SRM approaches through its National Center for Environmental
Economics.
Furthermore, federal officials also noted that a large fraction of the
existing federal research and observations on basic climate change and
earth science could be relevant to improving understanding about
proposed geoengineering approaches and their potential impacts. For
instance, federal officials said that basic research conducted by
USGCRP agencies into oceanic chemistry could help address uncertainty
about the potential effectiveness and impacts of CDR approaches, such
as ocean fertilization. Similarly, ongoing research conducted by
USGCRP agencies related to understanding atmospheric circulation and
aerosol/cloud interactions could help improve understanding about the
potential effectiveness and impacts of proposed SRM approaches.
Existing Federal Efforts Are Not Part of a Coordinated Geoengineering
Research Strategy, Making It Difficult to Determine the Full Extent of
Relevant Research:
We found that it was difficult to determine the full extent of federal
geoengineering research activities because there is no coordinated
federal strategy for geoengineering, including guidance on how to
define federal geoengineering activities or efforts to identify and
track federal funding related to geoengineering. Officials from
federal offices coordinating federal responses to climate change--CEQ,
OSTP, and USGCRP--stated that they do not currently have a coordinated
geoengineering strategy or position. For example, a USGCRP official
stated that there is no group coordinating federal geoengineering
research and that such a group is not currently necessary because of
the small amount of federal funding involved. However, while USGCRP
agencies reported about $1.9 million in funding for activities
directly investigating geoengineering, federal officials also told us
that a large fraction of the existing federal research and
observations on basic climate change and earth science could be
relevant to understanding geoengineering. According to the USGCRP's
most recent report to Congress, USGCRP agencies requested roughly $2
billion in budget authority for climate change and earth science
activities in fiscal year 2010. Consequently, the actual funding for
research that could be applied either generally or directly to
understanding geoengineering approaches is likely greater than the
roughly $100.9 million reported in response to our data request.
However, without the guidance of an operational definition for what
constitutes geoengineering or a strategy to capitalize on existing
research efforts, federal agencies may not recognize or be able to
report the full extent of potentially relevant research activities.
For example, some agency officials indicated that, without a clear
governmentwide definition, in their determination of which federal
research activities were relevant to geoengineering, our data request
was subject to different interpretations--particularly for CDR
approaches, since there is extensive overlap with existing mitigation
efforts. In particular, EPA and USDA officials said that there is a
large body of research regarding biological sequestration but that
these officials would not consider it to be geoengineering. However,
officials from other agencies, such as Interior and DOE, included
certain research on biological sequestration as relevant to
geoengineering based on the definition we provided. Similarly, we
found that from NSF officials' perspectives, the distinction between
existing efforts to develop carbon capture and storage technologies,
such as membranes to separate CO2 from other gases, and geoengineering
direct air capture technologies is also not well-defined. This
definitional issue is not unique to these agencies. In its recent
study Advancing the Science of Climate Change, NRC acknowledged the
lack of consensus regarding what constitutes geoengineering in
relation to widely accepted practices that remove CO2 from the
atmosphere.[Footnote 35]
The NRC study included other findings about the nation's climate
change science efforts that may be relevant to a potential federal
geoengineering strategy. The study emphasized the importance of
providing decision makers with scientific information on a range of
available options, including geoengineering, to limit future climate
change and its impacts. According to this study, this information
would help policymakers use adaptive risk management to update
response strategies as new information on climate change risks and
response strategies becomes available.[Footnote 36] NRC recommended an
integrative, interdisciplinary research effort to improve
understanding of available response options, as well as of climate
change and its impacts. The study indicated that this effort should be
led by a single coordinating body, and NRC identified USGCRP's
capacity to play a role in such an effort.[Footnote 37] Similarly,
several of the experts we interviewed recommended that federal
geoengineering research should be an interdisciplinary effort across
multiple agencies and led by a coordinating body, such as OSTP or
USGCRP.
Our recent work offers insights on key considerations for establishing
governmentwide strategies, which could be relevant to a future
geoengineering strategy. Specifically, our review of federal efforts
related to crosscutting issues, such as climate change adaptation
[Footnote 38] and global food security,[Footnote 39] highlighted key
practices for enhancing collaboration across agencies. These practices
include establishing a commonly accepted operational definition for
relevant activities; leveraging existing resources to support common
outcomes and address identified needs; and developing mechanisms to
monitor, evaluate, and report on results. Furthermore, our review of
DOE's FutureGen project--a program to help build the world's first
coal-fired, zero-emissions power plant--identified important factors
to consider when developing a strategy for technology-based research.
[Footnote 40] Specifically, we found that it is important to
comprehensively assess the costs, benefits, and risks of each
technological option and to identify potential overlap between
proposed and existing programs. For example, the NRC study
acknowledged the importance of improving understanding of SRM and its
consequences, without replacing or reducing existing research on
climate change science or other approaches to limiting climate change
or adapting to its impacts. As the study noted, much of the research
needed to advance scientific understanding of SRM, such as studying
the climate effects of aerosols and cloud physics, is also necessary
to advance understanding of the climate system, and could therefore
contribute more broadly to climate change science. Similarly, an OSTP
official said that ongoing fundamental research to investigate the
relationship of cloud/aerosol interactions could also be applied to
improve understanding of certain SRM approaches.
In the absence of a coordinated federal strategy for geoengineering,
decisions about whether a particular research activity is relevant to
geoengineering may not necessarily be consistent across the federal
government. In addition, agencies generally do not collect and share
information on such research activities in the context of
geoengineering. While EPA officials told us that certain agencies,
such as EPA, State, and NOAA, share information about ocean
fertilization and direct injection of CO2 into deep sub-seabed
geological formations as part of a working group for international
regulation of the ocean,[Footnote 41] a USGCRP official said there is
no working group to share information or coordinate geoengineering
research more broadly, because such an action would require a decision
from the administration to pursue geoengineering research on a larger
scale. However, without a coordinated effort to identify relevant
research and share information across agencies, policymakers and
agency officials may lack key information needed to inform their
decisions on geoengineering research. For example, if policymakers and
officials do not know the full extent of the relevant federally funded
research that is under way, they may not have sufficient information
to leverage existing research on climate change science to also
improve understanding of geoengineering.
The Extent to Which Existing Federal Laws and International Agreements
Apply to Geoengineering Is Unclear, and Experts and Officials
Identified Governance Challenges:
Legal experts we interviewed and EPA and Department of State (State)
officials said that the extent to which existing laws and
international agreements apply to geoengineering is unclear, largely
because detailed information on geoengineering approaches and effects
is not available.[Footnote 42] EPA has taken steps to regulate one CDR
approach and has determined that an existing law provides sufficient
authority to regulate two other approaches. EPA officials provided
their preliminary thoughts on how other laws might apply to
geoengineering activities. However, according to EPA officials, they
have not fully assessed (1) whether the agency has the authority to
regulate or (2) how to regulate most geoengineering approaches,
because the research is still in its initial stages. Similarly, legal
experts and State officials stated that many international agreements
could apply to geoengineering; however, most agreements' applicability
is unclear because they were not intended to address geoengineering
and parties to the agreements have not determined whether or how the
agreements should apply to relevant geoengineering activities. This
uncertainty and inaction is due, in part, to the limited general
understanding of geoengineering and a lack of geoengineering activity.
Legal experts and federal officials identified challenges for
establishing governance of geoengineering, such as the potential for
unintended and uneven impacts, although their views differed on the
most effective governance approach.
EPA Officials Stated the Applicability of Existing Laws is Unclear and
They Have Not Fully Assessed Their Applicability Because of Limited
Geoengineering Activity:
EPA officials stated that the extent to which existing federal
environmental laws apply to geoengineering is unclear, largely because
detailed information on most geoengineering approaches and effects is
not available. However, EPA officials said that there is relatively
more information available about geological sequestration of CO2--a
conventional mitigation strategy--which could be relevant to certain
CDR approaches that capture CO2 from the air and sequester it
underground or in the sub-seabed. EPA has taken steps to regulate
geological sequestration under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and EPA
officials said that the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act of 1972 provides the agency with authority to regulate (1) certain
sub-seabed geological sequestration activities, and (2) ocean
fertilization activities. Specifically:
* EPA has authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act to regulate
underground injections of various substances and is using this
authority to develop a rule to govern the underground injection of CO2
for geological sequestration. Although the rule's preamble discusses
geological sequestration as the process of injecting CO2 captured from
an emission source, such as a power plant or industrial facility, the
rule's definition of geological sequestration is broad enough to
include long-term sequestration of CO2 captured directly from the air.
The proposed rule was published in July 2008, and EPA officials told
us the final rule is scheduled to be promulgated in late 2010. In
addition, EPA also issued a proposed rule in 2010 that would require
monitoring and reporting of CO2 injection and geological
sequestration, which is scheduled to be finalized in the fall of 2010.
* Under the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972,
as amended, certain persons are generally prohibited from dumping
material, including material for ocean fertilization, into the ocean
without a permit from EPA.[Footnote 43] EPA officials said that
certain sub-seabed geological sequestration of CO2 and ocean
fertilization activities would require a permit pursuant to this act.
In addition, they said some atmospheric-based geoengineering
approaches may also require a permit if the aerosol particles
eventually could be deposited into the ocean.
For most other laws and geoengineering approaches, EPA officials said
that the agency has not considered the applicability of existing laws
because the technologies have not reached a sufficient level of
development. In particular, EPA officials stated that they would need
detailed information on the activity itself, including the materials
used and the delivery mechanism, as well as information on potential
effects from the activity, to perform a regulatory risk assessment of
environmental and human health impacts under existing laws. However,
such information is not available for most geoengineering approaches.
Furthermore, EPA officials noted that they have difficulty determining
whether a particular activity is considered geoengineering because
there is no standard definition for geoengineering. For example, EPA
officials said that there is a substantial body of knowledge related
to terrestrial biological sequestration and to programs that offset
greenhouse gas emissions, but EPA would not necessarily label these
activities as geoengineering.
Although EPA officials had not formally assessed how existing laws
would apply to geoengineering, they shared their preliminary thoughts
on the applicability of the following laws, including how additional
laws could apply to geological sequestration[Footnote 44] and ocean
fertilization:
* Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA). RCRA
regulates the management of hazardous waste from generation of the
waste to its disposal. An EPA official stated that EPA has been
examining questions of RCRA's applicability to geological
sequestration of CO2 and is currently considering a proposed rule to
clarify how RCRA hazardous waste requirements apply in that context.
This official also noted that RCRA's applicability to other
geoengineering approaches where materials are applied to the land or
oceans would depend on whether there was intent to discard the
materials and whether the materials are a hazardous waste.
* Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA). CERCLA authorizes EPA to clean up hazardous
substance releases at contaminated sites and then seek reimbursement
from the parties responsible for contaminating them or compel the
responsible parties to clean up these sites.[Footnote 45] Responsible
parties include current and former site owners and operators, as well
as those who transport or arrange for the disposal of the hazardous
substances. Although a stream of pure CO2 is not a hazardous substance
under CERCLA, an EPA official noted that injected CO2 streams could
contain hazardous substances, thus subjecting the parties injecting
the CO2 to liability for any release that did not qualify as federally-
permitted release. In addition, if CO2 enters groundwater, it might
also cause hazardous substances, such as some metals, to be dissolved
by the groundwater from enclosing strata. If that constitutes a
release of hazardous substances from a "facility," such as the strata,
then the owner of that facility could be liable for any cleanup costs
caused by that release. This official was not aware of CERCLA's
applicability to any other geoengineering activity.
* Clean Air Act. This law authorizes EPA to regulate emissions of
certain air pollutants from mobile and stationary sources into the
ambient air, including those that destroy the stratospheric ozone
layer. EPA officials said that the act could apply to geoengineering
activities that emitted air pollutants into the atmosphere--either as
the purpose of the activity or as a side effect--depending on where
the pollutant was released and the delivery mechanism. Officials also
noted that although the act regulates emissions into the ambient air,
substances injected into the upper atmosphere that eventually cycle
down to ground level could also be subject to regulation, depending on
the definition of ambient air. EPA officials stated that they would
require further information on the specific technology and activity to
determine exactly how the law might apply.
In addition, EPA and DOE officials noted that geoengineering
activities undertaken, funded, or authorized by federal agencies would
be subject to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA),
the Endangered Species Act, and the conformity provision of the Clean
Air Act. NEPA requires federal agencies to evaluate the likely
environmental effects of certain major federal actions using an
environmental assessment or, if the projects likely would
significantly affect the environment, a more detailed environmental
impact statement. Under the Endangered Species Act, geoengineering
activities taken or authorized by federal agencies would require
consultation among federal agencies, including the Fish and Wildlife
Service and NOAA, to ensure that the activity is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species or adversely modify habitat critical for the species. Under
the Clean Air Act's conformity provision, no federal agency may
approve or provide financial assistance for any activity that does not
conform with a state implementation plan, which is a plan required by
the act to ensure that national ambient air quality standards are met.
Experts and Federal Officials Identified International Agreements That
Could Apply to Geoengineering, but Their Applicability Is Largely
Uncertain:
Acknowledging the lack of an existing international agreement that
comprehensively addresses geoengineering, State officials and legal
experts we interviewed said that many agreements could perhaps apply
to a geoengineering activity and its impacts, depending on the
activity's nature, location, and actors. For example, some
international agreements with broad scopes, such as the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change,[Footnote 46] could apply
generally to geoengineering activities, whereas other agreements
specifically addressing the atmosphere, oceans, and space could apply
only if the activity occurred in or impacted that particular area.
However, international agreements legally bind only those countries
that have become parties to the particular agreement.[Footnote 47]
Therefore, the number of parties to a particular agreement determines,
in part, where the agreement applies, and countries that are not
parties are not legally bound to abide by the agreement. Table 4
summarizes certain agreements identified by legal experts and relevant
studies as potentially applicable to geoengineering and the number of
parties to a particular agreement.[Footnote 48]
Table 4: Examples of International Agreements Potentially Applicable
to Geoengineering, as Identified by Legal Experts and Relevant Studies:
Applicable to a variety of approaches:
International agreement: Convention on the Prohibition of Military or
Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques;
Number of parties: 73;
U.S. participation[A]: Party.
International agreement: Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment
in a Transboundary Context;
Number of parties: 44;
U.S. participation[A]: Signatory but not party.
International agreement: Protocol on Strategic Environmental
Assessment to the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a
Transboundary Context[B];
Number of parties: 18;
U.S. participation[A]: Neither a signatory nor party.
International agreement: United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC);
Number of parties: 195;
U.S. participation[A]: Party.
International agreement: Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC;
Number of parties: 192;
U.S. participation[A]: Signatory but not party.
International agreement: Convention on Biological Diversity[C];
Number of parties: 193;
U.S. participation[A]: Signatory but not party.
Ocean-based approaches:
International agreement: Convention on the Prevention of Marine
Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (London Convention)[C];
Number of parties: 85;
U.S. participation[A]: Party.
International agreement: 1996 Protocol to the London Convention
(London Protocol)[C];
Number of parties: 38;
U.S. participation[A]: Signatory but not party.
International agreement: United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea;
Number of parties: 160;
U.S. participation[A]: Neither a signatory nor party.
Atmosphere-based approaches:
International agreement: Vienna Convention for the Protection of the
Ozone Layer;
Number of parties: 196;
U.S. participation[A]: Party.
International agreement: 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that
Deplete the Ozone Layer;
Number of parties: 196;
U.S. participation[A]: Party.
International agreement: Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air
Pollution;
Number of parties: 51;
U.S. participation[A]: Party.
Space-based approaches:
International agreement: Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities
of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space;
Number of parties: 100;
U.S. participation[A]: Party.
International agreement: Convention on International Liability for
Damage Caused by Space Objects;
Number of parties: 88;
U.S. participation[A]: Party.
Approaches in Antarctic:
International agreement: The Antarctic Treaty of 1959;
Number of parties: 28[D];
U.S. participation[A]: Party.
International agreement: 1991 Protocol on Environmental Protection to
the Antarctic Treaty;
Number of parties: 28[D];
U.S. participation[A]: Party.
International agreement: Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic
Marine Living Resources;
Number of parties: 27[D];
U.S. participation[A]: Party.
Source: GAO analysis of expert interviews, relevant studies, and
United Nations' data on party status.
Note: Because few formal analyses of existing international
agreements' applicability to geoengineering have been published and
geoengineering science continues to evolve, this list may not include
all agreements potentially applicable to geoengineering approaches.
[A] Countries that have signed an international agreement but have not
consented to be bound by the treaty are referred to as signatories.
[B] This agreement is not yet in force.
[C] The parties to this agreement have issued a decision related to
geoengineering.
[D] This is the number of parties entitled to participate in
consultative meetings during such time as the party demonstrates its
interest in Antarctica by conducting substantial research activity
there.
[End of table]
Almost all the legal experts and State officials we spoke with noted
that, of all the potential geoengineering approaches, sub-seabed
geological sequestration of CO2 and ocean fertilization had received
the most international attention to date, and that parties to
international agreements had issued decisions regarding the
application of the agreements to ocean fertilization and amended an
agreement to include sub-seabed geological sequestration in certain
circumstances. In particular:
* Ocean fertilization. The parties to the London Convention and the
London Protocol[Footnote 49] have decided that the scope of these
agreements includes ocean fertilization activities for legitimate
scientific research and that ocean fertilization activity other than
legitimate scientific research should be considered contrary to the
aims of the agreements and should not be allowed. The treaties'
scientific bodies are developing an assessment framework for countries
to use in evaluating whether research proposals are legitimate
scientific research. Additionally, the parties to the Convention on
Biological Diversity[Footnote 50] issued a decision in 2009 urging
countries to ensure that ocean fertilization activities, except for
certain small-scale scientific research within coastal waters, do not
take place until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to
justify them and a global, transparent, and effective control and
regulatory mechanism in place. The parties to the London Convention
and London Protocol are considering an additional resolution or
amendment concerning ocean fertilization, and the parties to the
Convention on Biological Diversity continue to discuss the issue.
* Geological sequestration. In 2006, the parties to the London
Protocol agreed to amend the protocol to include, in certain
circumstances, CO2 streams for sequestration in sub-seabed geological
formations in the protocol's list of wastes and other matter that
could be dumped. Under the amendment, CO2 streams from capture
processes for sequestration can be considered for dumping if they
satisfy three criteria: (1) disposal is into a sub-seabed geological
formation, (2) the CO2 stream consists overwhelmingly of CO2 and only
incidental associated substances, and (3) no wastes or other matter
are added for the purpose of disposing of those wastes or other
matter. The parties also developed specific guidelines for countries
to use when assessing whether applications for disposal of streams
into sub-seabed geological formations is consistent with the protocol.
In late 2009, the parties to the London Protocol adopted an amendment
to allow the export of CO2 streams for disposal in certain
circumstances.[Footnote 51] The parties are developing specific
guidance for these exports and issues related to the management of
transboundary movement of CO2 after injection. The parties have also
discussed, but agreed not to develop, procedures regarding liability
for CO2 sequestration in sub-seabed geological formations.
However, legal experts and State officials stated that although
parties to three agreements have taken action to clarify the
agreements' applicability to particular geoengineering approaches,
most agreements' applicability is unclear because they were not
intended to address geoengineering and the parties had not yet
addressed the issue. In addition, legal experts and federal officials
generally said that more detailed information on geoengineering
approaches and their effects would be needed for officials to develop
a regulatory and governance framework. For example, aside from ocean
fertilization and other marine-focused geoengineering approaches,
State officials said that many of the ideas remain too theoretical and
distant from implementation to consider addressing them through
international law.
Experts and Federal Officials Identified Governance Challenges, but
Their Views Varied on the Most Effective Governance Approach:
Legal experts and EPA and State officials identified various
challenges to establishing domestic and international governance of
geoengineering. For example, the legal experts and EPA and State
officials we interviewed generally agreed that there needs to be
further research on most geoengineering approaches and their potential
effects to inform--and in federal officials' views to warrant--
discussions regarding regulation. Similarly, some of these experts and
federal officials said that a general lack of significant efforts to
pursue geoengineering is a contributing factor to why geoengineering
governance has not been pursued further to date. For example, a State
official noted that geoengineering has not received much attention
within international negotiations related to climate change, and there
isn't enough geoengineering-related activity to drive interest in
expanding international governance at this time.
Legal experts and State officials had differing views about an
international governance framework for geoengineering.[Footnote 52]
Specifically, several legal experts recommended including all
geoengineering activities with transboundary impacts in a single
comprehensive agreement. Some of these experts said an existing
comprehensive international agreement could be adapted to address
geoengineering. Some of them specifically identified the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change as an appropriate
agreement because it addresses climate change and geoengineering is
intended to diminish climate change or its impacts. Other legal
experts said a new international agreement was needed because of the
difficulty reaching consensus within the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change. Experts in favor of a single
comprehensive agreement said that it would be preferable to the
patchwork of existing agreements, which were not designed to address
geoengineering, because these agreements do not create comprehensive
governance frameworks that could be used to address geoengineering.
Additionally, some experts said that certain existing agreements rely
on the parties to regulate activities under their jurisdiction without
the international community's participation in decision-making, which
may not be the best structure for regulating geoengineering research
or deployment.
State officials we interviewed said that it would be better to rely on
existing treaties to the extent they are adequate and appropriate and
consider developing new international instruments if needed, since
there is limited knowledge and practice of geoengineering. State
officials said this approach would enable greater rigor and
flexibility than trying to address all geoengineering activities
within a single comprehensive agreement. They cited the London
Convention and London Protocol as examples. While these agreements
might not have addressed ocean fertilization several years ago, the
parties took action when ocean fertilization reached a state of
development where an agreed approach to regulation was considered
necessary, and the agreements now unquestionably address it. In
contrast, State officials said that parties to other agreements have
not addressed other geoengineering approaches because they have not
reached a similar stage of development. State officials said it was
hard to imagine a single agreement appropriately covering
geoengineering activities with all potential transboundary effects.
State officials also said that while some countries have called for a
broader inquiry into marine geoengineering more generally under the
London Convention and the London Protocol, the parties deemed those
calls premature at best.
Legal experts and EPA officials we interviewed generally agreed that
the federal government should take a coordinated, interagency approach
to domestic geoengineering regulation. For example, the legal experts
who spoke about domestic regulation generally agreed that the federal
government should play a role in governing geoengineering research--
either by developing research norms and guidelines or applying
existing regulations and guidelines. One expert noted that it was
important that regulators stay abreast of research on the most mature
technologies so that the regulatory framework would be in place prior
to field experiments. Some experts and EPA officials also agreed that
because there is a wide variety of geoengineering activities, research
and regulation would fall under multiple agencies' purview and
expertise. For example, one expert said that there should be a
coordinated interagency effort led by OSTP or USGCRP. Another said
that the federal government should focus on a comprehensive policy for
climate change, including geoengineering, and that that policy would
determine what new regulations would be necessary to guide and govern
research. EPA and State officials both said that agencies such as
NOAA, NASA, and DOE should be involved in regulatory discussions due
to their jurisdictional or scientific expertise. As an example, EPA
officials noted that the Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and
Storage, co-chaired by DOE and EPA, was created to propose a plan to
overcome the barriers to widespread deployment of these technologies,
which include geologic sequestration. The plan addresses, among other
issues, how to coordinate existing administrative authorities and
programs, legal barriers to deployment, and identifies areas where
additional statutory authority may be necessary.
Legal experts we interviewed generally agreed that governance for
geoengineering research should be addressed separately from governance
for deployment of geoengineering approaches. For example, experts said
that discussions of governance of deployment were premature, and one
expert cautioned that discussing deployment could raise the level of
controversy surrounding the subject, leading to a general gridlock
that could disrupt discussions about research and lower interest in a
coordinated and transparent approach. Both State and EPA officials
cited the need for further research into geoengineering prior to
engaging in discussions of domestic regulation or a governance
framework at the international level. State officials said that, in
practice, the United States and other countries have already
effectively separated geoengineering research and deployment
governance for ocean fertilization under the London Convention and
London Protocol, because the parties decided that any ocean
fertilization activities other than those for legitimate scientific
research should not be allowed at this time.
However, the legal experts we spoke with also agreed that some type of
regulation of geoengineering field research was necessary in the near
future, particularly for those approaches where large-scale
experiments could have transboundary impacts. According to these
experts, any framework governing research should include several
elements, such as transparency, coordination, flexibility, a review
process for experiments, the use of environmental risk thresholds, and
an emphasis on modeling prior to field studies. A few legal experts
said that these elements could start as voluntary norms and guidelines
within the research community and then evolve into formal regulations
prior to field trials. As one expert said, transparent decision-making
and guidelines are necessary to ensure that research does not pose
unacceptable risk to the environment. State officials said that,
generally, the United States supports careful consideration of
research implications rather than a full ban on research. In addition,
they said that some geoengineering research could be fostered most
effectively through international cooperation and coordination rather
than governance, or that domestic regulation is more appropriate than
international regulation.
Legal experts and EPA and State officials cited other challenges
related to geoengineering governance, particularly for those
approaches with uneven or unintended environmental effects. For
example, some legal experts said that controversy surrounding certain
geoengineering approaches, as well as a lack of understanding and
acceptance, could make domestic and international governance
difficult. In addition, State officials said that if large-scale
experiments or activities have unknown consequences or effects borne
by nations other than the nation conducting the experiment or
activity, this could risk undermining existing agreements on climate
change strategies. Furthermore, legal experts and EPA officials agreed
that liability for unintended consequences was an important issue that
would need to be addressed. Specifically, one expert suggested that
there should be a mechanism to compensate individuals or nations for
damages resulting from geoengineering activities. Moreover, some legal
experts were concerned about the ability of parties to enforce certain
international agreements related to geoengineering.
Conclusions:
Major scientific bodies such as the NRC and Royal Society have
identified geoengineering as one of several potential tools to limit
the impact and consequences of climate change. However, these bodies
have stated that geoengineering is a potential complement to, rather
than a substitute for, sharp reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
While the NRC and Royal Society have identified geoengineering as a
potential tool, what role geoengineering might play in a domestic and
international response strategy will likely be shaped by resolving
unanswered scientific questions surrounding the technical feasibility,
unintended consequences, effectiveness, cost, and risks associated
with each approach. Answers to these questions will also inform the
public debate concerning whether geoengineering is an acceptable
response given the ethical and social implications of deliberate
interventions in the earth's climate system. The federal government is
already engaging in research that could help address some of the
uncertainties surrounding geoengineering and inform policy decisions
about research priorities. While agencies identified about $100.9
million in research funding relevant to geoengineering in fiscal years
2009 and 2010, federal officials also said that a substantial portion
of the existing federal climate change and earth science research
could be relevant to understanding geoengineering--roughly $2 billion
in requested budget authority for 2010 alone. However, because there
is no coordinated federal geoengineering strategy, it is difficult to
determine the extent of relevant research. At present, while some
agencies are sharing information on two geoengineering approaches to
inform negotiations relevant to international regulation of ocean
dumping and address barriers to geological sequestration as a
mitigation strategy, agencies generally are not collecting and sharing
information more broadly on research relevant to other geoengineering
approaches. Without a definition of geoengineering for agencies to
use, and without coordination among agencies to identify the full
extent of available research efforts relevant to geoengineering as
well as to identify research priorities, policymakers and agency
officials may lack sufficient information to leverage existing
research resources to their full benefit. In turn, this lack of
information may hinder policy decisions and governance at the domestic
and international level. Even if policymakers decide that
geoengineering should not be pursued domestically, knowledge of
geoengineering approaches and their potential effects will be
essential to inform international negotiations regarding other
countries' consideration of, or actions related to, geoengineering
research and deployment.
Recommendation:
GAO recommends that the appropriate entities within the Executive
Office of the President (EOP), such as the Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP), in consultation with relevant federal
agencies, develop a clear, defined, and coordinated approach to
geoengineering research in the context of a federal strategy to
address climate change that (1) defines geoengineering for federal
agencies; (2) leverages existing resources by having federal agencies
collect information and coordinate federal research related to
geoengineering in a transparent manner; and if the administration
decides to establish a formal geoengineering research program, (3)
sets clear research priorities to inform decision-making and future
governance efforts.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to the Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP) within the Executive Office of the President
(EOP) for review and comment. OSTP also circulated the report to the
13 participating USGCRP agencies. In response to the draft, OSTP, the
Council on Environmental Quality, U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA), Department of State (State), National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), and National Science Foundation (NSF) neither
agreed nor disagreed with our findings and recommendation; rather,
they provided technical and other comments, which we incorporated as
appropriate. General comments and our response are summarized below.
In their comments, USDA, NSF, and OSTP raised various concerns about
how geoengineering should be defined. For example, OSTP and USDA cited
concerns that the definition used in this report is too broad because
it overlaps with certain land-based practices, such as biological
sequestration of CO2 in forests, that are considered to be emissions
reduction practices--also referred to as mitigation. In particular,
USDA commented that applying such a broad definition to USDA's
portfolio of research would lead to a great deal of confusion. In
contrast, NSF raised concerns that the definition used in the report
was not broad enough, and should include techniques that reduce CO2
emissions. For the purposes of this report, we used the Royal Society
study's definition and descriptions of geoengineering approaches
because this study was the most comprehensive review of geoengineering
science available at the time of our request. Other scientific
organizations, such as the National Research Council (NRC), the
American Meteorological Society, and the American Geophysical Union
have also either reported on or issued position statements regarding
geoengineering, and used a similarly broad definition. However, as we
note in the report, discussions about how to define geoengineering and
what activities should be considered geoengineering remain active.
Variations in agencies' interpretation of our data request, as well as
the comments noted above, support our recommendation that additional
clarity and guidance regarding the federal approach to geoengineering
is needed, and that further discussion of what types of activities
should be included in a federal operational definition of
geoengineering may be warranted. Accordingly, we recommended that the
appropriate entities within the EOP consult with the relevant federal
agencies to develop a clear, defined, and coordinated approach to
geoengineering research in the context of a federal strategy to
address climate change.
Additionally, NOAA and NSF noted that because the global nature of
climate change requires an international response, international
coordination and collaboration would be important for geoengineering
activities and oversight efforts. As we noted in our report, the
applicability of international agreements to geoengineering remains
unclear; however, parties to three agreements have issued decisions
regarding the agreements' applicability to ocean fertilization and sub-
seabed geological sequestration. Furthermore, the legal experts we
spoke with generally agreed that some type of regulation of
geoengineering field research is necessary in the near future,
particularly for those approaches where large-scale experiments could
have transboundary impacts. According to these experts, any framework
governing research should include several elements, such as
transparency, coordination, flexibility, a review process for
experiments, the use of environmental risk thresholds, and an emphasis
on modeling prior to field studies.
NOAA emphasized the importance of fully understanding unintended
consequences and risks associated with geoengineering approaches. In
particular, NOAA commented that sufficient resources should be
directed specifically towards identifying possible unintended
consequences and risks. As we note in the report, relevant studies
indicate that there are additional environmental risks and trade-offs
associated with both CDR and SRM approaches. Furthermore, our
discussions with experts and review of relevant studies identified
unintended consequences associated with geoengineering approaches as a
key uncertainty requiring further study.
In addition to these comments, CEQ, OSTP, and the agencies provided
technical changes and corrections which we incorporated where
appropriate.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to the appropriate congressional committees, the Office of Science and
Technology Policy within the Executive Office of the President, and
other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at
no charge on GAO's Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report,
please contact Frank Rusco at (202) 512-3841 or ruscof@gao.gov, or
John Stephenson at (202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov. Contact
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs
may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key
contributions to this report are listed in Appendix V.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Frank Rusco:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
Signed by:
John B. Stephenson:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
This report examines (1) the general state of the science regarding
geoengineering approaches and their potential effects; (2) the extent
to which the federal government is sponsoring or participating in
geoengineering research or deployment; and (3) the views of legal
experts and federal officials about the extent to which federal laws
and international agreements apply to geoengineering activities, and
associated challenges, if any, to geoengineering governance.
To determine the general state of the science regarding geoengineering
approaches and their potential effects, we summarized the results of
semi-structured interviews with scientific and policy experts as well
as the findings from relevant literature. First, we identified 95
potential experts based on five criteria indicating recognition from
their peers as geoengineering experts. These criteria included having
(1) presented at the Asilomar International Conference on Climate
Intervention Technologies, (2) presented at the geoengineering panels
held at the American Association for the Advancement of Science 2010
Annual Meeting, (3) served as a witness at one of the three hearings
on geoengineering held by the House Science and Technology Committee,
(4) recommendations from other recognized experts that we had
interviewed during our work for the March testimony for the committee,
[Footnote 53] and (5) participating in smaller panels or working
groups that specifically focused on geoengineering. To identify the
most active experts in the field, we scored the experts from the
initial list based on their participation in the five previously noted
activities. Based on this process, we selected the 10 highest-scoring
experts and contacted them for interviews. We selected 10 experts to
ensure we could collect a range of views from experts associated with
academia, nongovernmental organizations, and government. To assess
potential conflicts of interest, we asked the 10 experts to submit a
conflict of interest form. These forms included questions about
potential financial or other interests that might bias an expert's
opinions related to the state of geoengineering science. We conducted
a content analysis to summarize expert responses and grouped responses
into overall themes. The views expressed by experts do not necessarily
represent the views of GAO. Not all of the experts provided their
views on all issues. In addition to gathering expert views, we
selected and reviewed collaborative peer-reviewed studies that
addressed geoengineering, such as the National Research Council's
Advancing the Science of Climate Change study as well as the Royal
Society's study Geoengineering and the climate: Science, governance
and uncertainty[Footnote 54]. To corroborate the factual information
provided to us by our experts, we utilized these collaborative reports
as well as select articles from peer-reviewed journals to support
specific key details from the interviews.
To determine the extent to which the federal government is sponsoring
or participating in geoengineering research or deployment, we obtained
and analyzed data on relevant activities from the 13 agencies
participating in the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP)
through July 2010.[Footnote 55] We selected these agencies because the
USGCRP is the interagency entity that coordinates and integrates
federal research on global environmental changes, such as climate
change, and their implications for society. To help officials identify
relevant activities, we provided them with a data collection
instrument that defined geoengineering and described proposed
geoengineering approaches, based on the Royal Society study (see
appendix III). We used the Royal Society study definition and
descriptions because it was the most comprehensive review of
geoengineering science available at the time of our request. The data
collection instrument also included some examples of potentially
relevant activities based on our work for the March testimony for the
committee. We then asked officials to identify federal activities
during fiscal years 2009 and 2010 that were relevant to the definition
and description we provided. Because the federal government does not
have a formal policy on geoengineering that defines what activities
constitute geoengineering or asks agencies to track this information,
we relied on agency officials' professional judgment to identify
relevant activities. As part of their response, we requested
information that included a description of the activity, the dates of
the work, whether it was a grant or conducted within a government lab,
and funds obligated. We analyzed the responses and removed 12
activities that did not appear related to geoengineering based on the
definition we provided.[Footnote 56] We then categorized the remaining
activities into three broad types: (1) activities related to
conventional carbon mitigation efforts that are directly applicable to
a proposed geoengineering approach, although not designated as such;
(2) activities related to improving basic scientific understanding of
earth systems, processes, or technologies that could be applied
generally to geoengineering; and (3) activities designed specifically
to address a proposed geoengineering approach that does not overlap
with a conventional carbon mitigation strategy. We sent the results of
our analysis and categorization of agency-reported activities to each
agency for their review and verification in July 2010. Specifically,
we asked agency officials to ensure that the data were complete and
accurate, and that our categorization of the data was appropriate.
Each agency verified our analysis. In addition, we met with officials
and staff from interagency bodies coordinating federal responses to
climate change, including the Office of Science and Technology Policy
(OSTP), Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), and USGCRP, as well as
the Department of Energy (DOE), which coordinates the Climate Change
Technology Program--a multiagency research and development program for
climate change technology. We assessed the reliability of the data and
found the data to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this
report.
To determine the views of legal experts and federal officials about
the extent to which federal laws and international agreements apply to
geoengineering activities and identify governance challenges, if any,
we summarized the results of our interviews with experts and federal
officials as well as the findings from relevant literature. First, we
identified 23 potential experts based on three criteria indicating
recognition from their peers as legal experts knowledgeable about
geoengineering. These criteria included having (1) participated in
panels or working groups that specifically focused on geoengineering,
(2) recommendations from other experts that we had interviewed during
our work for the March testimony for the committee, and (3) published
one or more articles related to geoengineering. To identify the most
active experts in the field, we scored each expert from the initial
list based on the three criteria noted above. Based on this process,
we selected the 8 highest scoring experts and contacted them for
interviews. We selected 8 experts because the scoring process created
a natural break between the 8 highest scoring experts and the
remaining experts. To assess potential conflicts of interest, we asked
each expert to submit a conflict of interest form. These forms
included questions about potential financial or other interests that
might bias an expert's opinions related to the applicability of
federal laws and international agreements to geoengineering. We
conducted a content analysis to summarize expert responses and grouped
responses into overall themes. The views expressed by experts do not
necessarily represent the views of GAO. Not all of the experts
provided their views on all issues. We also met with federal officials
from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of
State (State) to collect their views on the applicability of domestic
laws and international agreements to geoengineering, and governance
challenges, if any. In addition to gathering experts' and federal
officials' views, we selected and reviewed collaborative reports that
addressed geoengineering governance, such as the Royal Society's study
Geoengineering and the climate: Science, governance and uncertainty,
and the United Kingdom House of Commons Science and Technology
Committee report The Regulation of Geoengineering, among others.
[Footnote 57] To corroborate the legal information provided to us by
our experts, we utilized these collaborative reports as well as select
articles from relevant journals to support specific key details from
the interviews.
We conducted this performance audit from December 2009 through
September 2010 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform
the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Geoengineering Experts Selected for This Review:
We identified and selected scientific and policy experts to provide
their views on the general state of the science regarding
geoengineering approaches and their potential effects. We also
identified and selected legal experts to provide their views on the
applicability of federal laws and international agreements to
geoengineering, and associated challenges, if any, to geoengineering
governance. This appendix lists the experts we selected and contacted
for interviews. In two cases, experts we contacted did not participate
in our review, either due to schedule conflicts or because they did
not respond to our request.
Scientific and Policy Experts:
Scott Barrett, Columbia University Ken Caldeira, Carnegie Institution
of Washington James Fleming, Colby College Michael MacCracken, Climate
Institute Philip Rasch, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,
Department of Energy Alan Robock, Rutgers University John Shepherd,
University of Southampton, United Kingdom (did not participate) David
Keith, University of Calgary, Canada M. Granger Morgan, Carnegie
Mellon University Margaret Leinen, Climate Response Fund:
Legal Experts:
Daniel Bodansky, Arizona State University Dale Jamieson, New York
University Edward (Ted) Parson, University of Michigan (did not
participate) David Victor, University of California-San Diego
Catherine Redgwell, University College London, United Kingdom Albert
Lin, University of California-Davis David Freestone, George Washington
University Stephen Seidel, Pew Center on Global Climate Change:
[End of section]
Appendix III: Geoengineering Description Provided To USGCRP Agencies:
To help federal officials identify relevant activities, we provided
them with a data collection instrument that defined geoengineering and
described proposed geoengineering approaches, as outlined below. The
definition and descriptions were based on the Royal Society study--
which was the most authoritative review of geoengineering at the time
of our data request. This appendix reflects the language and more
technical descriptions we provided to the agencies and, as such, will
not be an exact match to the more generalized language used to
describe these approaches in the background section of this report. We
have provided additional explanations of some scientific terms in
footnotes to the text. These footnotes were not part of the data
collection instrument sent to the agencies.
Definition of Geoengineering:
Deliberate, large-scale interventions in the earth's climate system to
diminish climate change or its impacts:
Description of Geoengineering Approaches:
Carbon dioxide removal approaches:
1. Biological carbon removal/sequestration--enhancing the natural
abilities of the earth's biological systems to capture and sequester
carbon:
Land-based examples:
* Large-scale afforestation/reforestation/land-use changes to maximize
carbon sequestration in soil or biomass:
* Biomass energy with carbon dioxide (CO2) capture and sequestration
(BECS):
* Biomass sequestration and burial/biochar:
Ocean-based examples:
* Ocean fertilization with limiting nutrients, such as iron, to
stimulate phytoplankton growth and increase CO2 removal from the
atmosphere:
* Enhancing upwelling of nutrient-rich deep sea water to the surface
to stimulate phytoplankton growth:
2. Physical carbon removal/sequestration--physically enhancing the
natural abilities of the earth's systems to capture and sequester
carbon:
Land-based examples:
* Capture of CO2 from ambient air (air capture) via industrial
atmospheric CO2 scrubber devices and either using the captured CO2 or
sequestering it in underground formations (Note: Although we are
excluding funding for "carbon capture and storage" research and
projects from this data call since it is an emissions reduction rather
than geoengineering strategy, we are interested in capturing federal
dollars directed towards research of the storage of CO2 in underground
formations, because it is an important component of this particular
geoengineering approach.)
Ocean-based examples:
* Altering ocean overturning circulation patterns to increase the rate
that atmospheric CO2 is transferred to the deep sea:
3. Chemical carbon removal/sequestration--chemically enhancing the
natural abilities of the earth's systems to capture and sequester
carbon:
Land-based examples:
* Enhanced weathering of carbonate or silicate rocks to accelerate the
absorption of CO2 on the earth's surface or underground:
* Accelerating carbon sequestration in soils by spreading ground
silicate minerals on fields:
* Pumping reactant CO2 gas into underground olivine and basalt
formations to form carbonates in-situ:
Ocean-based examples:
* Enhancing the alkalinity of the ocean by grinding, dispersing, and
dissolving limestone, silicates, or calcium hydroxide:
Solar radiation management approaches:
1. Increasing planet surface albedo[Footnote 58]--increasing the
albedo of the planet by making the surface of the planet more
reflective:
Examples:
* Brightening buildings and painting roofs white:
* Planting lands with more reflective vegetation or engineering more
reflective variants of existing vegetation:
* Increasing reflectivity of desert regions:
* Increasing reflectivity of oceanic regions:
2. Cloud albedo enhancement--increasing the planetary albedo by
producing additional cloud cover and thickening clouds over oceanic
regions:
Example:
* Brightening marine clouds by spraying seawater to increase the
number of cloud condensation nuclei[Footnote 59] available:
3. Stratospheric aerosol injection--increasing the albedo of the
planet by injecting reflective aerosol particles into the atmosphere:
Examples:
* Injecting sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect incoming
solar radiation:
* Injecting other reflective aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect
incoming solar radiation:
4. Space-based techniques for reducing incoming solar radiation--
reducing the amount of solar radiation that reaches the planet or
adjusting the nature of that radiation to a type that is less likely
to be absorbed by the earth's climate system:
Examples:
* Placing a large refracting lens at the L1 orbit position[Footnote 60]
* Launching trillions of small reflecting disks into near-earth orbit:
Other greenhouse gas removal approaches:
5. Techniques to remove other greenhouse gases such as methane,
nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbons, or others from the atmosphere:
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Data from USGCRP Agencies on Geoengineering-Related
Activities:
In response to our data collection instrument, the 13 agencies
participating in the USGCRP reported the following research activities
relevant to geoengineering. Our request was limited to activities
funded during fiscal years 2009 and 2010; however, in some cases,
reported activities were initiated prior to fiscal year 2009 and
continued beyond fiscal year 2010, as noted in the "Dates of research"
column in tables 5, 6, and 7. To be consistent with the tables in the
report, the activities are organized by agency and geoengineering
approach. According to agency officials, none of the activities listed
below received funding in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
of 2009.[Footnote 61] The Departments of Health and Human Services and
State, as well as the U.S. Agency for International Development, the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Smithsonian
Institution, all reported no relevant activities during fiscal years
2009 and 2010.
Table 5: Reported Mitigation-Related Research Relevant to
Geoengineering, by USGCRP Agency and Related Geoengineering Approach,
Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010:
Department/Agency: Department of Agriculture (USDA);
Activity description: Research to quantify the effects of amending
soils with biochar on crop productivity, soil quality, carbon
sequestration, and water quality;
Dates of research: 2008-2011;
Type of research (grant or in-house)[A]: Nonfunded cooperative
agreement;
Sponsoring federal program or laboratory: Agricultural Research
Service;
Reported funding[B]: $2,800,000;
Fiscal year: 2010;
Related geoengineering approach: CDR - biological carbon removal/
sequestration.
Department/Agency: Department of Agriculture (USDA);
Activity description: Research to evaluate soil carbon sequestration
in existing and alternative agricultural systems;
Dates of research: 2007-2010;
Type of research (grant or in-house)[A]: In-house;
Sponsoring federal program or laboratory: Agricultural Research
Service;
Reported funding[B]: $11,100,000;
Fiscal year: 2010;
Related geoengineering approach: CDR - biological carbon removal/
sequestration.
Department/Agency: Department of Energy (DOE);
Activity description: Study investigating large-scale biological
removal/sequestration of carbon dioxide;
Dates of research: 2009-2010;
Type of research (grant or in-house)[A]: In-house;
Sponsoring federal program or laboratory: Oak Ridge National
Laboratory;
Reported funding[B]: $350,000;
Fiscal year: 2010;
Related geoengineering approach: CDR - biological carbon removal/
sequestration.
Department/Agency: Department of Energy (DOE);
Activity description: Research to identify, understand, and predict
the fundamental physical, chemical, biological, and genetic processes
controlling carbon sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems;
Dates of research: 2000-present;
Type of research (grant or in-house)[A]: Mixed--grant and national
laboratories;
Sponsoring federal program or laboratory: Office of Science
(Biological and Environmental Research);
Reported funding[B]: $4,728,000;
Fiscal year: 2010;
Related geoengineering approach: CDR - biological carbon removal/
sequestration.
Department/Agency: Department of Energy (DOE);
Activity description: Advanced carbon sequestration systems;
Dates of research: 2009;
Type of research (grant or in-house)[A]: In-house;
Sponsoring federal program or laboratory: Savannah River National
Laboratory;
Reported funding[B]: $50,000;
Fiscal year: 2009;
Related geoengineering approach: CDR - physical carbon removal/
sequestration.
Department/Agency: Department of Energy (DOE);
Activity description: Regional Partnership Program activities related
to geological sequestration of carbon dioxide;
Dates of research: 2010;
Type of research (grant or in-house)[A]: Grant;
Sponsoring federal program or laboratory: Work performed by Savannah
River National Laboratory on behalf of the Office of Fossil Energy;
Reported funding[B]: $139,000;
Fiscal year: 2010;
Related geoengineering approach: CDR - physical carbon removal/
sequestration.
Department/Agency: Department of Energy (DOE);
Activity description: Regional Partnership Program activities related
to geological sequestration of carbon dioxide;
Dates of research: 2009-2010;
Type of research (grant or in-house)[A]: In-house;
Sponsoring federal program or laboratory: Los Alamos National
Laboratory;
Reported funding[B]: $770,000;
Fiscal year: 2009;
Related geoengineering approach: CDR - physical carbon removal/
sequestration.
Department/Agency: Department of Energy (DOE);
Activity description: Measurement and detection of carbon dioxide at
geological sequestration sites;
Dates of research: 2008-2010;
Type of research (grant or in-house)[A]: In-house;
Sponsoring federal program or laboratory: Los Alamos National
Laboratory;
Reported funding[B]: $900,000; Fiscal year: 2009;
Reported funding[B]: $900,000; Fiscal year: 2010;
Related geoengineering approach: CDR - physical carbon removal/
sequestration.
Department/Agency: Department of the Interior;
Activity description: An assessment to compare existing biological
sequestration resources to estimates of hypothetical biological
sequestration in potential or historical vegetation and soils;
Dates of research: 2010;
Type of research (grant or in-house)[A]: In-house;
Sponsoring federal program or laboratory: U.S. Geological Survey
Office of Global Change Programs;
Reported funding[B]: $290,000;
Fiscal year: 2010;
Related geoengineering approach: CDR - biological carbon removal/
sequestration.
Department/Agency: Department of the Interior;
Activity description: A range of projects related to carbon dioxide
balance, sequestration, and fluxes in soils and ecosystems, including
mechanistic understanding, regionalization of site data, and modeling;
Dates of research: 2009-2012;
Type of research (grant or in-house)[A]: In-house;
Sponsoring federal program or laboratory: U.S. Geological Survey
Office of Global Change Programs;
Reported funding[B]: $2,362,408;
Fiscal year: 2010;
Related geoengineering approach: CDR - biological carbon removal/
sequestration.
Department/Agency: Department of the Interior;
Activity description: Methodology development for a national
assessment of biological sequestration resources that remove and store
carbon dioxide in vegetation, soils, and sediments;
Dates of research: 2009-2012;
Type of research (grant or in-house)[A]: In-house;
Sponsoring federal program or laboratory: U.S. Geological Survey
Office of Global Change Programs;
Reported funding[B]: $5,000,000;
Fiscal year: 2010;
Related geoengineering approach: CDR - biological carbon removal/
sequestration.
Department/Agency: Department of the Interior;
Activity description: Development of best management practices for
geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide in sub-seabed formations;
Dates of research: 2010-2013;
Type of research (grant or in-house)[A]: Broad agency announcement;
Sponsoring federal program or laboratory: Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management, Regulation, and Enforcement;
Reported funding[B]: $250,000 - 500,000;
Fiscal year: 2010;
Related geoengineering approach: CDR - physical carbon removal/
sequestration.
Department/Agency: Department of the Interior;
Activity description: Methodology development for a national
assessment of geological sequestration resources for storage of carbon
dioxide in oil and gas reservoirs and saline formations;
Dates of research: 2009-2012;
Type of research (grant or in-house)[A]: In-house;
Sponsoring federal program or laboratory: U.S. Geological Survey
Office of Global Change Programs;
Reported funding[B]: $5,000,000;
Fiscal year: 2010;
Related geoengineering approach: CDR - physical carbon removal/
sequestration.
Department/Agency: Department of Transportation;
Activity description: Pilot program to determine economic and policy
implications of biological carbon sequestration (carbon offsets) in
highway right-of-way;
Dates of research: 2008-2011;
Type of research (grant or in-house)[A]: In-house;
Sponsoring federal program or laboratory: Federal Highway
Administration;
Reported funding[B]: $150,000; Fiscal year: 2009;
Reported funding[B]: $100,000; Fiscal year: 2010;
Related geoengineering approach: CDR - biological carbon removal/
sequestration.
Department/Agency: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);
Activity description: Research, in coordination with USDA and other
land management agencies, to address the environmental effects of
biological sequestration (carbon offsets);
Dates of research: 2009-2011;
Type of research (grant or in-house)[A]: In-house;
Sponsoring federal program or laboratory: Office of Research and
Development;
Reported funding[B]: $300,000[C];
Fiscal year: 2010;
Related geoengineering approach: CDR - biological carbon removal/
sequestration.
Department/Agency: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);
Activity description: Research to assess the risks of underground
injection of carbon dioxide: Research to understand how various carbon
dioxide capture technologies could impact pollution control systems
and their effluent streams, which could improve understanding of how
contaminants present could adversely impact transport, injection, and
long-term storage of carbon dioxide;
Dates of research: 2010-2011;
Type of research (grant or in-house)[A]: Office of Research and
Development;
Reported funding[B]: $500,000[C];
Fiscal year: 2010;
Related geoengineering approach: CDR - physical carbon removal/
sequestration.
Department/Agency: EPA;
Activity description: Research to assess the risks of underground
injection of carbon dioxide;
Dates of research: 2009-2011;
Type of research (grant or in-house)[A]: In-house;
Sponsoring federal program or laboratory: Office of Research and
Development;
Reported funding[B]: $1,900,000[C]; Fiscal year: 2009;
Reported funding[B]: $2,900,000[C]; Fiscal year: 2010;
Related geoengineering approach: CDR - physical carbon removal/
sequestration.
Department/Agency: EPA;
Activity description: Grants to research the design, modeling, and
monitoring of the geological sequestration of carbon dioxide to
safeguard sources of drinking water;
Dates of research: 2009-2011;
Type of research (grant or in-house)[A]: Grant;
Sponsoring federal program or laboratory: Office of Research and
Development;
Reported funding[B]: $4,700,000[C]; Fiscal year: 2009;
Reported funding[B]: $1,000,000[C]; Fiscal year: 2010;
Related geoengineering approach: CDR - physical carbon removal/
sequestration.
Department/Agency: National Science Foundation (NSF);
Activity description: Ten year regional field experiment to improve
understanding of biological sequestration of carbon dioxide in
northern hemisphere forests;
the research will quantify the amounts of carbon stored in overstory
trees, forest floor, and soil over the next decade;
Dates of research: 2008-2012;
Type of research (grant or in-house)[A]: Grant (only 2 of 5 years
funding shown);
Sponsoring federal program or laboratory: Division of Environmental
Biology;
Reported funding[B]: $71,385; Fiscal year: 2009;
Reported funding[B]: $70,790; Fiscal year: 2010;
Related geoengineering approach: CDR - biological carbon removal/
sequestration.
Department/Agency: National Science Foundation (NSF);
Activity description: Research to determine whether waste materials
that contain significant amounts of alkaline minerals can safely and
permanently store carbon dioxide via the carbonation process;
Dates of research: 2009;
Type of research (grant or in-house)[A]: Grant;
Sponsoring federal program or laboratory: Directorate of Engineering;
Reported funding[B]: $33,793;
Fiscal year: 2009;
Related geoengineering approach: CDR - chemical carbon removal/
sequestration.
Department/Agency: National Science Foundation (NSF);
Type of research (grant or in-house)[A]: Research to develop safe and
permanent sequestration of carbon dioxide using techniques that mimic
natural rock weathering processes, such as carbonation;
Dates of research: 2009-2011;
Type of research (grant or in-house)[A]: Grant;
Sponsoring federal program or laboratory: Directorate of Engineering;
Reported funding[B]: $300,033;
Fiscal year: 2009;
Related geoengineering approach: CDR - chemical carbon removal/
sequestration.
Department/Agency: National Science Foundation (NSF);
Activity description: Research to evolve an economically viable coal
and biomass fed energy plant that generates electricity while
capturing a significant portion of carbon dioxide and coproduces
hydrogen for future fuel cell applications;
Dates of research: 2009-2010;
Type of research (grant or in-house)[A]: Grant;
Sponsoring federal program or laboratory: Directorate of Engineering;
Reported funding[B]: $99,738; Fiscal year: 2009;
Reported funding[B]: $99,647; Fiscal year: 2010;
Related geoengineering approach: CDR - physical carbon removal/
sequestration.
Department/Agency: National Science Foundation (NSF);
Activity description: Numerical investigation into aquifer carbon
sequestration efficiency and potential leakage subsequent to injection
of carbon dioxide;
Dates of research: 2009-2010;
Type of research (grant or in-house)[A]: Grant;
Sponsoring federal program or laboratory: Directorate of Geosciences;
Reported funding[B]: $262,416;
Fiscal year: 2009;
Related geoengineering approach: CDR - physical carbon removal/
sequestration.
Department/Agency: National Science Foundation (NSF);
Activity description: Modeling project to evaluate the long-term
sequestration of carbon dioxide in saline aquifers;
Dates of research: 2008-2011;
Type of research (grant or in-house)[A]: Grant;
Sponsoring federal program or laboratory: Directorate of Mathematical
and Physical Sciences;
Reported funding[B]: $350,000;
Fiscal year: 2009;
Related geoengineering approach: CDR - physical carbon removal/
sequestration.
Department/Agency: National Science Foundation (NSF);
Activity description: Research into methods to enhance geological
sequestration of carbon dioxide using hydrofracturing techniques;
Dates of research: 2010-2012;
Type of research (grant or in-house)[A]: Grant (pending);
Sponsoring federal program or laboratory: Directorate of Geosciences;
Reported funding[B]: $374,600;
Fiscal year: 2010;
Related geoengineering approach: CDR - physical carbon removal/
sequestration.
Department/Agency: NSF;
Activity description: Demonstration project of a novel low cost and
low energy-consuming capture technology to remove carbon dioxide from
flue gas of post-combustion coal-fired power plants;
Dates of research: 2009-2010;
Type of research (grant or in-house)[A]: Grant;
Sponsoring federal program or laboratory: Directorate of Engineering;
Reported funding[B]: $499,998;
Fiscal year: 2009;
Related geoengineering approach: CDR - physical carbon removal/
sequestration.
Department/Agency: NSF;
Activity description: Project to develop a deep underground laboratory
for carbon dioxide sequestration experimentation, as well as several
modeling projects that are exploring issues such as the impacts of
underground fluid injection and uncertainty in sequestration models;
Dates of research: 2009 - 2012;
Type of research (grant or in-house)[A]: A set of collaborative grants
and an interagency transfer;
Sponsoring federal program or laboratory: Directorate of Engineering;
Reported funding[B]: $1,000,000[D]; Fiscal year: 2009;
Reported funding[B]: $1,000,000[D]; Fiscal year: 2010;
Related geoengineering approach: CDR - physical carbon removal/
sequestration.
Source: GAO analysis of the agencies' responses to our data collection
instrument, which provided a definition and description of
geoengineering to officials. The data collection instrument also
included some examples of potentially relevant activities based on our
work for our March testimony on geoengineering.
Note: We collected data on agency activities through July 2010.
Accordingly, additional activities relevant to geoengineering may
receive funding during fiscal year 2010.
[A] For the purposes of this table, grant refers to an award provided
to an external institution, and in-house refers to work performed by
the reporting agency.
[B] Unless otherwise noted, reported funding represents dollars
obligated to the activity for the noted fiscal years as reported by
federal agencies.
[C] Reported funding represents enacted budget authority rather than
obligations.
[D] For this project, NSF reported funded obligations of $2,000,000
during fiscal years 2009 and 2010, with approximately $1,000,000
obligated during each of these years.
[End of table]
Table 6: Reported Fundamental Scientific Research Activities Relevant
to Geoengineering, by USGCRP Agency and Related Geoengineering
Approach, Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010:
Department/Agency: Department of Commerce (Commerce);
Activity description: Subcontinental scale detection of contributions
of biological emissions and sequestration of greenhouse gases on
atmospheric composition;
Dates of research: Global emphasis since 1968;
North American focus 1990 - present;
Type of research (grant or in-house)[A]: Long-term monitoring --mainly
in-house; some grants;
Sponsoring federal program or laboratory: National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Office of Atmospheric and Oceanic
Research;
Reported funding[B]: $12,900,000; Fiscal year: 2009;
Reported funding[B]: $12,900,000; Fiscal year: 2010;
Related geoengineering approach: CDR - biological carbon removal/
sequestration.
Department/Agency: Department of Commerce (Commerce);
Activity description: Comprehensive Earth System Modeling to support
research on the carbon cycle, climate system processes, and interfaces
between atmospheric chemistry and climate;
Dates of research: 2000-present;
Type of research (grant or in-house)[A]: In-house;
Sponsoring federal program or laboratory: NOAA's Geophysical Fluid
Dynamics Laboratory;
Reported funding[B]: $7,920,000; Fiscal year: 2009;
Reported funding[B]: $7,920,000; Fiscal year: 2010;
Related geoengineering approach: CDR - general, SRM - general.
Department/Agency: Department of Defense;
Activity description: Seed grant to study methods of removing methane
and nitrous oxide greenhouse gases from the atmosphere using enzymes;
Dates of research: 2010;
Type of research (grant or in-house)[A]: Grant;
Sponsoring federal program or laboratory: Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency;
Reported funding[B]: $250,000;
Fiscal year: 2010;
Related geoengineering approach: Other greenhouse gas removal
approaches.
Department/Agency: National Science Foundation (NSF);
Activity description: Research to develop and commercialize a new
catalyst to improve the process for removing tar from gasified biomass;
this research will improve the efficiency and reduce cost associated
with the production of energy, liquid fuels, or other chemicals from
gasified biomass;
Dates of research: 2009-2011;
Type of research (grant or in-house)[A]: Grant;
Sponsoring federal program or laboratory: Directorate of Engineering;
Reported funding[B]: $508,000;
Fiscal year: 2009;
Related geoengineering approach: CDR - biological carbon removal/
sequestration.
Department/Agency: NSF;
Activity description: Research to examine a new porous material for
use in separating carbon dioxide from mixtures with carbon monoxide
and methane;
Dates of research: 2010;
Type of research (grant or in-house)[A]: Grant;
Sponsoring federal program or laboratory: Directorate of Engineering;
Reported funding[B]: $75,381;
Fiscal year: 2010;
Related geoengineering approach: CDR - physical carbon removal/
sequestration.
Department/Agency: NSF;
Activity description: Research to design and synthesize next-
generation multifunctional, porous materials for the separation of
carbon dioxide and methane, among other applications;
Dates of research: 2009-2013;
Type of research (grant or in-house)[A]: Grant (2 of 5 years funding
shown);
Sponsoring federal program or laboratory: Directorate of Engineering;
Reported funding[B]: $79,626; Fiscal year: 2009;
Reported funding[B]: $75,723; Fiscal year: 2010;
Related geoengineering approach: CDR - physical carbon removal/
sequestration.
Department/Agency: NSF;
Activity description: Research to improve gas separation membranes;
Dates of research: 2009-2013;
Type of research (grant or in-house)[A]: Grant (2 of 5 years funding
shown);
Sponsoring federal program or laboratory: Directorate of Engineering;
Reported funding[B]: $85,485; Fiscal year: 2009;
Reported funding[B]: 78,285; Fiscal year: 2010;
Related geoengineering approach: CDR - physical carbon removal/
sequestration.
Department/Agency: NSF;
Activity description: Research to test methods to electrochemically
reduce oxygen and atmospheric carbon dioxide to carbonate for various
applications, including carbon sequestration;
Dates of research: 2010;
Type of research (grant or in-house)[A]: Grant;
Sponsoring federal program or laboratory: Directorate of Engineering;
Reported funding[B]: $97,721;
Fiscal year: 2010;
Related geoengineering approach: CDR - physical carbon removal/
sequestration.
Department/Agency: NSF;
Activity description: Project to commercialize a new gas separation
product that separates the components of air to increase its oxygen
content for natural gas and carbon dioxide sequestration applications;
Dates of research: 2009;
Type of research (grant or in-house)[A]: Grant;
Sponsoring federal program or laboratory: Directorate of Engineering;
Reported funding[B]: $149,996;
Fiscal year: 2009;
Related geoengineering approach: CDR - physical carbon removal/
sequestration.
Department/Agency: NSF;
Activity description: A technology transfer project to test the
feasibility of producing lightweight building materials from fly ash
using water supersaturated with air and carbon dioxide, which will
sequester carbon dioxide;
Dates of research: 2009;
Type of research (grant or in-house)[A]: Grant;
Sponsoring federal program or laboratory: Directorate of Engineering;
Reported funding[B]: $50,000;
Fiscal year: 2009;
Related geoengineering approach: CDR - physical carbon removal/
sequestration.
Department/Agency: NSF;
Activity description: Research into methane and carbon dioxide hydrate
systems to study in part, the potential for gas storage in artificial
hydrate form;
Dates of research: 2009-2011;
Type of research (grant or in-house)[A]: Grant (2 of 3 years funding
shown);
Sponsoring federal program or laboratory: Directorate of Engineering;
Reported funding[B]: $204,120; Fiscal year: 2009;
Reported funding[B]: $50,000; Fiscal year: 2010;
Related geoengineering approach: CDR - physical carbon removal/
sequestration.
Department/Agency: NSF;
Activity description: Research to design, fabricate, and test mixed
matrix membranes for gas separations, including carbon dioxide,
methane, nitrogen, and oxygen;
Dates of research: 2009-2011;
Type of research (grant or in-house)[A]: Grant;
Sponsoring federal program or laboratory: Directorate of Engineering;
Reported funding[B]: $299,999;
Fiscal year: 2009;
Related geoengineering approach: CDR - physical carbon removal/
sequestration.
Department/Agency: NSF;
Activity description: Research into gas separation membranes for
carbon dioxide and methane, for natural gas applications;
Dates of research: 2009-2010;
Type of research (grant or in-house)[A]: Grant;
Sponsoring federal program or laboratory: Directorate of Engineering;
Reported funding[B]: $330,000;
Fiscal year: 2009;
Related geoengineering approach: CDR - physical carbon removal/
sequestration.
Department/Agency: NSF;
Activity description: Research to quantify different types of gas
transport in materials made to separate gases, such as carbon dioxide,
methane, and nitrogen;
Dates of research: 2009-2013;
Type of research (grant or in-house)[A]: Grant;
Sponsoring federal program or laboratory: Directorate of Engineering;
Reported funding[B]: $400,000;
Fiscal year: 2009;
Related geoengineering approach: CDR - physical carbon removal/
sequestration.
Department/Agency: NSF;
Activity description: Research into gas separation membranes for
separating hydrocarbons from methane and hydrogen, for natural gas
applications;
Dates of research: 2010;
Type of research (grant or in-house)[A]: Grant;
Sponsoring federal program or laboratory: Directorate of Engineering;
Reported funding[B]: $150,000;
Fiscal year: 2010;
Related geoengineering approach: Other greenhouse gas removal
approaches.
Source: GAO analysis of the agencies' responses to our data collection
instrument, which provided a definition and description of
geoengineering to officials. The data collection instrument also
included some examples of potentially relevant activities based on our
work for our March testimony on geoengineering.
Note: We collected data on agency activities through July 2010.
Accordingly, additional activities relevant to geoengineering may
receive funding during fiscal year 2010.
[A] For the purposes of this table, grant refers to an award provided
to an external institution, and in-house refers to work performed by
the reporting agency.
[B] Unless otherwise noted, reported funding represents dollars
obligated to the activity for the noted fiscal years as reported by
federal agencies.
[End of table]
Table 7: Reported Direct Geoengineering Research by USGCRP Agency and
Related Geoengineering Approach, Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010:
Department/Agency: Department of Commerce (Commerce);
Activity description: Research examining the possible implications of
aerosol-based geoengineering proposals for the peak power output of
large solar-power-generating plants;
Dates of research: 2008-2009;
Type of research (grant or in-house)[A]: In-house;
Sponsoring federal program or laboratory: NOAA's Earth System Research
Laboratory, Chemical Sciences Division;
Reported funding[B]: $45,000;
Fiscal year: 2009;
Related geoengineering approach: SRM - stratospheric aerosol injection.
Department/Agency: Department of Commerce (Commerce);
Activity description: Research examining the possible climate
implications (beyond temperature) of geoengineering proposals that
limit incoming solar radiation;
Dates of research: 2008-2009;
Type of research (grant or in-house)[A]: In-house;
Sponsoring federal program or laboratory: NOAA's Earth System Research
Laboratory, Chemical Sciences Division;
Reported funding[B]: $25,000;
Fiscal year: 2009;
Related geoengineering approach: SRM - multiple approaches.
Department/Agency: Department of Energy (DOE);
Activity description: Contribution to American Physical Society's
review of the status of technologies and concepts to physically remove
carbon dioxide from the air (direct air capture);
Dates of research: 2009-2010;
Type of research (grant or in-house)[A]: Grant;
Sponsoring federal program or laboratory: Office of Policy, Climate
Change Technology Program, and Office of Fossil Energy;
Reported funding[B]: $50,000;
Fiscal year: 2009;
Related geoengineering approach: CDR - physical carbon removal/
sequestration.
Department/Agency: Department of Energy (DOE);
Activity description: Study to perform systems analysis and cost
estimates for large-scale, direct, physical capture of carbon dioxide
from the air (direct air capture);
Dates of research: 2009;
Type of research (grant or in-house)[A]: In-house;
Sponsoring federal program or laboratory: Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory;
Reported funding[B]: $243,000;
Fiscal year: 2009;
Related geoengineering approach: CDR - physical carbon removal/
sequestration.
Department/Agency: Department of Energy (DOE);
Activity description: Study investigating the unintended consequences
of climate change response strategies, including geoengineering;
Dates of research: 2009-2010;
Type of research (grant or in-house)[A]: In-house;
Sponsoring federal program or laboratory: Sandia National Laboratory;
Reported funding[B]: $100,000; Fiscal year: 2009;
Reported funding[B]: $70,000; Fiscal year: 2010;
Related geoengineering approach: Multiple CDR and SRM approaches.
Department/Agency: DOE;
Activity description: Modeling studies related to two types of SRM:
cloud-brightening and stratospheric aerosol injection;
Dates of research: 2009-2010;
Type of research (grant or in-house)[A]: Grant;
Sponsoring federal program or laboratory: Work performed by Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory on behalf of University of Calgary,
Canada;
Reported funding[B]: $266,000;
Fiscal year: Total funding 2009 and 2010;
Related geoengineering approach: SRM - cloud albedo enhancement,
stratospheric aerosols.
Department/Agency: National Science Foundation (NSF);
Activity description: Research examining the effect of iron to carbon
ratios in food on marine copepods, which will shed light on potential
environmental impacts of ocean iron fertilization;
Dates of research: 2010-2013;
Type of research (grant or in-house)[A]: Grant;
Sponsoring federal program or laboratory: Directorate of Geosciences;
Reported funding[B]: $473,904;
Fiscal year: 2010;
Related geoengineering approach: CDR - biological carbon removal/
sequestration.
Department/Agency: National Science Foundation (NSF);
Activity description: Collaborative modeling research project studying
the impacts of plausible scenarios of stratospheric aerosol injection
and a space-based SRM method;
Dates of research: 2008-2011;
Type of research (grant or in-house)[A]: Grant;
Sponsoring federal program or laboratory: Directorate of Geosciences;
Reported funding[B]: $221,558; Fiscal year: 2009;
Reported funding[B]: $183,265; Fiscal year: 2010;
Related geoengineering approach: SRM - stratospheric aerosol
injection, space-based techniques.
Department/Agency: National Science Foundation (NSF);
Activity description: Research investigating the moral challenges of
solar radiation management;
Dates of research: 2010-2011;
Type of research (grant or in-house)[A]: Grant;
Sponsoring federal program or laboratory: Directorate of Social,
Behavioral, and Economic Sciences;
Reported funding[B]: $208,551;
Fiscal year: 2010;
Related geoengineering approach: SRM - multiple approaches.
Source: GAO analysis of the agencies' responses to our data collection
instrument, which provided a definition and description of
geoengineering to officials. The data collection instrument also
included some examples of potentially relevant activities based on our
work for our March testimony on geoengineering.
Note: We collected data on agency activities through July 2010.
Accordingly, additional activities relevant to geoengineering may
receive funding during fiscal year 2010.
[A] For the purposes of this table, grant refers to an award provided
to an external institution, and in-house refers to work performed by
the reporting agency.
[B] Unless otherwise noted, reported funding represents dollars
obligated to the activity for the noted fiscal years as reported by
federal agencies.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Frank Rusco at (202) 512-3841 or ruscof@gao.gov, and John Stephenson
at (202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contacts named above, Tim Minelli (Assistant
Director), Ana Ivelisse Aviles, Judith Droitcour, Lorraine Ettaro,
Cindy Gilbert, Eli Lewine, Madhav Panwar, Timothy Persons, Katherine
Raheb, Benjamin Shouse, Jeanette Soares, Ardith Spence, Kiki
Theodoropoulos, J. D. Thompson, and Lisa Van Arsdale made key
contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] NRC is the principal operating agency of both the National Academy
of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering.
[2] Ocean acidification is defined by the Royal Society as a decrease
in the pH of sea water due to the uptake of carbon dioxide produced as
a result of human activity.
[3] According to NRC, historical climate records indicate that the
climate system can experience abrupt changes in as little as a decade.
As discussed in the background, these changes may be linked to
"tipping points" in the earth's climate system.
[4] There are six primary greenhouse gases that are generally
monitored and reported by countries: CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide,
as well as three synthetic gases: hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. Because greenhouse gases
differ in their potential to contribute to global warming, each gas is
assigned a unique weight based on its heat-absorbing ability relative
to CO2 over a fixed period. This provides a way to convert emissions
of various greenhouse gases into a common measure, called the CO2
equivalent.
[5] GAO, Climate Change Adaptation: Strategic Federal Planning Could
Help Government Officials Make More Informed Decisions, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-113] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 7,
2009).
[6] CEQ and OSTP, together with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), are co-chairing an Interagency Climate Change
Adaptation Task Force to develop recommendations for adapting to
climate change impacts both domestically and internationally. The task
force released an interim progress report on March 16, 2010, which can
be accessed at: [hyperlink,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ceq/20100315-
interagency-adaptation-progress-report.pdf].
[7] The Royal Society, Geoengineering and the climate: Science,
governance and uncertainty (London: September 2009).
[8] Geoengineering is also referred to as climate engineering, or
climate remediation and climate intervention.
[9] In addition to these two types of approaches, other large-scale
interventions in the earth's climate system, such as removing other
greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, have been considered as part of
a potential response to reduce the impacts of climate change.
[10] The suite of studies for America's Climate Choices examines
issues associated with global climate change, including the science
and technology challenges involved, and provides advice on actions and
strategies the United States can take to respond. The four studies
issued to date are: Limiting the Magnitude of Future Climate Change,
Advancing the Science of Climate Change, Adapting to the Impacts of
Climate Change, and Informing an Effective Response to Climate Change.
These studies can be accessed at: [hyperlink,
http://americasclimatechoices.org/].
[11] Questions about how to define geoengineering and what approaches
should be included were also part of the discussion at the March 2010
Asilomar Conference on Climate Intervention Technologies, which
classified geoengineering approaches into climate intervention
technologies (equivalent to SRM) and climate remediation technologies
(equivalent to CDR).
[12] GAO, Climate Change: Preliminary Observations on Geoengineering
Science, Federal Efforts, and Governance Issues, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-546T] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 18,
2009).
[13] For example, the American Physical Society and the National
Commission for Energy Policy have undertaken studies to examine
geoengineering. Additionally, the American Meteorological Society and
American Geophysical Union have issued policy statements regarding
geoengineering.
[14] USGCRP-participating agencies are the Departments of Agriculture,
Commerce, Defense, Energy, Interior, Health and Human Services, State,
and Transportation; and the U.S. Agency for International Development,
the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, the National Science Foundation, and the
Smithsonian Institution.
[15] These 12 activities were (1) investigating green roof behavior in
dense urban environments, (2) developing membrane technology for
hydrogen purification, (3) converting municipal solid wastes to liquid
fuel, (4) developing technology for generating hydrocarbon fuels using
solar energy and CO2, (5) water desalinization project using solar
energy, (6) internationally collaborating with China to foster
emissions mitigation research, (7) developing technology to facilitate
the conversion of methane gas to liquid fuel, and five activities to
develop technologies related to biofuels. Based on their description,
we determined that these 12 activities did not appear relevant to
identified CDR or SRM approaches.
[16] One of the eight legal experts we selected did not respond to our
request for an interview. See appendix II for more information on the
legal experts we selected for this review.
[17] According to the NRC study Advancing the Science of Climate
Change, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet stores an equivalent of 11 feet
of sea level. While there is substantial uncertainty in sea level rise
projections, the consequences of extreme and rapid sea level rise
could be economically and socially devastating for highly built-up and
densely populated coastal areas around the world, according to the
study.
[18] As previously noted, the NRC study indicated that there is no
consensus regarding the extent to which the term geoengineering should
be applied to various widely accepted practices that remove CO2 from
the atmosphere. In commenting on this report, OSTP and U.S. Department
of Agriculture officials recommended against including such land-based
biological processes in an operational definition of geoengineering.
For more information on their comments, see the Agency Comments and
Our Evaluation section of this report.
[19] According to the Royal Society study, there appeared to be no
peer-reviewed studies describing methods to increase the reflectivity
of the ocean surface at the time of the study's publication. However,
two ideas that have been proposed are placing reflective disks on the
ocean's surface and creating microbubbles on the ocean surface, both
of which would reduce the amount of sunlight absorbed by the ocean's
surface and converted into heat.
[20] Gabriele C. Hegerl and Susan Solomon, "Risks of Climate
Engineering," Science 325 (2009): 955-956.
[21] OSTP officials indicated that if greenhouse gas concentrations
continued to rise, compensating SRM measures would also require a
corresponding increase to maintain the balance between global heating
and cooling. According to the Royal Society study, it is doubtful that
such a balance would be sustainable for long periods of time if
emissions were allowed to continue or increase, and any large-scale
SRM deployment introduces additional risk.
[22] The IEA is an intergovernmental organization that acts as energy
policy advisor to 28 member countries. Additional information on the
IEA can be found at their website: [hyperlink, http://www.iea.org].
International Energy Agency, Legal Aspects of Storing CO2: Update and
Recommendations (Paris: 2007).
[23] National Research Council, Advancing the Science of Climate
Change (Washington, D.C.: 2010).
[24] The Royal Society, Geoengineering and the climate: Science,
governance and uncertainty (London: September 2009).
[25] In a 2008 report, Fertilizing the Ocean with Iron, the Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution said that previous research looking at ice-
core records suggested that naturally occurring iron fertilization had
repeatedly drawn carbon out of the atmosphere during past glacial
periods.
[26] The experiment was sponsored by the German Alfred Wegener
Institute for Polar and Marine Research and the Indian National
Institute of Oceanography.
[27] Gabriele C. Hegerl and Susan Solomon, "Risks of Climate
Engineering," Science 325 (2009): 955-956.
[28] Yu. A. Izrael, V. M. Zakharov, N. N. Petrov, A. G. Ryaboshapko,
V. N. Ivanov, A. V. Savchenko, Yu. V. Andreev, V. G. Eran'kov, Yu. A.
Puzov, B. G. Danilyan, V. P. Kulyapin, and V. A. Gulevskii, "Field
Studies of a Geo-engineering Method of Maintaining a Modern Climate
with Aerosol Particles," Russian Meteorology and Hydrology 34, no. 10
(2009): 635-638.
[29] According to a NOAA official, the idea of making up-front
investments to evaluate risks (prior to any large investments in
engineering or implementation) was successfully used to protect the
ozone layer from unintended consequences of new chemicals that were
proposed to replace ozone-depleting substances such as
chlorofluorocarbons. This could serve as a potential model for risk
evaluation for geoengineering approaches.
[30] In commenting on this report, a NOAA official noted that the
amount of research directed specifically towards understanding
uncertainties surrounding geoengineering is minimal, and that such
research is important to improve our understanding of the benefits and
consequences of various geoengineering activities. This official
recommended that such research be interdisciplinary and take an
ecosystem perspective.
[31] National Research Council, Advancing the Science of Climate
Change (Washington, D.C.: 2010), and National Research Council,
Limiting the Magnitude of Future Climate Change (Washington, D.C.:
2010).
[32] DOE officials noted that any economic costs of geoengineering
would also need to be weighed against the costs of damages from
unmitigated climate change.
[33] These activities were current as of July 2010. Accordingly,
additional activities relevant to geoengineering may receive funding
during fiscal year 2010.
[34] According to its final report, the NASA Institute for Advanced
Concepts (NIAC) was formed to provide an independent source of
revolutionary aeronautical and space concepts that could dramatically
impact how NASA develops and conducts its missions. As part of the
NIAC selection process, the study related to SRM was selected through
an open-solicitation and peer-reviewed competition, which was managed
by the Universities Space Research Association, a private, nonprofit
organization.
[35] National Research Council, Advancing the Science of Climate
Change (Washington, D.C.: 2010).
[36] We have also reported on the advantages of applying such an
adaptive approach to risk-management when making decisions under
substantial uncertainty. See GAO, Highway Safety: Foresight Issues
Challenge DOT's Efforts to Assess and Respond to New Technology-Based
Trends, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-56]
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 3, 2008).
[37] While recognizing USGCRP's capacity to lead a coordinated climate
change science research effort, NRC also identified areas where
further improvements are needed for USGCRP to implement NRC's
recommendations. For example, NRC stated that USGCRP will need to
establish improved mechanisms for identifying and addressing
weaknesses and gaps in research and decision support activities. NRC
also recommended that USGCRP will need expanded budget oversight and
authority to coordinate and prioritize research across agencies.
[38] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-113].
[39] GAO, Global Food Security: U.S. Agencies Progressing on
Governmentwide Strategy, but Approach Faces Several Vulnerabilities,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-352] (Washington, D.C.:
Mar. 11, 2010).
[40] GAO, Clean Coal: DOE's Decision to Restructure FutureGen Should
Be Based on a Comprehensive Analysis of Costs, Benefits, and Risks,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-248] (Washington, D.C.:
Feb. 13, 2009).
[41] An EPA official also noted that DOE, Interior, and EPA have been
informally coordinating for several years on issues related to
geological sequestration.
[42] The term "legal experts" refers to nongovernmental legal experts,
as listed in appendix II
[43] The law is limited to disposition of materials by vessels or
aircraft registered in the United States, vessels or aircraft
departing from the United States, federal agencies, or disposition of
materials conducted in U.S. territorial waters, which extend 12 miles
from the shoreline or coastal baseline.
[44] For an in-depth discussion of how existing laws apply to the
capture, transport, and geological sequestration of CO2, see the
Report of the Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage,
available at: [hyperlink,
http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/sequestration/ccs_task_force.html].
[45] CERCLA defines hazardous substances as substances which may
present substantial danger to the public health, welfare, or
environment when released, including all hazardous wastes subject to
RCRA.
[46] In 1992, the United States and most other nations of the world
negotiated the convention, whose objective is to stabilize greenhouse
gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent
dangerous man-made interference with the climate system within a time
frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate
change, to ensure that food production is not threatened, and to
enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.
[47] Parties to an international agreement are those countries that
have consented to be bound by the treaty and for which the treaty is
in force. Generally, countries express their consent to be bound by a
treaty by ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to it. Countries
that have signed the treaty but not consented to be bound to it are
obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose
of a treaty until the country's intention not to become a party to the
treaty is made clear.
[48] The Royal Society noted that in addition to formal agreements
between nations, there are a number of customary law and general
principles that might also apply to geoengineering activities. For
example, the Royal Society noted that the duty not to cause
significant transboundary harm is recognized in several treaties and
that states are expected to exercise due diligence in regulating
activities under their jurisdiction and control.
[49] The Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping
of Wastes and Other Matter (London Convention) entered into force on
August 30, 1975. The London Convention requires parties to promote the
effective control of all sources of pollution of the marine
environment and take all practicable steps to prevent the pollution of
the sea by the dumping of wastes and other matter. In 1996, the
parties to the London Convention developed a protocol--the 1996
Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by
Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (London Protocol)--that generally
prohibits the dumping of wastes or other matter into the ocean except
for those listed in the protocol for which a party to the agreement
has issued a dumping permit that meets the protocol's permitting
requirements. As parties to the London Convention become parties to
the London Protocol, the latter supersedes the former, but the
convention remains in force for those parties to the convention, like
the United States, that have not become parties to the protocol.
[50] The Convention on Biological Diversity entered into force on
December 29, 1993. The convention's objectives are the conservation of
biological diversity and the sustainable use of its components, among
other things.
[51] The amendment will enter into force for those parties that have
accepted it 60 days after two-thirds of the parties to the protocol
have accepted, ratified, or approved the amendment.
[52] In commenting on this report, a NOAA official noted that it would
be important to have a coordinated strategy for addressing
international oversight and regulation of geoengineering. For more
information on agency comments, see the Agency Comments and Our
Evaluation section of this report.
[53] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-546T].
[54] The Royal Society is the United Kingdom's national academy of
sciences.
[55] USGCRP-participating agencies are the Departments of Agriculture
(USDA), Commerce, Defense (DOD), Energy (DOE), Interior, Health and
Human Services, State, and Transportation; and the U.S. Agency for
International Development, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National
Science Foundation (NSF), and the Smithsonian Institution.
[56] These 12 activities were (1) investigating green roof behavior in
dense urban environments, (2) developing membrane technology for
hydrogen purification, (3) converting municipal solid wastes to liquid
fuel, (4) developing technology for generating hydrocarbon fuels using
solar energy and CO2, (5) water desalinization project using solar
energy, (6) internationally collaborating with China to foster
emissions mitigation research, (7) developing technology to facilitate
the conversion of methane gas to liquid fuel, and five activities to
develop technologies related to biofuels. Based on their description,
we determined that these 12 activities did not appear relevant to
identified CDR or SRM approaches.
[57] House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, The Regulation
of Geoengineering: Fifth Report of Session 2009-10 (London, United
Kingdom, Mar. 18, 2010).
[58] Albedo is the fraction of solar radiation reflected by a surface
or object, often expressed as a percentage. Snow-covered surfaces have
a high albedo, the surface albedo of soils ranges from high to low,
and vegetation-covered surfaces and oceans have a low albedo. The
earth's planetary albedo varies mainly through varying cloudiness,
snow, ice, leaf area, and land cover changes.
[59] Cloud condensation nuclei are small particles in the air that
become surfaces on which water vapor can condense and form cloud
droplets. Sources of cloud condensation nuclei can be both natural and
human-caused. Natural sources of cloud condensation nuclei include
volcanic dust, sea spray salt, and bacteria. Humans also release
unnatural chemicals into the air from the burning of fossil fuels and
from industrial sources.
[60] The L1 orbit position is the point between the earth and sun
where the gravitational attractions of the two bodies are equal.
[61] Pub. L. No. 111-5 (2009).
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
