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 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.
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. View 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.
Full report here:United States Government Accountability Office
Report to the Chairman, Committee on
Science and Technology, House of
Representatives 2010
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-10-903.pdf |