U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

62–619PDF 2010

ENGINEERING THE CLIMATE:

RESEARCH NEEDS AND STRATEGIES

FOR INTERNATIONAL COORDINATION

COMMITTEE PRINT

BY THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

OCTOBER 2010

Serial No. 111–A

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology. This document 

has been printed for informational purposes only and does not represent either findings or recommendations adopted by this Committee.

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov 
(II)

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

DAVID WU, Oregon 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio 

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL D. TONKO, New York 

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio 

KATHLEEN DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

SUZANNE M. KOSMAS, Florida 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

VACANCY 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

PETE OLSON, Texas 
(III)

FOREWORD 

Climate engineering, also known as geoengineering, can be described as the deliberate large-scale modification of the earth’s climate systems for the purposes of counteracting and mitigating climate change. As this subject becomes the focus of more serious consideration and scrutiny within the scientific and policy communities, it is important to acknowledge that climate engineering carries with it not only possible benefits, but also an enormous range 

of uncertainties, ethical and political concerns, and the potential for 

harmful environmental and economic side-effects. I believe that reducing greenhouse gas emissions should be the first priority of any 

domestic or international climate initiative. Nothing should distract 

us from this priority, and climate engineering must not divert any 

of the resources dedicated to greenhouse gas reductions and clean 

energy development. However, we are facing an unfortunate reality. The global climate is already changing and the onset of climate change impacts may outpace the world’s political, technical, 

and economic capacities to prevent and adapt to them. Therefore, 

policymakers should begin consideration of climate engineering research now to better understand which technologies or methods, if 

any, represent viable stopgap strategies for managing our changing 

climate and which pose unacceptable risks.

‘‘We need the research now to establish whether such approaches can do 

more good than harm. This research will take time. We cannot wait to ready 

such systems until an emergency is upon us.’’

—Dr. Ken Caldeira, Geoengineering: Assessing the Implications of LargeScale Climate Intervention (written hearing testimony) (2009).

Likewise, the impact of a moratorium on research should be carefully weighed against the importance of promoting scientific freedom and accountability. Scientific research and risk assessment is 

essential to developing an adequate scientific basis on which to justify or prohibit any action related to climate change, including climate engineering activities. Sound science should be used to support decision making at all levels, including rigorous and exhaustive examination of both the dangers and the value of individual 

climate engineering strategies. A research moratoria that stifles 

science, especially at this stage in our understanding of climate 

engineering’s risks and benefits, is a step in the wrong direction 

and undercuts the importance of scientific transparency. The global 

community is best served by research that is both open and accountable. If climate change is indeed one of the greatest long-term 

threats to biological diversity and human welfare, then failing to 

understand all of our options is also a threat to biodiversity and 

human welfare. 

There is no clear consensus as to which types of activities fall 

within the definition of climate engineering. For example, most ex-
IV

1 JOHN SHEPHERD ET AL., GEOENGINEERING THE CLIMATE: SCIENCE, GOVERNANCE AND UNCERTAINTY (The U.K. Royal Society) (2009). 2See infra Appendix at p.47. 

perts on land-based strategies for biological sequestration of carbon, such as afforestation, do not identify the activities they study 

as climate engineering. The definition of the term also depends 

somewhat on the context in which it is used. For the purpose of developing regulations, for instance, the term may apply to a smaller 

set of higher-risk strategies than might otherwise be included for 

the purpose of crafting a broad interagency or international research initiative. In the interest of simplicity and consistency, the 

criteria used in this report are modeled off of the U.K. Royal Society Report, Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and 

Uncertainty.1 These criteria are inclusive of lower-risk activities 

such as reflective roofs, some types of carbon capture and sequestration, and distributed land management strategies, as well as 

more controversial proposals such as ocean fertilization and atmospheric aerosol injection. 

Readers may notice that I use the term ‘‘climate engineering’’ instead of ‘‘geoengineering’’ throughout this report. While 

‘‘geoengineering’’ is the term more commonly used to describe this 

category of activities, I feel that it does not accurately or fully convey the scale and intent of these proposals, and it may simply be 

confusing to many stakeholders unfamiliar with the subject. Therefore, for the purposes of clarity, facilitating public engagement, and 

acknowledging the seriousness of the task at hand, this report will 

use the term ‘‘climate engineering’’ in lieu of ‘‘geoengineering’’ 

going forward. 

This report is informed by an extensive review of proposed climate engineering strategies and their potential impacts, including 

a joint inquiry between the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science and Technology and the United Kingdom House 

of Commons Science and Technology Committee (hereafter referred 

to as the ‘‘U.S. Committee’’ and the ‘‘U.K. Committee’’), three Congressional hearings, review of scientific research relevant to climate engineering, and discussions with a number of experts, stakeholder groups, scientists and managers at federal agencies, and the 

Government Accountability Office (GAO). 

As noted in the attached joint agreement between the U.S. and 

U.K. Committees, Collaboration and Coordination on 

Geoengineering,2 the U.S. Committee investigated the research and 

development challenges associated with climate engineering, while 

the U.K. Committee focused on regulatory and international governance issues. Striking the right balance between research and 

regulation is critical as both should develop, to some degree, in parallel. Regulatory processes must be based on sound scientific information, and some climate engineering research will require regulation and government oversight. Furthermore, development of a 

comprehensive risk assessment framework to weigh the potential 

public benefits of climate engineering against its potential dangers 

will be needed to inform decision makers and the public as policies 

are crafted for research and possible deployment. 

Equally important in the development of policies for climate engineering research will be transparency and public engagement. For 
V

this reason, both the U.S. and U.K. Committees have sought to establish an official record through public proceedings with relevant 

background materials posted online. Just as full-scale deployment 

of climate engineering would necessarily have global effects, some 

large-scale field research activities will impact multiple communities and cross international borders. Furthermore, the impacts of 

climate engineering may be felt most by less economically-advanced 

populations that are particularly vulnerable to climatic changes, 

deliberate or otherwise. Widespread public understanding and acceptance is fundamental to any climate engineering policy that is 

both socially equitable and politically feasible. 

It is my intent that this report, the U.S. and U.K. Committees’ 

hearing records, the reports from GAO, and other forthcoming documents will make key contributions to the evolving global conversation on climate engineering and help guide future government 

and academic structures for research and development activities in 

this field. In addition, the bilateral cooperation between the U.S. 

and U.K. Committees on this topic should serve as a model for future inter-parliamentary collaboration. As nations become more 

technologically, economically, and ecologically interdependent, multilateral collaboration will be critical to developing policies that address an increasingly complex range of challenges.

Congressman Bart Gordon, Chairman 

Committee on Science and Technology 

United States House of Representatives 

(VII)

C O N T E N T S 

October 2010

Page 

Foreword ................................................................................................................... III

Table of Contents ..................................................................................................... VII

Background .............................................................................................................. 1

Summary of Hearings ............................................................................................. 3

Research Needs ........................................................................................................ 7

U.S. Research Capacities ........................................................................................ 8

National Science Foundation ........................................................................... 9

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ...................................... 12

Department of Energy ...................................................................................... 17

National Aeronautics and Space Administration .......................................... 22

Environmental Protection Agency ................................................................... 26

U.S. Department of Agriculture ...................................................................... 28

Other Federal Agencies .................................................................................... 30

Organizational Models ............................................................................................ 32

General Findings and Recommendations .............................................................. 37

Additional Sources ................................................................................................... 45

Appendix

United States–United Kingdom Joint Agreement ................................................ 47

(1)

3The proposed reductions in global solar radiation absorption are usually 1–2%; around 30% 

is already reflected naturally by the earth’s surface and atmosphere. See Geoengineering: Assessing the Implications of Large-Scale Climate Intervention Hearing Before the House of Representatives Committee on Science and Technology, 111th Cong. (2009) (Hearing Charter). 

Engineering the Climate: Research Needs

and Strategies for International Coordination 

This document has been developed by the Chairman and staff of 

the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science and Technology, for use by the Members of the Committee, the United 

States Congress, and the public. It has not been reviewed or approved by the Members of the Committee and may therefore not 

necessarily reflect the views of all Members of the Committee. This 

document has been printed for informational purposes only and 

does not represent either findings or recommendations adopted by 

the Committee. 

This report should not be construed to provide any binding or authoritative analysis of any statute. This report also does not reflect 

the legal position of the United States.

BACKGROUND 

During the 111th Congress, the U.S. Committee launched an initiative to better understand the issues surrounding climate engineering, and collaborated with the U.K. Committee to explore the 

subject. The U.S. Committee convened three public hearings to explore the science, governance, risks, and research needs associated 

with climate engineering. A summary of each hearing follows this 

section. 

This report consolidates information gathered during eighteen 

months of inquiry, and focuses on the research needs associated 

with climate engineering. It identifies key research capacities, 

skills, and tools located within U.S. federal agencies that could be 

leveraged to inform climate engineering science responsibly. Included throughout the report are recommendations of the Chair in 

bold text. 

Climate engineering, or geoengineering, can be defined as the deliberate large-scale modification of the earth’s climate systems for 

the purpose of counteracting and mitigating anthropogenic climate 

change. The strategies which fall under this definition are loosely 

organized into two types: Solar Radiation Management and Carbon 

Dioxide Removal. Solar Radiation Management (SRM) methods 

propose to reflect a fraction of the sun’s radiation back into space,3

thereby reducing the amount of solar radiation trapped in the 

earth’s atmosphere and stabilizing its energy balance. Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) methods, also known as Air Capture (AC), propose to reduce excess CO2 concentrations by capturing CO2 directly 
2

4 JOHN SHEPHERD ET AL., GEOENGINEERING THE CLIMATE: SCIENCE, GOVERNANCE AND UNCER- TAINTY (The U.K. Royal Society) (2009). 5DIVISION ON EARTH AND LIFE SCIENCES, NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, AMERICA’S CLIMATE

CHOICES: ADVANCING THE SCIENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE p.299 (National Academies Press) 

(2010). 6 H.R. REP. NOS. 111–62, 111–75, 111–88 (2010). 7KELSI BRACMORT ET AL., GEOENGINEERING: GOVERNANCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY (U.S. 

Congressional Research Service) (2010). 

from the air and storing the captured gases as a solid through mineralization, or consuming it via biological processes. CDR is different from direct capture, which targets carbon from a single point 

source and stores it in sedimentary formations. A comprehensive 

discussion of the variety of proposed strategies can be found in the 

U.K. Royal Society report, discussed below, although it is expected 

that some proposals for climate engineering will continue to evolve 

into completely new technical concepts over time. 

While proposals for climate engineering in some form have been 

around for decades, climate change research and regulation efforts 

have been almost wholly focused on mitigation through emissions 

reductions and, more recently, adaptation to the effects of a changing climate. Because of the inherent risks and uncertainties, climate engineering, thus far, has not represented a technically viable, environmentally sound, or politically prudent option for preventing or adapting to climate change. However, in recent years a 

growing number of credible scientific bodies have engaged in more 

serious deliberation to the concept of climate engineering. 

In September of 2009 the U.K. Royal Society published a comprehensive report entitled, Geoengineering the Climate: Science, 

Governance and Uncertainty.4 In May 2010 the National Research 

Council released a pre-publication version of a congressionally requested report, America’s Climate Choices,5 which included discussion on several carbon dioxide removal strategies. In the spring of 

2010 the bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy (NCEP) 

announced its formation of a Task Force on Geoengineering to explore U.S. governmental approaches to research and governance 

issues. Since the U.S. Committee began its inquiry, at least three 

books dedicated exclusively to the topic of climate engineering have 

been released. Following on to its previous efforts, the U.K. Royal 

Society, in partnership with the Environmental Defense Fund 

(EDF) and the Academy of Sciences for the Developing World, initiated the Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative 

(SRMGI) to ensure strict and appropriate governance of any plans 

for solar radiation management. 

In addition to these efforts, the U.S. Committee commissioned 

both the Congressional Research Service (CRS) and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct their own inquiries. 

CRS reviewed the international treaties, laws and other existing 

regulatory frameworks that might apply if climate engineering 

were tested or deployed at a large scale. This report was released 

on March 11, 2010 and is contained in its entirety as part of the 

official Committee hearing records.6 A second report was released 

by CRS in August 2010 containing a more detailed consideration 

of the potential regulatory issues of climate engineering.7 GAO conducted a Committee-requested assessment of the current federal 

agency research activities directly related to climate engineering. 
3

8 U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, A COORDINATED STRATEGY COULD FOCUS FEDERAL GEOENGINEERING RESEARCH AND INFORM GOVERNANCE EFFORTS (Publication No. GAO 10–

903) (2010). 9 Access to official hearing records is available at <http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house/

house14ch111.html>.

This GAO inquiry focused on the general state of the science and 

technology regarding climate engineering approaches and their potential effects, the extent to which the U.S. federal government is 

sponsoring or participating in climate engineering research or deployment, the views of legal experts and federal officials regarding 

the extent to which federal laws and international agreements 

apply to climate engineering activities, and some of the associated 

governance challenges. This report, A Coordinated Strategy Could 

Focus Federal Geoengineering Research and Inform Governance Efforts, was released in October 2010.8 Also at the Chairman’s request, a separate group of scientists and engineers within GAO are 

conducting a technology assessment on various climate engineering 

strategies and the related technical and societal considerations, 

with a report on their process and findings expected in early 2011. 

This GAO effort will include a survey of the knowledge base within 

the scientific community about leading climate engineering approaches, the public’s general perception of those approaches, and 

the prospects for their potential development. 

SUMMARY OF HEARINGS 

The U.S. Science and Technology Committee held three public 

hearings to receive testimony from expert witnesses on climate engineering. The official record of these hearings, including discussion 

transcripts, witness testimony, questions for the record, and other 

supplementary materials, was finalized in July 2010 and will be 

available to academia, policy makers and the public.9

Geoengineering: Assessing the Implications of Large-Scale Climate 

Intervention 

On November 5, 2009, with the Honorable Bart Gordon (D–TN) 

presiding, the U.S. Committee held a hearing to introduce the concept of climate engineering and explore some of the scientific, regulatory, engineering, governance, and ethical challenges. Five witnesses testified before the Committee:

• Professor John Shepherd, Professional Research Fellow in 

Earth System Science at the University of Southampton and 

Chair of the Royal Society working group that produced the 

report Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and 

Uncertainty

• Dr. Ken Caldeira, Professor of Environmental Science, Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution of 

Washington and co-author of the Royal Society Report

• Mr. Lee Lane, Co-Director of the American Enterprise Institute Geoengineering Project

• Dr. Alan Robock, professor at the Department of Environmental Sciences in the School of Environmental and Biological Sciences at Rutgers University
4

• Dr. James Fleming, Professor and Director of the Science, 

Technology and Society Department at Colby College and author of Fixing the Sky: The Checkered History of Weather and 

Climate Control.

Chairman Gordon introduced some key challenges with climate 

engineering and described Committee plans for future discussion 

and international collaboration. He warned that climate engineering is no substitute for greenhouse gas mitigation and would require years of research before deployment. 

During the witness testimony, Professor Shepherd described the 

goals and conclusions of the Royal Society report and recommended 

a multidisciplinary research initiative on climate engineering, including widespread public engagement at a global scale. Dr. 

Caldeira profiled the two major categories of climate engineering, 

solar radiation management (SRM) and carbon dioxide removal 

(CRM), and called for an interagency research program on both 

types. Mr. Lane argued for the economic viability of and environmental and political rationale for stratospheric injections, an SRM 

strategy. Dr. Robock identified some major risks and uncertainties 

of climate engineering. Specifically, he noted the problems of international disagreement, large-scale field testing, and the potential 

impacts of interruptions to large scale SRM systems, but argued for 

a comprehensive research program to help inform future climate 

policy decisions. Dr. Fleming provided a historical context on 

weather modification and its concurrent governmental challenges, 

arguing that any climate engineering initiative must be interdisciplinary, international, and intergenerational. 

During the question and answer period, the Members and witnesses discussed: the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 as an analog to stratospheric injections, the potential efficacy of greenhouse 

gas mitigation goals, the need for continued mitigation strategies 

and behavioral changes, the methane output of livestock, the environmental impacts of stratospheric injections, and the challenges of 

international collaboration and regulation. They also reviewed: climate modeling and simulation tools, anthropogenic climate change, 

the possibilities of distributed solar panels, potential roles for U.S. 

federal agencies in research and deployment, and how to prioritize 

the different suggested strategies. The panelists and Members 

agreed that no nation, including the United States or the United 

Kingdom, should deploy any climate engineering strategies before 

performing extensive research and establishing appropriate governance mechanisms. They also agreed that a comprehensive research 

program should be multi-disciplinary and internationally coordinated.

Geoengineering II: The Scientific Basis and Engineering Challenges 

On February 4, 2010, with the Honorable Brian Baird (D–WA) 

presiding, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held a 

hearing to explore the scientific foundation of several climate engineering proposals and their potential engineering demands, environmental impacts, costs, efficacy, and permanence. Four witnesses 

testified before the Subcommittee:
5

• Dr. David Keith, Canada Research Chair in Energy and the 

Environment at the University of Calgary

• Dr. Philip Rasch, Laboratory Fellow of the Atmospheric 

Sciences & Global Change Division and Chief Scientist for 

Climate Science at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

• Dr. Klaus Lackner, Ewing-Worzel Professor of Geophysics 

and Chair of the Earth & Environmental Engineering Department at Columbia University

• Dr. Robert Jackson, Nicholas Chair of Global Environmental 

Change and a Professor in the Biology Department at Duke 

University.

During the witness testimony, Dr. Keith emphasized the distinction between the two types of climate engineering, and compared 

climate engineering to chemotherapy as an unwanted but potentially necessary tool in the case of an emergency situation. Dr. 

Rasch described SRM strategies and suggested first steps for developing an SRM research program, noting that initial costs could be 

low but that more sensitive climate modeling tools would be needed. Dr. Lackner described the CDR strategies of carbon air capture 

and mineral sequestration. He noted that such technologies were 

compatible with a continued global dependence on fossil fuels and 

would address the causes, rather than symptoms, of climate 

change, but that high costs would be a challenge. Dr. Jackson discussed biological and land-based strategies in both the CDR and 

SRM categories. He explained that existing regulatory structures 

and expertise could accommodate many of these strategies fairly 

readily, but that both scalability and the foreseeable and unforeseeable impacts on other natural resources, such as water and biodiversity, would be problematic. 

During the question and answer period, the Members and witnesses discussed: the front end costs of climate engineering compared to traditional mitigation alone, the costs and potential impacts of atmospheric sulfate injections, and creative strategies for 

chemical and geological carbon uptake. They also explored public 

education and opinion on climate engineering, the potential effects 

of increased structural albedo, and the greatest political challenges 

of climate management. The Members emphasized some existing 

tools that could reduce the need for climate engineering, such as 

unconventional carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) strategies, 

the availability and economic viability of fossil fuel alternatives, 

and energy conservation. All the witnesses agreed that a basic research program on the subject is likely needed, whether for the ultimate goal of deployment or for the sake of risk management.

Geoengineering III: Domestic and International Research Governance 

On March 18, 2010, with the Honorable Bart Gordon presiding, 

the Committee held a hearing to explore the domestic and international governance needs to initiate and guide a climate engineering research program. The hearing also examined which U.S. agencies and institutions have the capacity or authorities to conduct climate engineering research. Five witnesses, divided into two panels, 

testified before the Committee. 
6

10SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE, UNITED KINGDOM HOUSE OF COMMONS, THE REGULATION OF GEOENGINEERING (Stationery Office Limited) (2010). 

Testifying via satellite on the first panel was Member of Parliament Phil Willis, then Chair of the Science and Technology Committee in the U.K. House of Commons and Representative of Harrogate and Knaresborough. Mr. Willis has subsequently been appointed Baron Willis of Knaresborough, Member of the House of 

Lords. In his opening statement, Chairman Gordon welcomed 

Chairman Willis as his honored guest. He emphasized that the scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change is overwhelming 

and that a more robust scientific and political understanding of climate engineering is needed. 

Chairman Willis testified on the U.K.–U.S. joint climate engineering inquiry and introduced his Committee’s official report on 

the subject, The Regulation of Geoengineering.10 He delineated 

some of the report’s key findings and recommendations, including 

governing principles, and stressed that while climate engineering 

would be an extremely complex and challenging venture, it would 

be irresponsible not to initiate appropriate regulation and research. 

During the first question and answer period, Chairman Willis and 

the U.S. Committee Members discussed the potential value of a 

comprehensive international database on climate engineering information and activities, the future of research in the United Kingdom, and additional opportunities for bilateral cooperation between 

the Committees. They also discussed the role of public opinion and 

the media, and how the U.K. inquiry process engaged both the public and scientific experts. 

The second panel consisted of:

• Dr. Frank Rusco, Director of Natural Resources and Environment at the Government Accountability Office (GAO)

• Dr. Scott Barrett, Lenfest Professor of Natural Resource Economics at the School of International and Public Affairs and 

the Earth Institute at Columbia University

• Dr. Jane Long, Associate Director-at-Large and Fellow for 

the Center for Global Strategic Research at Lawrence Livermore National Lab (LLNL)

• Dr. Granger Morgan, Professor and Head of the Department 

of Engineering and Public Policy and Lord Chair Professor 

in Engineering at Carnegie Mellon University.

During Panel II, Dr. Rusco summarized key findings of the 

GAO’s ongoing inquiry on climate engineering, describing some of 

the existing relevant research activities in federal agencies, as well 

as some relevant international treaties. He also provided support 

for the near-term regulation of some climate engineering strategies. 

Dr. Morgan described climate engineering research at Carnegie 

Mellon University and argued for a cautious, risk-aware research 

program on solar radiation management. He also argued that the 

National Science Foundation should lead initial research efforts, 

that transparency should be a priority, and that the potential environmental impacts of specific research initiatives should inform the 

international agreements and laws intended to regulate them. Dr. 

Long discussed the key questions and principles for governance and 
7

11For a detailed discussion of each geoengineering strategy and its scientific basis, see JOHN

SHEPHERD ET AL., GEOENGINEERING THE CLIMATE: SCIENCE, GOVERNANCE AND UNCERTAINTY

(The U.K. Royal Society) (2009). 12See DIVISION ON EARTH AND LIFE SCIENCES, NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, AMERICA’S CLIMATE CHOICES: ADVANCING THE SCIENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE p.297 (National Academies Press) 

(2010).

risk management, and urged that the benefits of any program must 

very clearly outweigh the risks. Dr. Barrett assessed the different 

scenarios in which climate engineering might be needed, warning 

that there would necessarily be ‘‘winner and losers,’’ and recommended seven key governance rules. 

During the discussion period with this panel, the Members and 

witnesses discussed initial regulatory structures and debated the 

appropriate research and management roles for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and other 

U.S. federal agencies. They also discussed national security and 

geopolitical impacts of climate change itself and the need for adaptive management. All panelists and witnesses agreed that unilateral 

deployment of climate engineering could be very dangerous and 

should be avoided. There was also a consensus that climate engineering is a highly interdisciplinary, diverse topic, and that any 

federal research initiative may require several agency and university partners.

RESEARCH NEEDS 

As stated, climate engineering research will be multi-disciplinary 

and require a coordinated effort to sufficiently inform testing or deployment of any of the proposed strategies.11 While, some strategies, such as forest management, have a more extensive scientific 

foundation than others, an improved understanding of the potential 

efficacy and impacts of all proposals is needed.12 Below are several 

key areas of research that may be needed to better understand the 

physical and chemical processes, and assess the technical and financial feasibility, engineering needs, and the environmental, ecological and societal implications of various climate engineering 

strategies. These areas of research are commonly recognized by climate engineering and earth sciences experts as fundamental to one 

or more of the main proposed strategies. They include but are not 

limited to: 

• Greenhouse gas monitoring, accounting and verification

• Hydrologic cycle modeling

• Water and air quality modeling and monitoring

• Atmospheric dynamics and physics

• Ocean and lake dynamics and physics

• Atmospheric chemical composition (e.g. carbon dioxide, 

ozone, moisture, and other greenhouse gases such as methane)

• Ocean and terrestrial biology and ecosystems

• Invasive plant and animal species

• Risk assessment and risk management
8

13See Geoengineering: Assessing the Implications of Large-Scale Climate Intervention Hearing 

Before the House of Representatives Committee on Science and Technology, 111th Cong. (2009) 

(John Shepherd Testimony). 14 Id. 15See for e.g. STAFF OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 111TH CONG., REPORT ON GEOENGINEERING III: DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL RE-

• Chemical, electrical and mechanical engineering 13

• Earth systems environmental sciences 14, including modeling 

• Weather systems, including monsoon cycles

• Forces impacting the ozone layer

• Impacts of forestry and agricultural practices on greenhouse 

gas emissions

• Biochar

• Terrestrial carbon sequestration

• Phytoplankton

• Ocean acidification and chemistry

• Recyclable carbon adsorbents

• Geologic/seismic imaging

• Radiation measurement

• Cloud microphysics

• Geochemical dynamics and carbon mineralization

• Sea ice dynamics and thermodynamics

• Genomic science

• Energy generation and use

The tools required to support these research needs include but 

are not limited to:

• High performance computing systems for modeling

• Weather and climate monitoring tools, including satellites, 

and ground-based and in situ instrumentation

• Land use change monitoring systems, including environmental satellites

• Networks of distributed water sampling tools for both fresh 

and ocean waters

• Geological imaging tools, such as spectroscopic remote sensing

• Chemical laboratories to measure and understand the role of 

chemistry in the earth system

• Biological and ecological observing systems and laboratories

• Engineering research laboratories with the ability to bench 

test, field test, and evaluate various climate engineering concepts

U.S. RESEARCH CAPACITIES 

There is virtually no federal funding explicitly dedicated to ‘‘climate engineering’’ or ‘‘geoengineering’’ research. However, as discussed in their October report, GAO found that some federal agencies already conduct activities that address many of the research 

needs identified above, albeit without ‘‘climate engineering’’ as an 

express or intended goal.15 This section, in contrast with the GAO 
9

SEARCH GOVERNANCE BEFORE THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY HEARING (Comm. Print 2010) (Frank Rusco Responses to Questions for the 

Record).

report, explores some of the existing tools and competencies in federal agencies that could contribute to climate engineering research. 

It is the opinion of the Chair that any federal climate engineering research program should leverage existing facilities, instruments, skills, and partnerships within federal 

agencies.

National Science Foundation 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) supports basic research 

and education across all fields of fundamental science and engineering. Most of NSF’s budget is dedicated to supporting investigator-initiated, merit-reviewed, and competitively-selected awards 

and contracts to researchers and teams primarily from U.S. colleges and universities, but also, including non-profit organizations 

and private sector firms. A smaller portion of NSF funding goes to 

support major research centers and cutting-edge tools and facilities. 

NSF also has a long history of fostering and conducting international scientific collaborations on both small and large-scale research projects. Therefore, of the federal research agencies, 

the National Science Foundation (NSF) may have the greatest capacity to engage in research related to the nascent 

field of climate engineering, and it is the opinion of the 

Chair that NSF should support merit-reviewed proposals for 

climate engineering research.

An Example of an NSF Grant Researchers at Rutgers University have 

received a grant, through the NSF Geosciences (GEO) Directorate, to explore 

stratospheric injections and sunshading. The team has conducted climate 

model simulations of the various scenarios of artificially introduced particles 

in the stratosphere. And they have investigated the potential impacts of 

stratospheric injections on precipitation, as well as the ethical implications 

of some climate engineering proposals. As of November 2009 the team had 

produced five peer-reviewed journal articles on its research.

Research Directorates 

NSF is divided into the following seven Directorates that support 

science and engineering research and education: Biological 

Sciences; Computer and Information Science and Engineering; 

Education and Human Resources; Engineering; Geosciences; Mathematical and Physical Sciences; and Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences. Each Directorate is subdivided into divisions. All 

Directorates, with the likely exception of Education and Human 

Resources, support research needs associated with climate engineering. For example, the Engineering Directorate currently supports fundamental research on the development of materials, methods, and innovative processes for the separation and removal of 

contaminants such as carbon dioxide from the air. The Geosciences 

(GEO) Directorate supports research on the chemistry of ocean 

acidification, including the interplay of acidification and the biochemical and physiological processes of organisms, and the implications of these effects for ecosystem structure and function. In addi-
10

tion, the Biological Sciences (BIO) Directorate supports research on 

the complexity and adaptability of biological systems and their 

interface with the carbon and water cycles. Research activities that 

could contribute to ocean fertilization or terrestrial CDR strategies, 

for example, are already being addressed under the BIO and GEO 

portfolios. It is the opinion of the Chair that the National 

Science Foundation (NSF) should consider how all of its 

grant programs could contribute to a climate engineering 

research agenda.

Centers and Facilities 

While NSF does not operate its own laboratories, it supports construction and operations for an array of advanced instrumentation 

and major research facilities, including oceanographic research vessels. For example, through its Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction account, NSF is currently supporting development and construction of the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON, see inset) and the Oceans Observatory Initiative. 

NSF is also the primary sponsor for the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). NCAR supports research in areas such as 

atmospheric chemistry, climate change, cloud physics, solar radiation, and related physical, biological, and social systems. NCAR is 

home to a number of world-class experts and tools, including an atmosphere-ocean general circulation model, which could contribute 

to climate engineering research. In fact, NCAR researchers have already begun to explore how sulfate particles behave in the stratosphere and their effects on the ozone layer.

National Ecological Observatory Network The NSF-funded National 

Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) ecological observation program is 

the most ambitious U.S. attempt to assess environmental change to date. 

The program has divided the United States into 20 eco-climatic domains 

and will monitor the regions over 30 years through site-based and geological 

data and airplane observations. The results will inform how land use 

change, climate change, and invasive species affect ecosystems.

NEON’s activities will include soil analysis, measuring land use and vegetation changes, and monitoring forest canopy heights and biomass. Its data 

will enable researchers to quantify forces regulating the biosphere and predict its response to change. NEON infrastructure will include towers and 

sensor arrays, remote sensing, cutting-edge instrumentation, and facilities 

for data analysis, modeling, and forecasting. The level of detail and uninterrupted data sets expected from NEON and the experts that analyze its data 

could inform research on land-based climate engineering, such as 

afforestation and reforestation, reflective crops, and biochar. NEON could 

also contribute to the eventual monitoring of other CDR strategies.

Political and Ethical Research 

Understanding the full range of impacts of climate engineering 

will entail a unique set of challenges outside of the scientific and 

engineering categories identified earlier. Research underlying areas 

such as domestic and international governance, economics, and risk 

assessment and management, will likely be required as long as climate engineering remains an option. There are also significant ethical considerations with the large-scale testing and deployment of 

climate engineering, since some strategies may benefit certain populations at the expense of others. Likewise, there are ethical con-
11

16 JOANE NAGEL ET AL., WORKSHOP ON SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON GLOBAL CLIMATE

CHANGE (National Science Foundation) (2009). Available at <http://ireswb.cc.ku.edu/∼crgc/

NSFWorkshop/Readings/NSF¥WkspReport¥09.pdf>. 17Daniel Sarewitz, Not By Experts Alone, 466 NATURE p.688 (2010). 18For example, Dr. Frank Robb at the University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute received a National Science Foundation Collaborative Research grant, number 0747394, entitled 

‘‘Carbon Monoxide Dynamics in Geothermal Mats and Earth’s Early Atmosphere.’’ For more information see the National Science Foundation’s website at <http://www.nsf.gov/awards/

award¥visualization¥noscript.jsp?org=EAR&showAwardDollars=true&showPerCapita=true 

®ion=US-MD&instId=5300000455>. 

siderations in choosing to not deploy a strategy, should it prove viable. 

NSF, with its capacity to support research in the social and political sciences, may be an appropriate body to lead federal research 

in these areas. The Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences 

(SBE) Directorate, for example, has funded research proposals on 

the societal implications of environmental events, such as earthquakes. The Directorate’s Sociology Program recently funded a 

workshop to explore the sociological dimensions of climate change 

and climate change solutions, including how the social sciences 

might be incorporated into existing data infrastructure.16 At this 

time NSF is the only federal body with such formalized capacities 

for research on the social and political dimensions of science and 

emerging technologies. 

As with any government initiative in the development of nascent 

technologies that provoke some measure of controversy, transparency, and public engagement will be critical to a successful research program on climate engineering. Moreover, public engagement will be most effective if it is incorporated early, when strategies are still being considered and a diversity of perspectives can 

be incorporated.17 The Chair agrees with the U.K. Committee 

recommendation that governments should make public engagement a priority of any climate engineering effort. Furthermore, the National Science Foundation (NSF), with its 

institutional history of engaging the public on nascent technologies and funding research in the social and behavioral 

sciences, should play a critical role in informing public engagement strategies.

International Collaboration 

In addition to supporting basic research and early-stage development of nascent and transformative technologies, NSF has unique 

capacities for fostering international scientific collaboration. The 

Office of International Science and Engineering (OISE) supports 

some of its own internationally focused research and education programs and facilitates collaboration between NSF-funded researchers and international partners across the Foundation. However, 

NSF grant programs may fund only the U.S. portion of research 

projects being conducted by international teams of scientists and 

engineers. For example, the Division of Earth Sciences has recently 

granted funds to researchers at the University of Maryland to explore carbon monoxide oxidation and production, and these efforts 

will be complemented by activities funded separately at the Russian Kamchatka Institute of Volcanology and Seismology and the 

Russian National Academy of Sciences.18 The Dimensions on Bio-
12

19See National Science Foundation, Program Solicitation: Dimensions of Biodiversity (Mar. 10, 

2010). Available at <http://nsf.gov/publications/pub¥summ.jsp?WT.z¥pims¥id=503446&ods 

¥key=nsf10548>.

diversity initiative will fund a set of coordinated proposals researching the role of biodiversity in ecological and evolutionary 

processes. The solicitation for this initiative encourages investigators to develop international collaborations, either through direct 

research partnerships or the development of international coordination networks.19 NSF’s support of U.S. participation in international scientific and engineering efforts may prove critical to any 

significant international climate engineering research effort, in particular for those strategies with geographically dispersed impacts, 

such as stratospheric injections, marine cloud whitening, and ocean 

fertilization. 

Challenges in Europe There are lessons to be learned from the European 

experience with the still-nascent field of synthetic biology. The potential applications of synthetic biology, including its capacity to modify the genetic 

makeup of food crops to increase crop yields and provide greater pest resistance have been met with uncertainty. Public confusion about governmental 

motivations for agricultural biotechnology led to a virtual moratorium on genetically modified (GM) foods. Having learned from these challenges, both 

German and British national research councils have recently committed to 

a thorough public dialogue regarding synthetic biology as they seek to jump 

start development in the field.a A number of unresolved questions on the ethical and environmental implications of synthetic biology remain, and international standards are minimal or nonexistent. Better public engagement in 

Europe is seen as a fundamental step in the development of this field.

a Colin Macilwain, Talking the Talk: Without Effective Public Engagement, There Will Be No 

Synthetic Biology in Europe, 465 NATURE p.867 (2010).

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

through its research laboratories and partners, and the Climate 

Program Office, conducts broad ranging research into complex climate systems with the aim of improving our ability to understand 

these systems and predicting climate variation and change over a 

range of temporal and spatial scales. NOAA’s research capacities 

and monitoring and modeling tools make it an appropriate venue 

for climate engineering research—to understand how such activities could be conducted and what effects, both desired and unknown, may occur as a result.

Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 

The Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) is 

NOAA’s primary research body, providing the research foundation 

for understanding the complex systems that support the planet. 

The role of OAR is to provide unbiased science to better manage 

the environment, on a national, regional, and global scale. To do 

this, OAR administers collaborative partnerships with universities 

and other research bodies and works with its own research laboratories to advance climate science. As the primary research and development organization within NOAA, OAR explores the earth and 

atmosphere from the surface of the sun to the depths of the ocean 
13

to provide products and services that describe and predict changes 

in the environment and inform effective decision making. 

Current research priorities at OAR could be leveraged to support 

future climate engineering research initiatives. For example, the 

Climate Program Office manages and awards funding through competitive research programs on high-priority topics in climate 

science, including atmosphere, Arctic ice, the global carbon cycle, 

climate variability, and oceanic conditions. Several types of climate 

engineering research needs could fit into these existing, broad research categories. In addition, the Climate Observations and Monitoring program maintains a highly integrated and complex network 

of observing instruments to gather climate data, which are then 

used for national and international assessment projects. Such a 

network would be pertinent to informing the scope of potential ecosystem impacts from climate engineering. 

Another pertinent mission at OAR is Weather and Air Quality. 

This mission focuses on forecasting and hazard warnings as well as 

on the chemical and physical makeup of the atmosphere, circulation patterns, and changes caused by chemical inputs. Although 

many of OAR’s ocean and freshwater activities relate to traditional 

NOAA missions, such as fisheries management and coastline restoration, OAR also conducts a great measure of research on issues 

relevant to climate engineering research such as aquatic invasive 

species, freshwater contamination, the nutrient pollution cycle, and 

ocean acidification. 

OAR’s laboratories support these research missions and conduct 

cutting-edge technology development and analysis. Specifically, the 

Geophysical Fluid Dynamic Laboratory (GFDL) and Earth Systems 

Research Laboratory (ESRL) support a host of key activities relevant to climate engineering. OAR research is also informed by an 

array of cutting-edge field observation tools and sensors, including 

surface networks, stratospheric balloons, ocean buoys, and aircraft, 

that would be uniquely suited to atmosphere-based climate engineering research and monitoring. Each program office uses powerful computing systems to assess and predict changes in the ecosystems. Any number of OAR’s ongoing research activities could directly and immediately inform climate engineering. For example, 

the Arctic Research Office could explore the potential of geographically-localized SRM to protect polar ice. In addition, OAR expertise 

on biological emission and absorption of greenhouse gases and carbon storage in oceans could be leveraged to predict the impacts of 

any potential CDR strategy.

Research at the Earth Systems Research Laboratory Scientists at the 

Earth Systems Research Laboratory (ESRL) have begun to explore the potential impacts of SRM on solar power production. In March 2009 the Chemical Sciences Division published a paper on how atmospheric sulfate injections may significantly decrease power generation from solar facilities.b The 

paper suggests that for every percentage of direct sunlight reflected to outer 

space, solar power output would decrease by four or five percent. In addition, there is the even more troubling concern that atmospheric SRM could 

negatively impact food crops growth and decrease yields. Any atmospheric
14

SRM research program must be subject to robust risk assessment and management procedures, including modeling exercises on the secondary impacts 

that a reduction in direct sunlight could have on both solar power installations and plant growth.

bDaniel M. Murphy, Effect of Stratospheric Aerosols on Direct Sunlight and Implications for 

Concentrating Solar Power, 43 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY p.2784 (2009).

National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service 

The National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information 

Service (NESDIS) is NOAA’s satellite observation systems and data 

collection service. NESDIS transmits real time data from both orbiting and geo-stationary satellites for a host of research objectives 

such as weather forecasting and earth and ocean science, and manages the development of environmental satellite products. Like the 

environmental satellite capabilities within NASA, the NESDIS observing system can collect data on a wide variety of environmental 

factors including the motion of particles in the atmosphere, cloud, 

air and ocean temperatures, ocean dynamics, global vegetation, atmospheric humidity, and land cover. NESDIS also holds thorough 

data records on Arctic sea ice, which is measured via satellites and 

verified with ‘‘ground-truthing’’ equipment and software. Long term 

measurements on Arctic sea ice would be needed to verify the effectiveness of any climate engineering program, as well as the inadvertent and indirect effects of such programs. 

The information collected by NESDIS is processed, analyzed, and 

disseminated through NOAA’s data centers. One of these data centers, the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), provides for the 

long-term archiving of weather and climate data and is the world’s 

largest active archive of these types of information. NESDIS also 

oversees six Regional Climate Centers (RCCs), a network of data 

management sites providing climate information at the state and 

local levels, as well as nine Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments (RISA) offices, which deliver climate information to regional and local decision-makers. The National Oceanographic Data 

Center (NODC) maintains physical, biological, and chemical measurements from oceanographic observations, satellite remote sensing, and ocean modeling. The National Geophysical Data Center 

(NGDC) manages the National Snow and Ice Data Center, and also 

holds over 400 digital and analog databases on geophysical groundand satellite-based measurements, including geochemical makeup 

and carbonate data. Data holdings from all NESDIS Centers are 

currently used to answer questions about climate change and natural resources, and would be useful to inform the early stages of 

climate engineering research. The Centers may also serve as repositories for any new data gathered in the course of climate engineering research. 

The NOAA satellite systems provide a range of data sets on atmospheric, oceanic, and geologic conditions, and new systems with 

improved instrumentation are planned for deployment. For example, the Geostationary Operation Environmental Satellite R–Series 

(GOES–R), is a joint NOAA–NASA satellite project based out of 

Goddard Space Flight Center. The two satellites in this system are 

expected to launch in 2015 and 2017, and will provide data on sea 

surface temperature, cloud top height and temperature, and aerosol 
15

20The U.S. Science and Technology Committee held seven hearings on challenges facing the 

NPOESS program over the last seven years before the Investigations and Oversight and Energy 

and Environment Subcommittees. See for e.g. Continuing Independent Assessment of the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System Hearing Before the House of 

Representatives Committee on Science and Technology Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, 111th Cong. (2009). Available at <http://science.house.gov/publications/hearings¥markups.aspx>.

detection, among other baseline products. These tools could inform 

research on stratospheric aerosol injection, marine cloud whitening, 

ocean fertilization, and other climate engineering strategies. 

Lessons can also be learned from another NOAA–NASA joint 

project, the Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS),20 formerly known 

as the National Polar-orbiting Operation Environmental Satellite 

System (NPOESS). The program was initiated in 1994 and was 

slated to launch six environmental monitoring satellites starting in 

2009. However, due to management challenges, explosive growth in 

life-cycle cost estimates, and schedule delays the program will instead launch two separate satellite systems managed by NOAA and 

DOD, respectively, with NASA serving as NOAA’s technical support arm. The first JPSS satellite is scheduled to launch in 2014. 

While JPSS promises to deliver robust capabilities for weather and 

climate forecasting, due to the aforementioned issues, the system’s 

capabilities will be significantly reduced. For instance, the aerosol 

polarimetry sensors, which retrieve specific measurements on 

clouds and aerosols in the atmosphere, were cancelled from two of 

the satellites, thus cancelling two of the key information products, 

aerosol refractive index and cloud particle size and distribution, 

which could have provided the types of data that atmosphericbased climate engineering research requires. The NPOESS/JPSS 

project also demonstrates how easily large and complex research 

projects can fall victim to financial and management challenges, as 

well as the importance of mission consistency and data continuity 

in the success of any comprehensive research program. 

Environmental Impact Research: The Oceans 

Ocean fertilization is the intentional introduction of nutrients, 

such as iron, into the surface waters of the ocean to stimulate the 

growth of phytoplankton and thereby the uptake of carbon dioxide 

from the atmosphere. Phytoplankton are photosynthetic; they use 

energy from the sun to naturally convert carbon dioxide and water 

into organic compounds and oxygen. Iron is necessary for photosynthesis to occur and in many areas of the ocean iron is not abundant, thereby limiting the growth of phytoplankton. The idea behind ocean fertilization projects is to use relatively small amounts 

of iron in iron-deficient zones to trigger large phytoplankton 

blooms. At least half of the carbon-rich biomass generated by such 

plankton blooms would be consumed by animals such as 

zooplankton and small fish, and about a third would sink into the 

cold, deep ocean water where it would be effectively isolated from 

the atmosphere for centuries. Fertilization does occur through natural processes such as glacial runoff, dust storms, and through 

ocean upwelling that carries cold, nutrient rich water to the surface. Since the early 1990s, a number of scientists and entrepreneurs from around the world have explored ocean fertilization 
16

21P.W. Boyd et al., Mesoscale Iron Enrichment Experiments 1993–2005: Synthesis and Future 

Directions, 315 SCIENCE p.612 (2007). 22 Harmful Algal Blooms: Formulating an Action Plan, 2009: Hearing on The Harmful Algal 

Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Act Hearing Before House of Representatives Committee on Science and Technology Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, 111th Cong. (2009) 

(Hearing Charter). 23 Anand Gnanadesikan et al., Effects of Patchy Ocean Fertilization on Atmospheric Carbon 

Dioxide and Biological Production, 17 GLOBAL BIOGEOCHEMICAL CYCLES p.1050 (2003). 24David Keith, Geoengineering the Climate: History and Prospect, 25 ANNUAL REVIEW OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT p.245 (2000). 

as a means to sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide in the deep 

ocean.21

Several concerns have been voiced from the scientific community 

over the efficacy and ethics of ocean fertilization. For example, 

some phytoplankton blooms (e.g., harmful algal blooms or HABs) 

produce toxins that are extremely detrimental to human health 

and coastal economies. HABs impacts in the Great Lakes, Gulf of 

Mexico, and the Pacific Northwest have been particularly severe 

and have led to the creation of ‘‘dead zones.’’ 22 The increase of 

HABs is a concern from ocean fertilization projects because it is not 

known what types of plankton will ‘‘bloom’’ after fertilization. Research is ongoing to understand how to control, mitigate, and effectively respond to HABs events. That said, much research remains 

to be done in this arena, and the potential to exacerbate HABs is 

only one of the ecological hazards that could be caused by largescale iron fertilization. In addition to this and other potential ecological effects, the efficiency of fertilization as well as the ability to 

verify the resulting sequestration of carbon dioxide are issues that 

have yet to be resolved.23 Therefore, it is the opinion of the 

Chair that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), with its unique expertise and research capacities on ocean chemistry, should have a lead role in researching and assessing the environmental impacts of any 

climate engineering strategy involving chemical inputs into 

the environment that would directly or indirectly impact 

ocean waters, e.g. stratospheric sulfate injections and ocean 

fertilization.

Environmental Impact Research: The Ozone Layer 

Some researchers have expressed concern that aerosols from 

stratospheric sulfate injections will exacerbate the effects of materials remaining in the atmosphere from the past usage of 

chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).24 CFCs were once sold in popular consumer products such as aerosol spray cans and refrigerants, but 

were found to decay the atmospheric ozone layer that moderates 

the amount of ultraviolet light reaching the earth’s surface. In response to these risks, the United States initiated bans on CFCs beginning in 1978, and these substances were essentially phased out 

of commerce worldwide via the Montreal Protocol. Since these bans 

have taken effect, the ozone layer has shown a marked recovery, 

but the atmospheric system will remain sensitive to damage in the 

future from CFCs or other hazardous compounds that have yet to 

be identified. In addition, human activities that stimulate ozone-de-
17

25Simone Tilmes et al., The Sensitivity of Polar Ozone Depletion to Proposed Geoengineering 

Schemes, 320 SCIENCE EXPRESS p.1201 (2008). 

structive materials could slow or even reverse the recovery process.25

NOAA scientists were among the first to identify the risks presented by ozone-depleting chemicals, and OAR remains the federal 

government’s primary authority on the ozone layer. NOAA uses 

satellite and ground-based measurements to continually monitor 

stratospheric ozone as well as other conditions, such as the presence of certain chemicals which can detrimentally impact the atmosphere. NOAA’s Earth Systems Research Laboratory (ESRL), 

the Climate Prediction Center, and the National Climatic Data 

Center (NCDC) are all engaged in improving data holdings and information on ozone. It is the opinion of the Chair that due to 

its experience in researching ozone and the chemicals that 

could harm the ozone layer, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) should lead federal efforts to explore the potential impacts of sulfates on the 

stratospheric ozone layer.

Department of Energy 

Several program offices within the Department of Energy (DOE) 

house activities and expertise that could inform research on climate 

engineering strategies.

Office of Science 

The bulk of climate change research expertise at DOE may be 

found within the Office of Science, which is responsible for about 

40% of the overall federal R&D investment in the physical sciences. 

Of the six program offices within the Office of Science, at least 

three contain climate engineering-relevant research capabilities: 

Biological and Environmental Research (BER), Basic Energy 

Sciences (BES), and Advanced Scientific Computing Research 

(ASCR).

Biological and Environmental Research Program 

The Biological and Environmental Research (BER) program office 

supports interdisciplinary research and user facilities to explore biological sciences, bioenergy, climate change, carbon sequestration, 

subsurface contamination, hydrology, and the interface between biological and physical sciences, among other topics. While the program is most widely known for its work in human genome sequencing, and many BER activities are not directly related to climate engineering, a major relevant focus of BER is its work in genomics 

and biosequestration. BER studies the fundamental biological processes found in microbes and plants, and specifically how these processes influence the highly complex and interlinked global carbon 

cycle. As part of that charge, BER explores the potential of biosequestration, or the storage of organic carbon in ecosystems, and 

how it might contribute to future climate change adaptation and 

mitigation strategies. Additionally, BER genomics activities are at 

the frontier of biotechnology research, using innovative tech-
18

nologies to influence the uptake, fixation, and storage of carbon in 

microbes and plants. In this regard, BER’s capabilities could help 

inform land-based climate engineering strategies for large-scale 

planting of indigenous or non-indigenous plants to encourage biological carbon consumption. Additionally, some strategies call for 

the genetic altering or cross-breeding of plants or trees to enhance 

their capacities to reflect sunlight, to accelerate carbon uptake, or 

both. 

In addition, BER’s Climate and Environmental Sciences Division 

(CESD) supports basic research in a broad variety of relevant subject areas, including atmospheric systems, high performance computer modeling, the role of terrestrial ecosystems in carbon cycling, 

subsurface biogeochemical processes, and other multi-scale processes and anthropogenic and natural activities that affect the climate. This division of BER supports the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) located at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. CDIAC is the primary climate-change data and information analysis center of DOE, and is considered to be one of the 

world’s most comprehensive archives and managers of diverse climate data sets. CDIAC gathers and consolidates environmental 

data from a wide variety of sources, maintains and regularly updates that data, and makes the data available for free to a large 

international user database. A major source of data for CDIAC is 

the AmeriFlux observation network. Established in 1996, 

AmeriFlux tracks the carbon, water, and energy cycles in North 

America from approximately 100 sites distributed primarily 

throughout North America, with some sites in Central and South 

America. Ameriflux could contribute to carbon accounting and 

verification programs needed to monitor the effectiveness of carbon 

dioxide removal (CDR) climate engineering strategies. Ameriflux 

also coordinates with the global ‘‘network of regional networks,’’ 

FLUXNET, to share and validate data measurements worldwide. 

The networks comprising FLUXNET utilize complementary methodologies and instrumentation, and perform cross-comparisons of 

data sets to verify their results. The internationally-coordinated 

mission and the collaborative, communicative structure of 

AmeriFlux and FLUXNET could provide a model for what would 

be required to identify the global impacts and effectiveness of any 

climate engineering strategy, in particular carbon removal strategies. 

BER also manages several user facilities that could support climate engineering research. The Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Climate Research Facility (ACRF) conducts aerial and 

land-based sampling over different climate regions to measure 

changes in sea surface temperatures, cloud life cycle, and other radiative properties of the atmosphere. The ACRF collects and archives data, and makes it available to the scientific community. 

This information is used to illuminate how particles in the atmosphere affect the earth’s radiation balance, information that would 

be critical to any atmospheric-based climate engineering strategies. 

And like Ameriflux, ACRF can also contribute to carbon accounting 

and verification programs that would be needed to understand the 

effectiveness of any carbon dioxide removal (CDR) program. BER 

also funds the Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory 
19

(EMSL) at Pacific Northwest National Lab. EMSL supports research in biogeochemistry and atmospheric chemistry at the molecular level, including research in areas such as aerosol formation, 

with capabilities that include supercomputing for modeling molecular-level processes and advanced terrestrial imaging. The scientific and technical experts and unique tools at EMSL could inform climate engineering research in areas such as geological and 

biological sequestration and stratospheric injections.

Aerosol Research A working group within the Atmospheric Radiation 

Measurement program has recently published a paper on predicting which 

types of atmospheric particles will act as cloud condensation nuclei, or CCN. 

CNN are the tiny airborne ‘‘seeds’’ around which water vapor will condense 

and form droplets. Different types of CCN influence a cloud’s particular 

brightness and lifetime. A better understanding of CCN is critical to informing marine cloud whitening, because specific types of CCN would be needed 

to most effectively increase a cloud’s size and reflectivity.c

cS.M. King et al., Cloud Droplet Activation of Mixed Organic-Sulfate Particles Produced by 

the Photooxidation of Isoprene, 10 ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS p.3593 (2010).

Basic Energy Sciences Program 

The Basic Energy Sciences (BES) program office supports fundamental research on materials sciences, physics, chemistry, and engineering, with an emphasis on energy applications. Its work is divided into three divisions: Materials Sciences and Engineering; 

Chemical Sciences, Geosciences and Biosciences; and Scientific 

User Facilities. BER’s work in geosciences and chemical research 

may be particularly pertinent to climate engineering research. The 

Geosciences Research program promotes understanding of earth 

processes and materials, such as the basic properties of rocks, minerals, and fluids, and it supports computational modeling and imaging of geophysical landscapes over a wide range of spatial and 

time scales. These activities are often conducted at DOE national 

labs and in concert with NSF or the USGS. Thus, Geosciences Research at BER may inform the fundamental chemical and technological requirements, as well as the long-term viability of potential 

sites, for non-traditional carbon sequestration, in which captured 

carbon would be stored and mineralized into a solid or liquid form 

in specific types of geologic systems, such as basalt sands. The 

Chemical Research program could support unconventional carbon 

capture and sequestration (CCS) by informing the chemical processes through which carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases can 

be mineralized for storage, as well as the characterization and development of chemicals, such as amines, to capture carbon from the 

air. 

BES also manages the Energy Frontier Research Centers, a set 

of temporary, highly focused, transformative energy research collaborations. The EFRC program is structured to fund the country’s 

best talent in research to address fundamental scientific barriers to 

energy security and key energy challenges. Forty-six EFRCs are 

currently being funded over a five year period, and several of these 
20

26For example, the objective of the Energy Frontier Research Center located at Lawrence 

Berkeley National Laboratory is to establish the scientific foundations for the geological storage 

of carbon dioxide. For more information see the Energy Frontier Research Center website 

<http://www.er.doe.gov/bes/EFRC/CENTERS/NCGC/efrc¥NCGC.html>. 27DAVID A. RANDALL, ON A CLOUDY DAY—THE ROLE OF CLOUDS IN GLOBAL CLIMATE (Colorado 

State University) (2007). Available at <http://www.scidac.gov/climate/climate.html>. 

are intended to address geologic capture and storage of CO2.26 The 

new information from these EFRCs can contribute greatly to the 

body of information on unconventional CCS. 

Advanced Scientific Computing Research Program 

The Office of Science’s Advanced Scientific Computing Research 

(ASCR) program stewards several of the largest computational facilities in the world dedicated to unclassified scientific research. Its 

broad and varied capabilities include producing high-fidelity, highly 

complex simulations of the earth’s systems and the potential 

changes they might undergo. This allows scientists, from both the 

private and public sectors, to analyze theories and experiments on 

weather patterns, the water cycle, changes in atmospheric carbon, 

and others that are too dangerous, expensive, or simply impossible 

to test otherwise. The Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing (SciDAC) Program within ASCR integrates with other research efforts at DOE to explore application-focused research initiatives, including climate activities. For example, SciDAC has provided detailed climate simulations to the Biological and Environmental Research (BER) program. One SciDAC project will develop 

and test a global cloud resolving model (GCRM) that divides global 

atmospheric circulation into grid cells approximately 3 km in 

size.27 The level of complexity and number of variables in the atmospheric system can only be modeled at such a refined spatial 

resolution through highly powerful computing systems. 

Given the wide variety of climate engineering’s potential unintended impacts on earth systems, exhaustive efforts must be made 

to identify and avoid the most dangerous of those before a climate 

engineering program is tested or deployed at any scale. The complex modeling capacities through ASCR could provide valuable predictions as to the potential impacts of climate engineering without 

the risks of large scale field testing. Therefore, it is the opinion 

of the Chair that the expertise and the high-end computing 

facilities overseen by the Advanced Scientific Computing 

Research (ASCR) program, or other comparable high-performance computing tools, should be used to model the impacts of climate engineering before field testing is performed.

Other Research Activities at DOE

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) 

is responsible for working with industry and other stakeholders to 

advance a diverse supply of energy efficient and clean energy technologies and practices, through research in areas such as wind and 

solar energy generation and advanced vehicle technologies. In contrast to the basic research activities in the Office of Science’s BER 
21

program, the Biomass Program within EERE represents the application side of DOE’s biomass efforts, consolidating research on biomass feedstocks and conversion technologies, biofuels, bioproducts, 

and biopower. The Program works closely with BER and in coordination with the USDA to translate basic scientific information to 

deployable and commercializeable technologies. In this way, the 

Biomass Program could inform land and biological-based strategies 

by drawing on its collective expertise on biochar and biomass-related carbon sinks and releases from land use changes. For example, the Biomass Program examines how biomass is converted to 

both biochar (solid) and bio-oil (liquid) by heating it in the absence 

of air, a conversion technology process called pyrolysis. Biochar 

may have potential as an efficient method of atmospheric carbon 

removal, via plant growth, for storage in soil. Biochar is a stable 

charcoal-solid that is rich in carbon content, and thus can potentially be used to lock significant amounts of carbon in the soil. The 

bio-oil can be converted to a biofuel after an additional, costly conversion process. The Biomass Program focuses on how to reduce 

costs of the conversion process and how to manipulate product ratios for more or less bio-oil and biochar. Additionally, the Biomass 

Program has funded joint research with the EPA and USDA to develop quantitative models of international land use changes associated with increased biofuel production, including life-cycle analyses. These types of activities would help in determining the lifecycle carbon impacts of large scale biomass production.

Office of Fossil Energy 

The Office of Fossil (FE) seeks to develop technologies to enhance 

the clean use of domestic fossil fuels, reduce emissions from fossilfueled power plants, and maintain secure and reasonably priced 

fossil energy supplies. FE’s mission is supported by research activities at the National Energy Technology Lab (NETL), which has 

sites in five U.S. cities. 

Through the Office of Fossil Energy and in part, the National 

Labs, DOE has spent a number of years on near- and long-term 

strategies to accelerate research, development, and demonstration 

of carbon capture from fossil-fueled power plants and geologic storage in deep saline aquifers, depleted oil and gas fields, and sedimentary formations. Its activities have included the Clean Coal 

power Initiative, FutureGen, the Innovations for Existing Plants 

Program, the Advanced Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle 

(IGCC) Program, and the Carbon Sequestration Regional Partnerships. DOE has also represented the United States in international 

research consortia on CCS such as the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF). The CSLF is comprised of 24 member countries and the European Commission, and is organized by DOE. The 

purpose of the CSLF is, through international cooperation, to facilitate CCS technology development, and to overcome technical, economic, environmental, regulatory, and financial obstacles. 

The climate engineering strategy of air capture, by comparison, 

captures carbon dioxide directly from ambient air rather than from 

a point source like the flue gas stream of a coal-fired power plant. 

The captured gases could be stored in ‘‘alternative’’ geologic formations such as basalt sands, in formations under the oceans, or con-
22

28Winning projects were announced on July 22, 2010 and will receive funding via the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA). See <http://fossil.energy.gov/recovery/projects/

beneficial¥reuse.html>. 29See NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION, RESPONDING TO THE CHALLENGE

OF CLIMATE OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE: NASA’S PLAN FOR A CLIMATE-CENTRIC ARCHITECTURE

FOR EARTH OBSERVATIONS AND APPLICATIONS FROM SPACE (2010). Available at <http://

science.nasa.gov/earth-science/>.

verted to different products altogether. The existing skill sets and 

resources at DOE could readily translate to research on air capture 

and unconventional sequestration. In fact, NETL has already 

awarded grant funding to explore the options for carbon storage in 

alternative materials for ‘‘beneficial reuse,’’ such as a concrete, 

rather than storage in the more commonly suggested depleted oil 

fields and sedimentary geologic formations.28 Therefore, it is the 

opinion of the Chair that the Department of Energy (DOE) 

should lead any federal research program into air capture 

and non-traditional carbon sequestration.

‘‘Because of the similarities with CCS, it makes some sense to augment current research by DOE’s Fossil Energy program in CCS to include separation 

technology related to air capture of CO2. There are technical synergies in the 

chemical engineering of these processes and the researchers are in some 

cases the same. The research is complementary. The governance issues related to geologic storage are exactly the same.’’

—Dr. Jane Long, Geoengineering III: Domestic and International Research Governance (hearing testimony) (2010).

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 

houses robust airborne and satellite-based environmental monitoring capacities and facilities devoted to studying geologic and atmospheric conditions. In addition, NASA employs to high-performance modeling tools that could support climate engineering research.

Earth Science Division 

NASA’s Earth Science Division, under its Science Mission Directorate, is responsible for advancing understanding of the earth’s 

systems and demonstrating new technologies and capabilities 

through research and development of environmental satellites. The 

Earth Science Division measures climate variability through various satellite and airborne missions and performs basic research 

and advanced modeling of earth’s systems.29 The tools and expertise located within the Earth Science Division could inform any 

number of climate engineering applications through modeling, observing, and analyzing land use and atmospheric change to attempt 

to predict, and ultimately monitor, the impacts of large scale testing and deployment of such climate engineering applications. 

Satellites 

The Earth Science Division operates a set of coordinated satellites that could contribute to climate engineering research in a 

number of ways. These satellites record perturbations in a variety 

of earth systems, including the land surface, biosphere, sea ice, atmosphere, and oceans. These measurements help construct a de-
23

30 Committee witness, Dr. Granger Morgan, equated volcanic eruptions to ‘‘natural SRM experiments.’’ See Geoengineering III: Domestic and International Research Governance Hearing 

Before the House of Representatives Committee on Science and Technology, 111th Cong. (2010) 

(Granger Morgan Written Testimony). 31 NASA has begun plans to refurbish SAGE III with the President’s Fiscal Year 2011 budget 

request. Its launch date goal is as early as late 2014. See NASA, RESPONDING TO THE CHALLENGE OF CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE: NASA’S PLAN FOR A CLIMATE-CENTRIC ARCHITECTURE FOR EARTH OBSERVATIONS AND APPLICATIONS FROM SPACE (2010). Available at <http:/

/science.nasa.gov/earth-science/>.

tailed picture of global change, especially when augmented by landand ocean-based data from other sources. In addition, some of these 

missions involve international partnerships, which, in the case of 

deployment of climate engineering applications, would likely be 

necessary to ensure global coverage in monitoring. Two currently 

operating satellites systems and one being planned for launch are 

profiled as examples below. A host of other NASA observing data 

and instruments may be useful for informing climate engineering 

strategies. Ultimately, the chosen climate engineering strategy 

would determine the specific requirements of the space-based system intended to monitor its effects.

Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment 

First launched in 1979, the Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment (SAGE) series, which measures changes in the ozone layer 

and the presence of aerosols in the atmosphere. SAGE I measured 

sunlight absorption from 1979–1981. Launched in 1984, SAGE II 

provided information about the ozone layer and atmospheric water 

vapor for over twenty-one years. SAGE III was launched in 2001 

and provided information on ozone and the presence of water vapor 

and aerosols in the atmosphere. It was terminated in 2006 due to 

loss of communication with the satellite. At the first Committee 

hearing, Dr. Alan Robock noted in his testimony:

While the current climate observing system can do a fairly 

good job of measuring temperature, precipitation, and other 

weather elements, we currently have no system to measure 

clouds of particles in the stratosphere. After the 1991 Pinatubo 

eruption, observations with the SAGE II instrument . . . showed 

how the aerosols spread, but it is no longer operating. To be 

able to measure the vertical distribution of the aerosols, a 

limb-scanning design, such as that of SAGE II, is optimal.

As volcanic eruptions can serve as a natural analog for stratospheric injections, careful monitoring of major eruptions through 

satellites could greatly inform certain SRM strategies.30 Marine 

cloud whitening and stratospheric injections strategies would also 

require robust information on atmospheric particles and aerosol 

movement and distribution. Many experts have argued that the 

U.S. research and monitoring infrastructure on the behavior of atmospheric particles would require significant improvement to sufficiently inform climate engineering. For these reasons instruments 

for measuring atmospheric aerosols would be critical to a climate 

engineering research program, in particular for the atmospherebased strategies.31
24

32The data continuity of Landsat is required by law. 15 U.S.C. § 5601 et seq. 33 CARL E. BEHRENS, LANDSAT AND THE DATA CONTINUITY MISSION p.4 (U.S. Congressional 

Research Service) (2010).

Landsat 

Landsat is a series of seven satellites constructed by NASA and 

operated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The first satellite 

was launched in the early 1970s to collect spectral information 

from the earth’s surface. The program has since produced an archive of over thirty-seven years of uninterrupted data on land 

cover, making it the world’s oldest continuous record of global imagery.32 This information, taken at a spatial resolution of just 30 

m units, can be used in comparison with local and regional climate 

data to determine the impacts of specific land use changes on temperature, precipitation, evapotranspiration, and reflectivity. In this 

manner Landsat could be used for researching and monitoring 

land-based geoengineering strategies, such as aggressive 

afforestation and reforestation and reflective crops. In fact, Brazil 

already leads a forest carbon tracking program largely based on 

Landsat data. However, at present only two satellites, Landsat-5 

and Landsat-7, launched in 1984 and 1999 respectively, continue to 

supply imagery, and have already outlived their projected lifespans. In anticipation of service interruption, NASA and USGS are 

developing a follow-on satellite as part of the Landsat Data Continuity Mission (LDCM), and hope to launch it in late 2012.33 Success of the LDCM is critical to maintaining data continuity of moderate resolution remote sensing imagery. 

The Orbiting Carbon Observatory Several experts have noted the role 

that Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) might have played in researching 

topics related to climate engineering. The project, initiated in NASA’s Earth 

System Science Pathfinder Program, was intended to take precise spacebased measurements of the carbon concentrations in Earth’s atmosphere and 

improve understanding of the processes that regulate atmospheric CO2. However, a launch-related failure caused the OCO to crash into the Pacific 

Ocean upon launch in February 2009. This data could have informed the 

effectiveness of any CDR strategy. This capability could be realized again if 

NASA successfully launches and deploys its second version of the satellite 

by 2013, as planned.

MODIS 

Data collected by the Moderate Resolution Imaging 

Spectroradiometer (MODIS) instrument is an example of how 

NASA could inform ocean-based climate engineering strategies. 

Launched in 1999 on board the Terra Satellite, and in 2002 on the 

Aqua satellite, MODIS instruments work in-tandem to record 

changes occurring on land, in the oceans, the lower atmosphere, 

and the water cycle. MODIS’ ocean color sensing capabilities could 

be used to identify the growth and motion of carbon-consuming 

plankton, which is purported to be stimulated by the inputs of iron 

or other chemicals into ocean waters. MODIS can measure carbon 

levels on land, as well, by recording the levels of photosynthesis 

conducted by plants. MODIS also records measurements on sea 

surface height and temperature that could monitor the effectiveness of a strategy once it has been deployed. It records data on 

cloud type, the percentage of the earth’s surface that is covered by 
25

34Mitigating the Impact of Volcanic Ash Clouds on Aviation—What Do We Need to Know? 

Hearing Before the House of Representatives Committee on Science and Technology Subcommittee 

on Space and Aeronautics, 111th Cong. (2010) (Jack Kaye Testimony). 35Philip J. Rasch et al., An overview of Geoengineering of Climate Using Stratospheric 

Sulphate Aerosols, 366 PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY A p.4007 (2008). 36See for e.g. NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) research initiative on carbonaceous aerosols, which is contributing to the U.S. Department of Energy’s larger Carbonaceous 

Aerosol and Radiation Effects Study (CARES) campaign. Available at <http://

www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100701/>.

clouds on a given day, and the amounts of aerosols present in the 

troposphere. In fact, the MODIS instruments on both Terra and 

Aqua were key to distinguishing clouds from the ash plume created 

by 2010 eruption of the Eyjafjallajo ̈kull volcano in Iceland.34 Each 

of these capacities would be pertinent to one or more strategies, 

most notably marine cloud whitening and stratospheric injections. 

Landsats 5 and 7, Terra and Aqua are among the 13 monitoring 

satellites NASA has in operation, and an additional 20 satellites, 

including OCO–2, are being planned as of July 19, 2010. NASA’s 

existing satellite-based information could not only help increase understanding of global processes and feedback, but could also provide the long-term data sets needed to identify the ‘‘fingerprints’’ 

of human activity, both unintentional and intentional. The Chairman recommends that the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration’s (NASA) previously collected earth systems 

data and its future observations of any relevant naturally 

occurring environmental event, such as volcanic eruptions, 

be integrated as appropriate into any comprehensive federal climate engineering research program.

Basic Research and Modeling 

Complementing the satellite portfolio, NASA’s Earth Science Research program supports a variety of climate engineering-relevant 

research activities, including carbon cycling, global climate and environmental models, ozone trends, and biogeochemistry. The Earth 

Science Division also supports high-end computing capabilities, in 

particular through the Ames Research Center and Goddard Space 

Flight Center. In June 2010 the Goddard Space Flight Center introduced its NASA Center for Climate Simulation (NCCS), which 

more than doubles the computing capacity at Goddard and will provide visualization and data interaction technologies for climate prediction and modeling elements of the biosphere such as ice cover. 

The Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) is the research 

center housing NASA’s primary climate modeling and research capabilities, including general circulation models (GCMs) that study 

the potential for humans to impact the climate. Computing modeling capacities at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies have already been used to carry out simulations of sulfate aerosols at different various altitudes and latitudes in the atmosphere through 

climate modeling grants.35 Researchers at GISS also perform data 

analysis on key climate information that could eventually inform 

the effectiveness of climate engineering applications. In the last 

year, for example, GISS has launched at least two new research 

campaigns on the behavior of aerosols in the atmosphere,36 which 

may help inform the scientific theory behind atmosphere-based climate engineering. Basic climate research, modeling, and computing 
26

37Geoengineering III: Domestic and International Research Governance Hearing Before the 

House of Representatives Committee on Science and Technology, 111th Cong. (2010) (Jane Long 

Testimony).

at NASA could contribute in a number of ways to a federal climate 

engineering research program. 

Adaptive Management and Complex Missions 

NASA scientists and engineers may also be uniquely suited to research some climate engineering applications due to an institutional capacity for complex, technical missions and highly adaptive 

design capabilities. Space-based applications at NASA are original 

designs, developed to fulfill specific, and often changing, mission 

objectives. For this reason NASA has a unique capacity for risk assessment, managing complex operating environments and accommodating significant unknowns. As Dr. Jane Long noted in her testimony, these skills, known as ‘‘adaptive management,’’ would be 

critical to modifying a complex, non-linear system, such as the climate, successfully.37

Environmental Protection Agency 

As the federal body responsible for protecting human health and 

safeguarding the natural environment, including air quality, water 

quality, soils, and biodiversity, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would be needed to regulate many of the proposed climate 

engineering activities if tested or deployed. The Agency also contains a broad set of research capacities that could contribute to the 

scientific foundation of climate engineering. The Office of Research 

and Development (ORD), one of EPA’s twelve headquartered offices, serves as the Agency’s primary research arm to inform a variety of environmental topics, such as nanotechnology and global climate change, as well as risk assessment, risk management and region-specific technical support. Contained within ORD are seven 

Research Fields:

• National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA)

• National Center for Environmental Research (NCER)

• National Center for Computational Toxicology (NCCT)

• National Homeland Security Research Center (NHSRT)

• National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL)

• National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL)

• National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (NHEERL)

The information gathered and synthesized at ORD provides the 

scientific foundation for the other EPA program offices, such as Office of Air and Radiation, to most appropriately regulate activities 

that impact the environment. 

ORD’s research on potential climate engineering activities could 

inform EPA’s position on which strategies have unacceptable environmental risks, how specific strategies are likely to impact natural 

resources, and the potential consequences to human health. It is 

the opinion of the Chair that as the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) steward of basic research, the Office of 
27

Research and Development (ORD) should be a partner in 

any climate engineering research program.

National Center for Environmental Economics 

The National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE) within EPA’s Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation (OPEI) is responsible for developing cost-benefit analyses of environmental 

policies and their secondary impacts. NCEE releases journal articles, Environmental Economics reports, and research papers to 

compare costs and assess risks in specific cases, such as the effects 

of acidic air pollutants on crop yields. Such analysis could be used 

to compare climate engineering strategies and provide an economic 

baseline to help determine which strategies appear economically 

undesirable in comparison with traditional mitigation strategies. 

Tools such as those within NCEE may also be particularly important with regards to those climate engineering strategies where financial cost is not a significant consideration when compared to alternatives. Stratospheric aerosols, for example, are expected to be 

deployable at a relatively low direct cost. However, their indirect 

economic impacts, such as changes to natural resources and the 

productivity of solar power arrays, could far outweigh the immediate expense of deployment. NCEE could analyze and report on 

the potential secondary costs of climate engineering in order to 

properly incorporate them in objective economic cost-benefit analyses. NCEE could also provide useful risk assessment information 

and identify avenues to link climate engineering to the social 

sciences.

Early Regulatory Needs 

Outside of its potential contributions to the basic research needs 

associated with climate engineering, EPA may also be needed to 

explore the regulatory needs and options as the science develops. 

At this time the Agency is finalizing its rules on carbon sequestration in underground geological formations, via its authority under 

the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). In developing these regulations EPA has sought to use the best science in order to perform 

risk assessments and identify and qualify the events that might endanger drinking water safety and human health, such as the potential for contaminant leakage. If climate engineering deployment becomes a more serious option, EPA should stay abreast of the evolving science and be prepared with the most appropriate regulatory 

options. Furthermore, EPA may be needed to regulate research in 

the case of large-scale field tests. One common concern about climate engineering research is that because the climate system is so 

complex and interconnected, for field testing to be useful, it would 

have to be conducted at near-deployment scale to fully determine 

a strategy’s effectiveness and secondary impacts. While overly-restrictive regulations that unnecessarily hinder our ability to inform 

the risks and opportunities of climate engineering should be avoided, some proposed field research activities could have meaningful 

impacts on our ecosystems. In the interest of protecting human 

health and natural resources, EPA may be needed to apply existing 
28

38Geoengineering II: The Scientific Basis and Engineering Challenges Hearing Before the 

House of Representatives Committee on Science and Technology Subcommittee on Energy and 

Environment, 111th Cong. (2010) (Robert Jackson Testimony). 

regulations or develop frameworks for new regulations should 

large-scale field testing commence.

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

The United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) ability to 

monitor and research land use change, agriculture practices, forestry, and biological sequestration could be informative to a range 

of climate engineering strategies. The USDA is broken into several 

sub-agencies based on program missions, and of these, the Agricultural Research Service houses a number of relevant tools and skill 

sets, along with the U.S. Forest Service and the Economic Research 

Service.

Agricultural Research Service 

The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) is the USDA’s primary 

research arm and is responsible for, among other activities, exploring the interaction of agriculture and the environment. Its activities are organized into National Programs (NPs) that focus on specific topics, and several of the active NPs have clear relationships 

to climate engineering, such as Soil Resource Management, Air 

Quality; Global Change; Integrated Agricultural Systems; and Climate Change, Soils and Emissions. 

The Bioenergy NP, for example, is the USDA initiative primarily 

responsible for research on the production and use of biochar and 

bioenergy. As described earlier in the section on Department of Energy activities, biochar, a charcoal produced from carbon-rich organic materials, could be developed and deployed as a biological climate engineering strategy. Biochar may be used for several purposes: to produce energy, to produce soil fertilizers, and simply to 

biologically sequester carbon from the atmosphere. USDA, along 

with DOE, has been responsible for the bulk of research on biochar 

feedstocks and land issues at the federal level, and could use its 

expertise to inform scientific research and biomass related strategies. It is to be noted that while the USDA and DOE have done 

significant research on biochar, it has been in pursuit of beneficial 

soil amendments and/or bio-oil, which can be used for fuel, with a 

lesser focus on carbon sequestration goals. The USDA has not examined in detail the singular goal of using biochar to achieve climate engineering-scale changes in atmospheric carbon levels. Biological or land-based strategies would likely be needed over vast 

parcels of land, perhaps millions of acres,38 in order to be effective. 

Biochar deployment activities at this scale would entail considerable economic challenges. The USDA’s Economic Research Service, 

described below, has the skill set to inform the economic viability 

of biochar at a climate engineering scale. 

The potential contributions of ARS extend beyond understanding 

the impacts of land-based climate engineering strategies. Atmosphere-based strategies for increasing global albedo would purportedly control temperature increases that could be harmful to agriculture and forest growth, at least for some period of time. How-
29

ever, reflecting 1–2% of incoming solar radiation, as most SRM 

strategies recommend, may also be detrimental to plant growth. All 

plants require sunlight for photosynthesis to grow and reproduce, 

so a decrease in direct sunlight could negatively impact crop yields. 

In addition, it remains unclear how chemical inputs to the atmosphere could affect plant growth and soils. Atmospheric modeling 

suggests that particles injected into the stratosphere, such as sulfates and salts, would eventually fall into the troposphere and ‘‘rain 

out’’ onto land and water surfaces below. In sufficient quantities, 

these materials could have negative impacts on both existing 

plants and soil content. Both to protect the livelihood of farmers 

and to protect the health of food sources and ecosystems in general, 

ARS could help predict and quantify the extent of these negative 

impacts on land and water and provide a valuable contribution to 

the overall risk analysis of climate engineering.

U.S. Forest Service 

The U.S. Forest Service, which manages the 155 U.S. national 

forests and 20 U.S. national grasslands, since 1905 has maintained 

its own Research and Development organization. The R&D branch 

collaborates closely with the ARS, and its more than 500 researchers study, among other topics: forest and grassland health, sustainable forest management, invasive species, aquatic ecosystems, tree 

growth and mortality, and forest inventories. The institutional 

knowledge and management skills within the R&D branch could be 

used to inform aggressive afforestation and reforestation strategies, 

both by issuing projections on how effective a strategy might be 

and also for identifying key risks associated with climate engineering-scale forest management. For example, its Invasive Species Research Program develops tools to predict and prevent the introduction of invasive species. Modification to plant growth at a largescale, in particular via monoculture cropping, can make an area 

particularly susceptible to damage from non-native and invasive insects or plants. A research program on man-made forests for carbon storage or reflective grasses intended to increase local albedo, 

might benefit from such expertise. 

Forest Service R&D also performs a wide variety of research activities on the sequestration capacity of soils, vegetation, and forests. Additional research is conducted to inform our understanding 

of how soil capacity will change over time with the climate. Higher 

atmospheric carbon levels and changes in the earth’s water cycles 

caused by climate change may make the sequestration potential of 

plant growth better or worse, and at a very large scale, these potential fluctuations could significantly alter the impacts of carbonsensitive land management. Furthermore, resource specialists in 

the Forest Service work with the Economic Research Service to explore land use competition and prioritize uses for economical and 

environmental activities. Such analysis could be important because 

of the economic pressure these activities will put on natural resources. 

In addition, the U.S. Forest Service recently established a National Roadmap for Responding to Climate Change to guide forest 

managers in implementing the USDA climate change strategy. The 

program details the potential of forests and soils to mitigate atmos-
30

39See for e.g. JAN LEWANDROWSKI ET AL., ECONOMICS OF SEQUESTERING CARBON IN THE U.S. 

AGRICULTURAL SECTOR (U.S. Department of Agriculture—Economic Research Service) (2004). 

Available at <http://ssrn.com/abstract=552724>.

pheric greenhouse gas concentration through biological storage. 

This information could ultimately inform forest management as 

part of a larger climate engineering program. In addition, while the 

Roadmap is intended for climate change mitigation and adaptation, 

and does not address climate engineering specifically, it proposes 

frameworks for a communication network with regional managers 

regarding short- and long-term goals and best practices, plans for 

public education and outreach, and thorough coordination with 

other agencies and groups. The plan’s emphasis on adaptation 

needs and a communications strategy is somewhat unique to current federal climate change efforts. These elements would augment 

any large-scale climate engineering effort, and, as such, the Forest 

Service Roadmap may be a valuable model for coordinating activities to educate land managers on climate engineering-scale forestry 

and biological sequestration.

Economic Research Service 

The USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) informs public 

and private decision-making on economic issues related to agriculture and natural resources. This resource could be adapted to 

assess the economic viability of biological climate engineering activities. Any strategy would alter and create competition for natural resources.

‘‘Biological and land-based geoengineering alters carbon uptake, sunlight 

absorption, and other biophysical factors that affect climate together. 

Geoengineering for carbon or climate will alter the abundance of water, biodiversity, and other things we value.’’

—Dr. Robert Jackson, Geoengineering II: The Scientific Basis and Engineering Challenges (written hearing testimony) (2010).

For example, large-scale afforestation could require a significant 

input of water, so benefits such as air quality and decreases in atmospheric carbon concentrations would be balanced against greater 

competition for local water resources that could be needed for other 

uses. Similarly, since certain strategies could be particularly landintensive, climate engineering could cause added competition for 

land use. The ERS, which employs both economists and social scientists to conduct its research, may be needed to explore potential 

trade-offs and inform how a land-based strategy could be economically viable. The ERS also conducts research on financial instruments, such as tax credits, that might encourage private landowners to undertake specific climate engineering strategies, such 

as distributed carbon management activities.39

Other Federal Agencies 

A number of other federal agencies have capacities that could inform climate engineering research. 

The Department of Defense (DoD) has significant expertise 

and experience in relevant areas such as large-scale engineering 

projects and airborne missions. Several experts recommend that 
31

40 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, FUNDAMENTAL SCIENCE PRACTICES (2006). Available at <http:/

/www.usgs.gov/usgs-manual/500/502-1.html>. 

this knowledge-base could complement climate engineering-specific 

programs. However, it should be noted that given the lack of transparency of defense research and programs, leveraging the capabilities of DoD could result in an adverse impact on the goal of public 

engagement and education on the issue of climate engineering. It 

is the opinion of the Chair that if the Department of Defense’s (DoD) expertise were to be engaged in a national climate engineering research strategy, special attention must 

be paid to public engagement and transparency, and all research efforts must be committed solely to peaceful purposes.

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), within the Department of 

the Interior, would also have a role in research on land- and biobased climate engineering strategies. The diverse USGS team, 

which includes geoscientists, biologists, chemists, geographers, hydrologists, statisticians, and ecologists, supports a breadth of scientific research, monitoring, and analysis. For example, the USGS 

conducts programs to detect, monitor, and control invasive species, 

catalogue land use and the impacts of land use change, and examine the biological, chemical, and environmental factors affecting 

water quality. In addition to its contributions to joint research and 

satellite monitoring programs such as Landsat, USGS has unique 

remote sensing capabilities that provide data on natural resources 

and how they are affected by change. These data sets, such as 

those managed through the USGS’ National Satellite Land Remote 

Sensing Data Archive, can work in concert with ‘‘ground-truthing’’ 

data gathered by researchers within the agency or outside groups. 

The USGS also has institutional expertise in basic science and 

monitoring capacities to augment carbon mineralization research. 

Recently USGS established a methodology to define and map a 

comprehensive inventory of underground pore space in the U.S. 

that could be used for mineral sequestration of carbon, such as basalt sands. 

Furthermore, some strategies call for the distribution of certain 

chemicals over land or oceans to stimulate processes that consume 

carbon, either by mineralizing the carbon into a solid through 

chemical reactions, by stimulating the growth of carbon-consuming 

organisms, or by increasing the ocean’s capacity to store CO2. The 

USGS maintains the federal government’s most comprehensive 

commodities survey on mineral resources, and may be needed to inform the available quantities and ease of access to specific materials, if any of these mineral distribution strategies are deemed to 

be scientifically plausible. In addition, if climate engineering were 

ultimately deployed, the USGS would be needed to monitor program impacts on natural resources. The USGS maintains a commitment to scientific integrity and the sharing of information freely 

with the public.40 Objective and transparent science will be especially critical for identifying and analyzing negative and unintended consequences on ecosystems that may emerge if climate engineering is deployed. 
32

The U.S. Department of State is the best equipped federal 

body to facilitate an international forum for guiding research and 

regulation and pursuing intergovernmental consensuses as the discipline develops. The State Department coordinates cooperative research between the United States and other nations, represents the 

U.S. in international climate negotiations, and also acts as the official point of contact to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC). Furthermore, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), a division of the State Department, 

contributes funding to the U.S. Global Change Research Program 

(USGCRP). While basic research activities within U.S. federal 

agencies may not require participation from the State Department, 

the potential impacts of climate engineering are necessarily international in scale. Those strategies that would result in transboundary impacts, such as changes in monsoon patterns and sunlight availability, would necessitate international coordination and 

governance at an early stage. If the United States were to formalize research activities on climate engineering, complementary 

international discussions on regulatory frameworks would be required.

ORGANIZATIONAL MODELS 

As noted above, there is growing consensus that a comprehensive 

climate engineering research strategy would require the engagement of a wide range of disciplines, and would likely call for an 

interagency initiative to coordinate research activities and findings. 

Several models and lessons on interagency coordination are profiled 

below. However, any attempt to field test or deploy large scale climate engineering would likely require coordination at far greater 

scales and with international partners.

‘‘In my opinion before a nation (or the world) ever decided to deploy a fullscale geoengineering project . . . it would require an enormous activity, 

equivalent to that presently occurring within the modeling and assessment 

activities associated with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

(IPCC) activities, or a Manhattan Project, or both. It would involve hundreds or thousands of scientists and engineers and require the involvement 

of politicians, ethicists, social scientists, and possibly the military.’’

—Dr. Philip Rasch, Geoengineering II: The Scientific Basis and Engineering Challenges (written hearing testimony) (2010).

Council on Environmental Quality 

The White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) coordinates Federal environmental efforts and works closely with 

agencies and other White House offices in the development of environmental policies and initiatives. The Council’s Chairman also 

serves as the principal environmental advisor to the President. 

CEQ provides recommendations on comprehensive national environmental strategies to the President on specific issues, such as 

carbon capture and storage, Gulf Coast ecosystem restoration, and 

climate change adaptation. The CEQ also has a unique capacity to 

engage a range of stakeholders and balance the competing interests 

among federal agencies and state and local governments. 
33

In pursuit of environmental goals on specific topics, CEQ may establish a task force and other comprehensive, interagency initiatives, when appropriate. For example, in June 2009 the President 

distributed a memorandum to the leaders of executive departments 

and federal agencies establishing an Interagency Ocean Policy 

Task force, to be led by CEQ. This Task Force is charged with developing recommendations over several government agencies on 

how to enhance ocean stewardship and resource use. The Task 

Force has since released interim reports, containing recommendations on ocean governance and interagency coordination, and received comments from a wide variety of stakeholders. As the national and international discussion advances, it may be helpful for 

CEQ to explore options for a similarly-structured body that will 

provide a forum for stakeholder input and early, foundational coordination between agencies.

Office of Science and Technology Policy 

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy 

(OSTP), established in 1976, advises the President on broad science 

and technology issues, provides scientific assessments to inform Executive Branch policies, and coordinates scientific and technical 

work within the Executive Branch. In order to accomplish this 

broad mission, OSTP often hosts public and private sector summits, issues reports, coordinates activities within existing Committees and interagency bodies, and publicizes work conducted by federal bodies. OSTP is divided into four divisions—Science, Technology, Energy & Environment, and National Security & International Affairs—each of which could be instrumental in coordinating early-stage climate engineering research. Two initiatives 

under OSTP in the last few years may be useful models for structuring a federal research program. The National Nanotechnology 

Initiative, profiled below, and the Networking Information Technology Research and Development (NITR–D) program are both of 

examples of interagency entities established to address complex 

and interdisciplinary emerging technologies. 

The OSTP also serves as co-chair of the President’s Council of 

Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), a council of independent experts that provide advice to the President. Established 

in 2001, PCAST consists of 35 individuals drawn from industry, 

academia, and other nongovernment organizations, as well as the 

Director of the OSTP. The Council receives information from the 

private and academic sectors on a variety of issues in science and 

technology and prepares recommendations on specific topics, most 

often at the President’s request. While its efficacy and influence is 

somewhat fluid and may change over different Presidential administrations, PCAST has experience guiding policy on nascent technologies. PCAST may be needed to provide the President with reliable and independent assessments of how federal policy should best 

regulate climate engineering research.

U.S. Global Change Research Program 

The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), initiated 

in 1989 and mandated by Congress in 1990, coordinates and inte-
34

41Global Change Research Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2931 et seq. The USGCRP was known as the U.S. 

Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) between 2002 and 2008. Interagency climate research 

and technology activities have undergone several iterations over the last two years. See generally MICHAEL SIMPSON & JOHN JUSTUS, CLIMATE CHANGE: FEDERAL EXPENDITURES FOR

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (U.S. Congressional Research Service) (2005). 42 USGEO is comprised of all the agencies including the USGCRP, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and OSTP. 

grates federal research on changes in the global environment and 

impacts on the public.41 The program is managed by the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources under OSTP. Thirteen federal departments and agencies participate in USGCRP, 

with the biggest contributions coming from DOE, NOAA, NASA 

and NSF. USGCRP’s mission is to improve knowledge of earth’s climate, environment, and natural and anthropogenic variability; to 

better understand the forces of change in earth’s climate and related systems; to predict and reduce uncertainty in projections for 

climate change in the future; understand the sensitivity and adaptability of ecosystems and human systems to global change; and 

manage risks and opportunities related to global change. To support these goals the participating agencies coordinate their activities through ten Interagency Working Groups that address specific 

challenges of climate change. The multi-disciplinary, coordinated 

structure of the USGCRP makes it an appropriate model for, and 

possible steward of, climate engineering research. 

One proposal for incorporating climate engineering into 

USGCRP’s jurisdiction includes the creation of one or more new 

working groups exclusively focused on the strategies not otherwise 

informed by existing USGCRP activities. Another proposal is to accommodate climate engineering within existing working groups according to the key research needs associated with particular strategies. However, it has been noted that an evaluation of USGCRP’s 

successes and challenges would be needed before attempting to incorporate another large, comprehensive agenda into this program. 

There has been some concern that introducing climate engineering 

into USGCRP’s jurisdiction would draw resources and attention 

away from the primary Program mission of understanding, assessing, predicting and responding to climate change through mitigation and adaptation programs. However, it appears that a comprehensive interagency research agenda on climate engineering 

would call for participation from the same agencies in the USGCRP 

and would likely be managed under a similar structure.

U.S. Group on Earth Observations 

The U.S. Group on Earth Observations (USGEO) is charged with 

developing, coordinating, and managing an integrated U.S. earthobservation system through ground, airborne, and satellite measurements. The group was established in 2005 under the National 

Science and Technology Council’s Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability within the OSTP. USGEO is 

made up of representatives from 17 federal agencies with a role in 

earth observations,42 and is co-chaired by representatives of OSTP, 

NOAA, and NASA. USGEO also supports the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS), an international effort to share 

environmental data to support decision-making in nine societal 
35

43See U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITES: PLANNING

REQUIRED TO MITIGATE NEAR-TERM RISKS AND ENSURE LONG-TERM CONTINUITY (Publication 

No. GAO–10–858T) (2010) and U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, ENVIRONMENTAL

SATELLITES: STRATEGY NEEDED TO SUSTAIN CRITICAL CLIMATE AND SPACE WEATHER MEASUREMENTS (Publication No. GAO–10–456) (2010). 44 § 15 U.S.C. § 7501 et seq. 45 H.R. 5116, 111th Cong. (2010). Also see H. REP. NO. 111–478. 46See JOHN F. SARGENT JR., NANOTECHNOLOGY: A POLICY PRIMER (U.S. Congressional Research Service) (2010). 

benefit areas. The goal of this initiative is to provide the overall 

conceptual framework needed to move toward globally-integrated 

earth observations. By 2009, seventy-nine countries, the European 

Commission and several dozen international organizations had 

joined the GEOSS, which will deliver detailed and verifiable climate data at local, regional, and global scales. 

In several recent reports on the state of U.S. satellite systems, 

GAO identified some challenges for USGEO 43—namely, that its required Strategic Assessment Report on opportunities and priorities 

for space observation has not yet been approved by the USGEO 

managers in OSTP, and as of July 2010 had not scheduled a date 

for releasing the final Report. The GAO expressed concern that the 

draft version of this report did not address costs, schedules or plans 

for long-term satellite data needs, and that even once the Strategic 

Report is finalized, it is not clear how the OSTP and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will ensure the interagency strategy is 

consistent with the individual agencies’ plans and budgets. These 

difficulties demonstrate that coordinating data sources between 

federal agencies, not to mention between several nations, requires 

careful planning and execution. Any successful inter-agency effort 

will require open and frequent communication, effective leadership, 

and a clear delineation of responsibilities. 

National Nanotechnology Initiative 

The United States’ experience with nanotechnology research 

across federal agencies can provide valuable insight into a potential 

federal, interagency research initiative on climate engineering. 

Nanotechnology, the collective term for nano-scale science and technology applications, is a nascent field that is rapidly attracting 

public interest and investment around the world. In 2000, President Clinton launched the National Nanotechnology Initiative 

(NNI) to coordinate federal research and development on 

nanotechnology, and in 2003, Congress enacted the 21st Century 

Nanotechnology Research and Development Act 44 to provide a statutory foundation and organize the Initiative. The America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010, which contains a number of 

amendments to NNI, was approved by the House in May 2010.45

While nanotechnology may eventually contribute revolutionary 

advances to any number of public goods, concerns have been raised 

about the potential negative impacts of nanotechnologies on human 

health and the environment.46 For example, it has been proposed 

that the small size of nanoscale particles could allow them to penetrate and damage human organs, such as the lungs. In its June 2, 

2010 report the Congressional Research Service (CRS) observed 

that public attitudes and perception of risks leaves the still-nascent 
36

nanotechnology industry and research community vulnerable to a 

negative event, such as an accidental or harmful release. 

The NNI is comprised of thirteen federal agencies that conduct 

nanotechnology research and development and another twelve that 

would regulate and enable education and training on 

nanotechnology. In addition to conducting research and exploring 

regulatory issues related to the environmental, health and safety 

issues, the NNI also conducts public outreach activities through 

written materials, public meetings, a comprehensive website, and 

other educational resources to the public. NNI agencies also engage 

with international consortia such as the Organization for Economic 

Cooperation and Development (OECD) to address nano-safety 

issues. By recognizing that risks and impacts of nanotechnology 

must be better understood by key stakeholders, and that public acceptance is critical to realizing the full benefits it may ultimately 

bring to bear, NNI can serve as a model for what might be needed 

if climate engineering research is undertaken at the federal level. 

It should also be noted that NNI has had an immense impact on 

global interest in nanotechnology. Before the U.S. initiated the 

NNI, nanotechnology research worldwide was generally piecemeal 

and modest. Since the establishment of NNI, over sixty countries 

have initiated government-led nanotechnology programs. While a 

heightened profile for technology development and commercialization has been a positive development for nanotechnology, increased 

interest in climate engineering may introduce new risks, such as 

the possibility of unilateral deployment. The existence of a dedicated research program on the part of the U.S. or its partners 

might serve to legitimize efforts by other nations to act on their 

own. 

Lastly, the NNI has had to address the fundamental question of 

what is included in the category of nanotechnology. Initially, federal agencies were unclear about what activities should be reported 

as nanotechnology, and which would instead qualify as chemistry 

or materials science research. The Office of Management and Budget identified explicit criteria on nanotechnology for the purposes of 

quantify funding levels for research. International standards for 

nanotechnology also continue to evolve; for five years the International Standards Organization has been working to identify core 

parameters. Climate engineering would be faced with a similar 

challenge. There is no clear consensus as to which strategies constitute climate engineering, and for what purposes the category 

must be defined. For instance, for the purpose of developing regulations and restrictions, the term could be used to apply to a smaller 

set of higher-risk strategies than might otherwise be included for 

the purpose of developing a broad interagency research effort. If research were initiated and coordinated at the federal level, a more 

consistent vocabulary that takes into consideration the gaps in 

funding, research, risk assessment, and governance would be required.

National Academy of Public Administration 

The National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) is a 

non-profit and non-partisan coalition of management and organizational experts chartered by Congress to improve the effectiveness 
37

47 H. REP. NOS. 111–366 of P.L. 111–117 (2009). 48See Expanding Climate Services at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA): Developing the National Climate Service Hearing Before the House of Representatives 

Committee on Science and Technology, 111th Cong. (2009) (Hearing Charter).

of public programs. NAPA was established in 1967 and advises federal agencies, Congress, state and local governments, academia, 

and various foundations on how to manage the structure, administration, operation and performance of existing programs and helps 

identify potential emerging management challenges. NAPA also assesses the proposed effectiveness, structure, administration, and 

implications for proposed public programs, policies, and processes 

and recommends specific changes to improve the proposed program. 

The NAPA coalition of experts is comprised of several hundred Fellows with robust and varied management experience, including 

former members of Congress, governors and mayors, business executives, foundation executives, and academia. 

NAPA carries out activities both at its own discretion and by 

Congressional request. For example, NAPA recently completed a 

congressionally mandated study 47 on structuring a NOAA Climate 

Service.48 A Climate Service would coordinate and distribute climate change information gleaned from a variety of research programs and monitoring systems to aid the public and local, state, 

and federal decision makers. While the overall goal of a NOAA Climate Service is very different than a potential coordinated climate 

engineering research strategy, the two would share a number of 

key objectives and challenges. Both must gather information and 

expertise from a wide range of sources and organize and disseminate it in a consistent and usable format and both must leverage 

specific program office strengths and ensure stakeholder communication. NAPA has explored these topics in great detail, as well 

as how private, university, and non-governmental organizations 

might contribute to data holdings and communication efforts, how 

the proposed NOAA Climate Service would help support public understanding and inter-user dialogue, and how to increase usability 

of existing climate data. With its established format for exploring 

these considerations, as well as a robust body of work consisting of 

other relevant independent projects and publications, NAPA may 

be needed to study in greater depth the potential organizational 

tools and other useful model programs that could support and inform a climate engineering program. 

GENERAL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Immediacy 

In The Regulation of Geoengineering report, the U.K. Committee 

recommended that serious consideration of the regulatory frameworks for climate engineering technologies start now, and not be 

delayed until either highly disruptive effects of climate change are 

observed or deployment of a climate engineering scheme is underway. Similarly, a robust understanding of the potential environmental impacts will be needed in advance of a ‘‘climate emergency’’ 

so that the most effective and risk-averse strategies are well understood. It is the opinion of the Chair that broad consideration 

of comprehensive and multi-disciplinary climate engineer-
38

49 INNOVATIVE ENERGY STRATEGIES FOR CO2 STABILIZATION p.412 (Robert G. Watts, ed., Cambridge University Press) (2002). 

ing research at the federal level begin as soon as possible in 

order to ensure scientific preparedness for future climate 

events.

Defining Climate Engineering 

At this time, the definitional boundaries between some climate 

engineering strategies and traditional mitigation remain unclear. It 

is generally agreed that ‘‘climate engineering’’ or ‘‘geoengineering’’ 

implies a willful intent to produce meaningful impacts on the global 

climate.49 In contrast, while human activities have already greatly 

impacted our global climate, they were not undertaken for that express purpose. However, what remains unclear is how activities 

should be distinguished from traditional mitigation and adaptation, 

and at what scale of application they amount to ‘‘climate engineering.’’ Many of these activities are already being undertaken at 

smaller scales, whether or not for the express goal of reflecting 

solar radiation or absorbing greenhouse gases. For example, reforestation in pursuit of environmental and public goods, other than 

carbon management, has existed for hundreds of years. Some experts argue that CDR strategies should not be designated as climate engineering because, like traditional mitigation, they seek to 

manage climate change by reducing atmospheric concentrations of 

greenhouse gases. Still others argue that CDR does belong in the 

category of climate engineering as it distracts from the primary 

goal of mitigation through emissions reductions. As climate engineering will likely remain a controversial topic, the designation 

itself may provoke a negative public opinion or even inappropriately strict regulation on relatively low-risk strategies. A moratorium on all climate engineering ‘‘activities,’’ for example, without 

an adequate scientific basis for what specific strategies and at what 

scales fall under this definition, could effectively ban low-risk and 

commonplace activities such as small-scale afforestation. 

Furthermore, uncertainty about what research activities fall 

under the climate engineering umbrella may create challenges for 

agencies, Congress, and the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) in determining appropriate funding levels for these activities. When the United States first began to coordinate federal work 

on nanoscience and explore the aggregate of existing federal research, agencies were uncertain as to which activities could be classified as nanotechnology, and would often report their nano-scale 

research activities as materials science or basic chemistry. Only 

after OMB established explicit guidelines for what might fall under 

the umbrella of ‘‘nanotechnology’’ was there a clearer picture of existing capacities in the federal agencies. Certainly if climate engineering research is formally authorized by the federal government, 

a more certain definition will be required to help U.S. agencies, and 

ultimately the international community, identify their relevant research activities. The GAO’s efforts to quantify existing federal efforts in its October 2010 report provide a useful foundation for this 

process. 
39

50SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE, UNITED KINGDOM HOUSE OF COMMONS, THE REGULATION OF GEOENGINEERING p.16 (Stationery Office Limited) (2010). 51DIVISION ON EARTH AND LIFE SCIENCES, NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, AMERICA’S CLIMATE

CHOICES: ADVANCING THE SCIENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE p.299 (National Academies Press) 

(2010). 

At this time, a consistent and comprehensive definition of climate 

engineering may not be feasible. For the purposes of organizing research, potential strategies should be considered on a case-by-case 

basis, accommodating the political, environmental, and social risks 

associated with them. Furthermore, as noted earlier and used 

throughout this report, the term ‘‘climate engineering’’ is a more 

appropriate tool for communicating the concept to policymakers 

and the public than ‘‘geoengineering.’’ It is the opinion of the 

Chair that there must ultimately be an international consensus on climate engineering terminology that will best 

communicate the strategies and desired effects to the scientific community, policy makers, and the public.

In addition, there has been considerable discussion as to whether 

techniques designed for the purposes of altering specific weather 

event, rather than the larger climate, should fall under the definition of climate engineering. The express goal of weather modification techniques, such as cloud seeding, is to impact weather patterns, such as hurricane intensity and precipitation, on a geographically limited scale and with little or no lasting effectiveness. 

It is the opinion of the Chair, and in agreement with the 

U.K. Committee,50 that weather modification techniques 

such as cloud seeding should not be included within the definition of climate engineering.

Defining a ‘‘Climate Emergency’’

As previously noted, it is the opinion of the Chair that some SRM 

strategies such as stratospheric injections, if proven viable, should 

be reserved as an option of last resort to be used only in the case 

of a ‘‘climate emergency,’’ and when other options have been exhausted. The majority of stakeholders appear to agree that climate 

engineering should not be considered an alternative to stringent 

emissions reductions, and, if deployed, SRM should be used only as 

a temporary measure. Experts predict that large-scale SRM methods, if prepared in advance, could be deployed very quickly and 

would exert a nearly immediate impact on global albedo. However, 

as the National Research Council notes in its report America’s Climate Choices: Advancing the Science of Climate Change, if the intended strategy is to withhold SRM until a dangerous tipping point 

is imminent, there must be some collective understanding of what 

constitutes such a tipping point ahead of time. At this time there 

is no consensus on what events would constitute a ‘‘climate emergency,’’ and there is much to consider about the complexity of the 

climate system, the potentially long timescales over which an emergency might occur, and the global tolerance of climate changes in 

defining the term.51 Furthermore, because the impacts of climate 

engineering are not yet well-understood, it is not clear how a particular strategy might be used to offset specific impacts if a climate 
40

52David Victor, et al., The Geoengineering Option: A Last Resort Against Global Warming?, 

March/April FOREIGN AFFAIRS p.5 (2009). 53SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE, UNITED KINGDOM HOUSE OF COMMONS, THE REGULATION OF GEOENGINEERING p.16 (Stationery Office Limited) (2010).

emergency did arise.52 It is the opinion of the Chair that the 

global climate science and policy communities should work 

towards a consensus on what constitutes a ‘‘climate emergency’’ warranting deployment of SRM technologies.

Categories of Climate Engineering 

In The Regulation of Geoengineering,53 the U.K. Committee recommended that because climate engineering as currently defined 

covers such a broad range of CDR and SRM technologies and techniques, any regulatory framework for climate engineering cannot 

be uniform. Similarly, the associated research needs vary greatly 

among the different suggested strategies. While general climate 

science information today could likely inform all climate engineering strategies, the anticipated ecological impacts and scientific 

basis for a particular strategy would require a unique and focused 

set of research priorities. Many CDR activities, for example, have 

a sizable scientific foundation from related research activities, 

while SRM has not been tested at any meaningful scale in the field 

or in a laboratory. The divergent and unique research needs for 

CDR and SRM must be accounted for when research activities are 

authorized in various federal agencies and program offices. 

‘‘[A] solar radiation management (SRM) R&D program should be organized 

separately from the air capture (AC) R&D program. Exploring SRM entails 

tasks that differ from those needed to explore AC. Disparate tasks demand 

disparate skills. Also, if research on AC were ever to be successful it might 

well devolve to the private sector; whereas, SRM is likely to remain under 

direct government control. Yoking together two such different efforts would 

be certain to impede the progress of both.’’

—Mr. Lee Lane, Geoengineering: Assessing the Implications of LargeScale Climate Intervention (responses to questions for the record) (2009).

Geographically Localized Climate Engineering 

Several witnesses and outside academic experts have explored 

the possibility of climate engineering to address only geographically 

specific areas. This strategy is intended to protect specific environmental features that are particularly sensitive to climate change 

and/or pivotal elements of global sustainability. It has been suggested that localized climate engineering could offer more ‘‘bang for 

the buck,’’ requiring a smaller, somewhat more controlled scale operation to produce appreciable positive impacts.

Isolating the Ice Caps? The impacts of climate change on the polar ice 

caps is of great concern, not only because melting will contribute to major 

sea level rises, threatening low-altitude coastal communities, but because the 

ice contains vast stores of frozen methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Melting 

could cause the release of huge quantities of methane, warming the climate 

further and encouraging dangerous feedback loops. Some scientists have 

suggested that SRM could be somewhat localized to help protect polar ice 

and to prevent such feedback loops.
41

54STAFF OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 111TH

CONG., REPORT ON GEOENGINEERING: ASSESSING THE IMPLICATIONS OF A LARGE SCALE CLIMATE

INTERVENTION HEARING (COMM. PRINT 2009). 55STAFF OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 111TH

CONG., REPORT ON GEOENGINEERING II: THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS AND ENGINEERING CHALLENGES

HEARING (COMM. PRINT 2010). 56See JOHN SHEPHERD ET AL., GEOENGINEERING THE CLIMATE: SCIENCE, GOVERNANCE AND

UNCERTAINTY p.34 (THE U.K. ROYAL SOCIETY) (2009). 

However, as Dr. Shepherd of the Royal Society noted, ‘‘It would 

. . . be generally undesirable to attempt to localize SRM methods, 

because any localized radiative forcing would need to be proportionally larger to achieve the same global effect, and this is likely to 

induce modifications to normal spatial patterns of weather systems 

including winds, clouds, precipitation and ocean currents and 

upwelling patterns.’’ 54

At this time there is no consensus on the likelihood that geographically localized applications would work as desired and without unacceptable secondary consequences. However, models have 

suggested that while the global ecosystem is highly interconnected 

and no large-scale intervention can be isolated, the desired and unanticipated impacts of some strategies would be maximized at the 

location in which they are deployed.55 Therefore, it is the opinion of the Chair that a climate engineering research program should explore the unique range of possibilities and 

risks associated with geographically localized climate engineering. Furthermore, any proposed application of climate 

engineering to protect polar ice specifically should be reviewed by the Arctic Council, an intergovernmental forum 

representing the world’s circumpolar nations.

Space-Based Reflectors 

One suggested climate engineering proposal entails placing largescale sunlight deflectors in space to reduce the amount of solar energy reaching the earth. Some suggestions include a great number 

of reflective surfaces, mirrors, or light-colored materials, in a nearearth orbit, or a lesser number of reflectors positioned at the L–1 

point, also referred to as a LaGrange point, where the gravitational 

attractions of the earth and sun are equal. Development and deployment costs of such strategies are projected to be extremely 

high, as they would require the development of new technologies 

likely much larger in scale and far more complex than any space 

program ever attempted.56 For this reason project development and 

deployment is also estimated to take several decades, making it an 

unviable option for rapid deployment in an emergency situation. 

Also, solar applications represent potentially the most serious type 

of the ‘‘termination problem,’’ in which the intentional or accidental 

termination of SRM activities could result in a rapid and potentially catastrophic increase in global temperatures unless strict, 

congruent controls on greenhouse gases had been undertaken while 

the solar applications were in effect. An international team of scientists recently reported that space-based reflectors would do little 

to combat rising sea levels, as sea levels respond slowly to changes 
42

57 J.C. Moore et al., Efficacy of Geoengineering to Limit 21st Century Sea-level Rise, 10.1073/

pnas.1008153107, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES (published online Aug. 

23, 2010). Available at <http://www.pnas.org/content/107/36/15699>. 58 CLAIRE L. PARKINSON, COMING CLIMATE CRISIS? CONSIDER THE PAST, BEWARE THE BIG FIX

(Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.) (2010).

in the earth’s atmosphere.57 Furthermore, like all SRM strategies, 

space-based reflectors would do nothing to address the problem of 

ocean acidification. 

In addition, there is considerable agreement among climate engineering experts and international policy analysts that deployment 

of space-based reflectors would introduce an extremely precipitous 

geopolitical scenario. Space-based applications would likely have 

considerable impacts on all earth systems, including effects on precipitation patterns and agricultural yields. However, the system 

would likely be controlled by a single, technologically-sophisticated 

group. In such a scenario a host of legal issues would arise regarding the negative environmental changes caused, or perceived to be 

caused, by the reflectors.58 This scenario would complicate both 

public acceptance and international agreement on how such a 

project should be undertaken, and run counter to the U.K. and U.S. 

Committees’ objectives of forming sufficient international consensus 

and giving equitable consideration to third world interests. Therefore, it is the opinion of the Chair that due to high projected 

costs, technological infeasibility and unacceptable environmental and political risks, the solar radiation management 

(SRM) strategy of space-based mirrors should be a low priority consideration for research.

Mirrors in Space ‘‘The space sunshade concept is an unappealing approach to SRM. It offers few benefits that might not be achieved at vastly 

lower costs with other SRM techniques, and the very large up-front infrastructure costs would simply be so much waste if the project were to be fail 

or be abandoned for any reason.’’

—Dr. Lee Lane, Geoengineering: Assessing the Implications of LargeScale Climate Intervention (responses to questions for the record) (2009).

Desert-Based Reflectors 

Another proposal is to cover large spans of desert with white or 

reflective materials to greatly increase the local albedo, therefore 

decreasing the overall global solar intake. Its proponents would 

argue that landforms unsuited to agriculture or human inhabitance 

may be suitable for SRM. However, as the Royal Society noted in 

its report, this strategy would certainly conflict with other desirable land uses and may cause great ecological damage to the desert 

ecosystem. Furthermore, as the application itself would be highly 

localized, some of the unintended effects would also be highly localized, causing potentially severe changes in atmospheric circulation 

and precipitation patterns. Each of the expert witnesses appearing 

before the Committee that addressed this proposal expressed significant doubts about the potential merits and technological feasibility of such a policy. As Dr. Robert Jackson noted in his responses 

to Committee questions:

‘‘This suggestion [of desert-based reflectors] strikes me as a 

poor idea, environmentally and scientifically. Deserts are 
43

59STAFF OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 111TH

CONG., REPORT ON GEOENGINEERING II: THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS AND ENGINEERING CHALLENGES

HEARING (COMM. PRINT 2010). 60SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE, UNITED KINGDOM HOUSE OF COMMONS, THE REGULATION OF GEOENGINEERING p.47 (Stationery Office Limited) (2010). 61 Id. at p.32.

unique ecosystems with a diverse array of life. They are not a 

wasteland to be covered over and forgotten. Based on the best 

science available, I believe that placing reflective shields over 

desert . . . is likely to be both unsustainable and harmful to 

native species and ecosystems. Take as one example the suggestion to use a reflective polyethylene-aluminum surface. This 

shield would alter almost every fundamental aspect of the native habitat, from the amount of sunlight received (by definition) to the way that rainfall reaches the ground. Implemented 

over the millions of acres required to make a difference to climate, such a shield could also alter cloud cover, weather, and 

many other important factors.’’ 59

Therefore it is the opinion of the Chair that due to wide 

array of potentially harmful impacts on ecosystems, such as 

water cycles and wildlife, the solar radiation management 

(SRM) strategy of desert-based reflectors should be a low 

priority consideration for research.

International Collaboration 

International collaboration on climate engineering is key. The 

U.S. Science and Technology Committee began its consideration of 

climate engineering upon meeting with the then-Chair of the U.K. 

Science and Technology Committee, MP Phil Willis, in April 2009. 

Chair Willis and Chairman Gordon agreed to work together on a 

joint inquiry into climate engineering, and each Committee initiated public hearings to establish a public record through expert 

testimony on the subject. The U.K. Committee published a comprehensive report on its findings on March 18, 2010.

It is the opinion of the Chair, in agreement with U.K. 

Committee,60 that further collaborative work between national legislatures on topics with international reach, such 

as climate engineering, should be pursued. The Chair also 

agrees that there are a range of measures that could be 

taken to streamline the process and enhance the effectiveness of collaboration. 

It is the opinion of the Chair, in agreement with the U.K. 

Committee,61 that the U.S. Government should press for an 

international database of climate engineering research to 

encourage and facilitate transparency and open publication 

of results. 

It is the opinion of the Chair that others topics such as 

synthetic biology, nanotechnology, and strategic raw materials may be of international significance and mutual interest to the U.S. and U.K. committees, and that these topics 

may be appropriate for bilateral or multilateral collaboration in the future.
44

It is the opinion of the Chair that this joint inquiry should 

serve as a model for future inter-Committee collaboration 

between the U.S. and the U.K. or other inter-Parliamentary 

partnerships.
45

ADDITIONAL SOURCES

Challenges of Our Own Making, 465 NATURE p.397 (2010).

Scott Barrett, The Incredible Economics of Geoengineering, 39 ENVIRONMENTAL AND RESOURCE ECONOMICS p.45 (2008).

J.J. BLACKSTOCK ET AL., CLIMATE ENGINEERING RESPONSES TO CLIMATE EMERGENCIES (Novim) (2009). Available at <http://

arvix/org/pdf/0907.5140>.

J.G. Canadell & M.R. Raupach, Managing forests for climate 

change mitigation, 320 SCIENCE p.1456 (2008).

Ralph J. Cicerone, Geoengineering: Encouraging Research and 

Overseeing Implementation, 77 CLIMATIC CHANGE p.221 (2006).

JAMES R. FLEMING, FIXING THE SKY: THE CHECKERED HISTORY OF

WEATHER AND CLIMATE CONTROL (Columbia University Press) 

(2010).

MICHAEL GARSTANG ET AL., COMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS IN U.S. WEATHER MODIFICATION RESEARCH

AND OPERATIONS, NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, CRITICAL

ISSUES IN WEATHER MODIFICATION RESEARCH (The National 

Academies Press) (2003).

P.Y. Groisman, Possible Regional Climate Consequences of the 

Pinatubo Eruption: An Empirical Approach, 19 GEOPHYSICAL

RESEARCH LETTERS p.1603 (1992).

ELI KINTISCH, HACK THE PLANET: SCIENCE’S BEST HOPE—OR

WORST NIGHTMARE—FOR AVERTING CLIMATE CATASTROPHE

(John Wiley & Sons, Inc.) (2010).

RICHARD LATTANZIO & EMILY BARBOUR, MEMORANDUM REGARDING

INTERNATIONAL GOVERNANCE OF GEOENGINEERING (U.S. Congressional Research Service) (2010).

Michael C. MacCracken, Geoengineering: Getting a Start on a Possible Insurance Policy, INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR ON NUCLEAR

WAR AND PLANETARY EMERGENCIES—40TH SESSION p.747 

(2008).

Colin Macilwain, Talking the Talk: Without Effective Public Engagement, There Will Be No Synthetic biology in Europe, 465 

NATURE p.867 (2010).

Daniel M. Murphy, Effect of Stratospheric Aerosols on Direct Sunlight and Implications for Concentrating Solar Power, 43 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY p.2784 (2009).

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION, RESPONDING

TO THE CHALLENGE OF CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE: 

NASA’S PLAN FOR A CLIMATE-CENTRIC ARCHITECTURE FOR

EARTH OBSERVATIONS AND APPLICATIONS FROM SPACE (2010).

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION, NASA FISCAL

YEAR 2011 BUDGET ESTIMATES (2010).

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, EXPERIMENT

EARTH? REPORT ON A PUBLIC DIALOGUE ON GEOENGINEERING

(Ipsos Mori Publications) (2010). Available at <http://

www.ipsosmori.com/researchpublications/publications/publication.aspx?oItemId=1376>.
46

Alan Robock, 20 Reasons Why Geoengineering May Be a Bad Idea, May/June BULLETIN OF THE ATOMIC SCIENTISTS (2008).

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REPORT OF THE INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE ON CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE

(2010). Available at <http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

downloads/CCS-Task-Force-Report-2010.pdf>.

U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, POLAR-ORBITING ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITES: AGENCIES MUST ACT QUICKLY TO ADDRESS RISKS THAT JEOPARDIZE THE CONTINUITY OF WEATHER

AND CLIMATE DATA (Publication No. GAO 10–558) (2010).

T.M.L. Wigley, A Combined Mitigation/Geoengineering Approach to 

Climate Change, 314 SCIENCE p.452 (2006). 
(47)

Appendix: 

UNITED STATES–UNITED KINGDOM JOINT AGREEMENT
48
49
50
51Æ