Until recently, these proposals generally remained outside  the mainstream discussions of climate policy, which focused either on  strategies to reduce emissions or adapt to climate change impacts. We found that more is known about certain CDR approaches,  since related laboratory and field experiments have been conducted,  whereas there is limited understanding of other CDR approaches and  SRM. More Relevant Modeling Studies and Experiments Have Focused on CDR than on SRM

: Update  and Recommendations (Paris: 2007). Based on our literature  review and interviews with experts, to date only one study has been  published for a field experiment related to SRM technologies—a 2009  Russian experiment that injected aerosols into the middle troposphere to  measure their reflectivity. Experts and Relevant Studies Identified Major Uncertainties that Merit Further Investigation

Experts we interviewed and relevant studies identified several major  uncertainties in the field of geoengineering that are in need of further  investigation. Most Federal Research Activities Focused on Mitigation or Basic Science, but a Few Specifically Addressed Geoengineering

The 13 agencies participating in USGCRP identified 52 research activities  relevant to geoengineering—accounting for approximately $100.9 million  in federal funding for fiscal years 2009 and 2010. Officials from federal offices coordinating  federal responses to climate change—CEQ, OSTP, and USGCRP—stated  that they do not currently have a coordinated geoengineering strategy or  position. The Extent to Which Existing Federal Laws and International Agreements Apply to Geoengineering Is Unclear, and Experts and Officials Identified Governance Challenges

Legal experts we interviewed and EPA and Department of State (State)  officials said that the extent to which existing laws and international  agreements apply to geoengineering is unclear, largely because detailed  information on geoengineering approaches and effects is not available. EPA has taken steps to regulate one CDR approach and has determined  that an existing law provides sufficient authority to regulate two other  approaches. Legal experts and federal officials identified challenges for establishing  governance of geoengineering, such as the potential for unintended and  uneven impacts, although their views differed on the most effective  governance approach. This official was not aware of CERCLA’s  applicability to any other geoengineering activity. Geological sequestration. In contrast, State officials said that parties to  other agreements have not addressed other geoengineering approaches  because they have not reached a similar stage of development. Legal experts and EPA officials we interviewed generally agreed that the  federal government should take a coordinated, interagency approach to  domestic geoengineering regulation. While agencies identified about $100.9  million in research funding relevant to geoengineering in fiscal years 2009  and 2010, federal officials also said that a substantial portion of the  existing federal climate change and earth science research could be  relevant to understanding geoengineering—roughly $2 billion in requested  budget authority for 2010 alone. However, because there is no coordinated  federal geoengineering strategy, it is difficult to determine the extent of  relevant research. Recommendation

GAO recommends that the appropriate entities within the Executive Office  of the President (EOP), such as the Office of Science and Technology  Policy (OSTP), in consultation with relevant federal agencies, develop a  clear, defined, and coordinated approach to geoengineering research in  the context of a federal strategy to address climate change that (1) defines  geoengineering for federal agencies; (2) leverages existing resources by  having federal agencies collect information and coordinate federal  research related to geoengineering in a transparent manner; and if the  administration decides to establish a formal geoengineering research  program, (3) sets clear research priorities to inform decision-making and  future governance efforts. GAO staff who made key contributions to this  report are listed in Appendix V.

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

This report examines (1) the general state of the science regarding  geoengineering approaches and their potential effects; (2) the extent to  which the federal government is sponsoring or participating in  geoengineering research or deployment; and (3) the views of legal experts  and federal officials about the extent to which federal laws and  international agreements apply to geoengineering activities, and  associated challenges, if any, to geoengineering governance. We also met with federal officials from the Environmental  Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of State (State) to collect  their views on the applicability of domestic laws and international  agreements to geoengineering, and governance challenges, if any.
Why GAO Did This Study

Policymakers have raised questions about geoengineering--large-scale deliberate interventions in the earth's climate system to diminish climate change or its impacts--and its role in a broader strategy of mitigating and adapting to climate change. Most geoengineering proposals fall into two categories: carbon dioxide removal (CDR), which would remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, and solar radiation management (SRM), which would offset temperature increases by reflecting sunlight back into space. GAO was asked to examine (1) the state of geoengineering science, (2) federal involvement in geoengineering, and (3) the views of experts and federal officials about the extent to which federal laws and international agreements apply to geoengineering, and any governance challenges. GAO examined relevant scientific and policy studies, relevant domestic laws and international agreements, analyzed agency data describing relevant research for fiscal years 2009 and 2010, and interviewed federal officials and selected recognized experts in the field.

What GAO Found

Few geoengineering experiments or modeling studies have been conducted, and major uncertainties remain on the efficacy and potential consequences of geoengineering approaches. GAO's review of relevant studies and discussions with selected experts indicated that relatively more laboratory and field research relevant to certain CDR approaches exists, although most of this research was not designed to apply to geoengineering. In contrast, few modeling studies or field experiments have focused on SRM approaches, according to experts and recent studies. Experts identified only one SRM field experiment with published results--a 2009 Russian experiment that injected aerosols into the middle troposphere to measure their reflectivity. Experts, as well as relevant studies, identified several major uncertainties in need of further investigation for CDR and SRM. Federal agencies identified 52 research activities, totaling about $100.9 million, relevant to geoengineering during fiscal years 2009 and 2010. GAO's analysis found that 43 activities, totaling about $99 million, focused either on mitigation strategies or basic science. Most of the research focused on mitigation efforts, such as geological sequestration of CO2, which were identified as relevant to CDR approaches but not designed to address them directly. GAO found that nine activities, totaling about $1.9 million, directly investigated SRM or less conventional CDR approaches. Officials from interagency bodies coordinating federal responses to climate change indicated that their offices have not developed a coordinated strategy, and believe that, due to limited federal investment, it is premature to coordinate geoengineering activities. However, federal officials also noted that a large share of existing federal climate science research could be relevant to geoengineering. Agencies requested roughly $2 billion for such activities in fiscal year 2010. Without a coordinated federal strategy for geoengineering, it is difficult for agencies to determine the extent of relevant research, and policymakers may lack key information to inform subsequent decisions on geoengineering and existing climate science efforts. According to legal experts and federal officials, the extent to which federal laws and international agreements apply to geoengineering is unclear. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has taken steps to regulate one CDR approach and has determined that it has sufficient authority to regulate two other approaches. EPA officials said EPA has not assessed the applicability of other laws because geoengineering research is in its initial stages. Similarly, legal experts and Department of State officials said that, except for three instances, parties to international agreements have not addressed their agreements' applicability to geoengineering, largely due to limited geoengineering activity and awareness of the issue. Legal experts' and officials' views differed on the best approach for international governance, but generally agreed that the federal government should take a coordinated, interagency approach on domestic regulation. Experts and officials also identified governance challenges, such as the need to address liability.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that within the Executive Office of the President, the appropriate entities, such as the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), establish a clear strategy for geoengineering research in the context of the federal response to climate change to ensure a coordinated federal approach. OSTP neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation, but provided technical comments.