Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Committee on Developing a Research Agenda and Research Governance Approaches for Climate Intervention Strategies that Reflect Sunlight to Cool Earth Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate Division on Earth and Life Studies Committee on Science, Technology, and Law Policy and Global Affairs This prepublication version of Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance has been provided to the public to facilitate timely access to the report. Although the substance of the report is final, editorial changes may be made throughout the text and citations will be checked prior to publication. The final report will be available through the National Academies Press in spring 2021. A Consensus Study Report of PREPUBLICATION COPYâUncorrected Proofs
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESSâ â¢â 500 Fifth Street, NWâ â¢â Washington, DC 20001 This activity was supported by contracts between the National Academy of Sciences and the BAND Foundation, the Christopher Reynolds Foundation, the Department of Energy, the MacArthur Foun- dation, the National Academy of Sciencesâ Arthur L. Day Fund, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the V. Kann Rasmussen Foundation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13:â xxx-x-xxx-xxxxx-x International Standard Book Number-10:â x-xxx-xxxxx-x Digital Object Identifier:â https://doi.org/10.17226/25762 Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2021 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance. Washing- ton, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25762. PREPUBLICATION COPYâUncorrected Proofs
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Con- gress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and Âechnology. Members t are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineer- ing to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Â ciences to S advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medi- cine at www.nationalacademies.org. PREPUBLICATION COPYâUncorrected Proofs
Consensus Study Reports publishedÂ by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and MedicineÂ document the evidence-based consensusÂ on the studyâs statement of task by an authoring committee of experts.Â Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the com- mitteeâs deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it representsÂ theÂ positionÂ ofÂ the National Academies on the statement of task. ProceedingsÂ publishedÂ by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Med- icineÂ chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or oth- erÂ eventÂ convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies. For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visitÂ www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.
COMMITTEE ON DEVELOPING A RESEARCH AGENDA AND RESEARCH GOVERNANCE APPROACHES FOR CLIMATE INTERVENTION STRATEGIES THAT REFLECT SUNLIGHT TO COOL EARTH CHRISTOPHER FIELD (NAS), (Chair), Stanford University WILLIAM W.L. CHEUNG, The University of British Columbia LISA DILLING, University of Colorado, Boulder PETER C. FRUMHOFF, Union of Concerned Scientists HENRY (HANK) T. GREELY, Stanford Law School MARION E. HOURDEQUIN, Colorado College JAMES HURRELL, Colorado State University ANDREW LIGHT, George Mason University and World Resources Institute (until Jan. 20, 2021) ALBERT LIN, University of California, Davis School of Law DOUGLAS MacMARTIN, Cornell University ROBERT McHENRY, Palo Alto Research Center JUAN MORENO-CRUZ, University of Waterloo KATHARINE RICKE, University of California, San Diego LYNN RUSSELL, Scripps Institution of Oceanography AMBUJ SAGAR, Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi PAUL WENNBERG (NAS), California Institute of Technology National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Staff LAURIE GELLER, Senior Program Officer, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate STEVEN KENDALL, Program Officer, Committee on Science, Technology, and Law KATIE THOMAS, Senior Program Officer, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (until February 2020) ANITA EISENSTADT, Program Officer, Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy (until February 2020) AMANDA STAUDT, Senior Director, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate RACHEL SILVERN, Associate Program Officer, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate ERIN MARKOVICH, Research Associate, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate ROB GREENWAY, Program Associate, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate MICHAEL HUDSON, Senior Program Assistant/Research Assistant , Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate v PREPUBLICATION COPYâUncorrected Proofs
BOARD ON ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES AND CLIMATE A.R. RAVISHANKARA (NAS)Â (Chair), Colorado State University MARY GLACKIN (Vice Chair), The Weather Company, an IBM Business (Ret.) CYNTHIA S. ATHERTON, Heising-Simons Foundation CECILIA BITZ, University of Washington JOHN C. CHIANG, University of California, Berkeley BRADLEY R. COLMAN, The Climate Corporation BARTHOLOMEW E. CROES, California Air Resources Board ROBERT B. DUNBAR, Stanford University EFI FOUFOULA-GEORGIOU (NAE), University of California, Irvine PETER C. FRUMHOFF, Union of Concerned Scientists VANDA GRUBISIC, National Center for Atmospheric Research EVERETTE JOSEPH, National Center for Atmospheric Research ROBERT KOPP, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey RUBY LEUNG (NAS/NAE), Pacific Northwest National Laboratory JONATHAN MARTIN, University of Wisconsin-Madison ALLISON STEINER, University of Michigan DAVID W. TITLEY, U.S. Navy (Ret.), Pennsylvania State University National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Staff AMANDA STAUDT, Senior Director LAUREN EVERETT, Senior Program Officer SHELLY FREELAND, Financial Business Partner RITA GASKINS, Administrative Coordinator LAURIE GELLER, Senior Program Officer ROB GREENWAY, Program Associate ERIN MARKOVICH, Research Associate APRIL MELVIN, Senior Program Officer AMANDA PURCELL, Senior Program Officer ALEX REICH, Associate Program Officer RACHEL SILVERN, Associate Program Officer vi PREPUBLICATION COPYâUncorrected Proofs
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND LAW DAVID BALTIMORE (NAS/NAM)Â (Co-Chair), California Institute of Technology DAVID S. TATELÂ (Co-Chair), U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit JOE S. CECIL, University of California, Berkeley School of Law ERWIN CHEMERINSKY, University of California, Berkeley School of Law ELLEN WRIGHT CLAYTON, Vanderbilt University Medical Center JOHN S. COOKE, Federal Judicial Center JOHN DABIRI, California Institute of Technology JENNIFER EBERHARDT (NAS), Stanford University FEI-FEI LI, Stanford University JUDITH MILLER, Independent Consultant MARTHA MINOW, Harvard Law School KIMANI PAUL-EMILE, Fordham University School of Law NATALIE RAM, University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law LISA RANDALL, Harvard University PAUL M. ROMER, New York University WILLIAM B. SCHULTZ, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP JOSHUA SHARFSTEIN (NAM), Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health SUSAN S. SILBEY, Massachusetts Institute of Technology SRI SRINIVASAN, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit GREGORY STONE, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP SUSAN R. WESSLER (NAS), University of California, Riverside National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Staff ANNE-MARIE MAZZA, Senior Director STEVEN KENDALL,Â Program Officer DOMINIC LOBUGLIO, Senior Program AssistantÂ vii PREPUBLICATION COPYâUncorrected Proofs
Acknowledgments T his Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this inde- pendent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We thank the following individuals for their review of this report: WALEED ABDALATI, University of Colorado, Boulder DONALD C. BINGAMAN, VPE Aerospace Consulting, LLC DANIEL M. BODANSKY, Arizona State University TRACY HESTER, University of Houston SIKINA JINNAH, University of California at Santa Cruz FRANK N. KEUTSCH, Harvard University DUNCAN MCLAREN, University of Lancaster HELENE MURI, Norwegian University of Science and Technology SIMON NICHOLSON, American University NICK PIDGEON, Cardiff University ALAN ROBOCK, Rutgers University SIMONE TILMES, National Center for Atmospheric Research DAVID G. VICTOR, University of California San Diego KYLE WHYTE, University of Michigan ROBERT WOOD, University of Washington Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and sug- gestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Antonio J. Busalacchi (NAE), University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, and Andrew R. Solow, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all ix PREPUBLICATION COPYâUncorrected Proofs
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies. x PREPUBLICATION COPYâUncorrected Proofs
PREFACE I n 2015, the National Research Council published a two-volume report that provided a technical evaluation and discussion of the impacts of geoengineering climate. One volume addressed technologies for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The other explored prospects for cooling the planet by albedo modificationâincreas- ing the reflection of solar radiation. A central conclusion from the 2015 study is that the two families of approaches for geoengineering climate differ greatly, in terms ofÂ scientific understanding,Â technical feasibility,Â risks, andÂ societalÂ implications. In par- ticular, understanding of prospects for and issues with albedo modification is nascent. This led that committee to recommend that âalbedo modification at scales sufficient to alter climate should not be deployed at this time. (NRC, 2015, p. 9)â Noting that the urgency of the climate crisis underscores the importance of understanding the full range of options, however, the committee also recommended a program of further research on albedo modification and the development of a framework for governing that research. Since 2015, the motivation for understanding the full range of options for dealing with the climate crisis has gotten even stronger. Globally, 2015â2019 were the 5 warmest years in the instrumental record. Understanding of the link between warming and extreme heat, wildfires, drought, hurricanes, and diverse socioeconomic impacts is stronger than ever. As I write this in September 2020, my home in Californiaâs Bay Area is experiencing record-breaking temperatures and has been blanketed with wildfire smoke for more than 3 weeks. But despite overwhelming evidence that the climate crisis is real and pressing, emissions of greenhouse gases continue to increase, with global emissions of fossil carbon dioxide rising 10.8 percent from 2010 through 2019. The total for 2020 is on track to decrease in response to decreased economic activity related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic is thus providing frustrating con- firmation of the fact that the world has made little progress in separating economic activity from carbon dioxide emissions. The creation of this study committee is one response to the need for understanding the full range of options for dealing with the climate crisis. Its mandate flows directly from the recommendations of the 2015 report but with an urgency reinforced by the worldâs slow progress on climate. The undertaking of this report should not, however, be interpreted as an indication of giving up on decarbonization. Rapidly reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases remains a top priority, as xi PREPUBLICATION COPYâUncorrected Proofs
P R E FA C E explicitly recommended in the 2015 report. Throughout the committeeâs discussions, the focus was always on evaluating whether and how, in the context of a global em- phasis on emissions reductions and carbon dioxide removal, other approaches might be explored. The committee that carried out this study was remarkably diverse. With expertise ranging from atmospheric chemistry to philosophy and experiences ranging from space-based and airborne measurement campaigns to global climate negotiations, all of us needed to make real investments in stepping outside our communities and learning the language and perspectives of colleagues from very different back- grounds. Committee members arrived with a wide array of thoughts not only about the topic but also about the best path forward for building knowledge. Often, there was as much discussion about who needs to be in the conversation as there was about the design and oversight of a research program. I greatly admire the willingness of every member of the committee to explain and defend but also challenge their own perspectives. Chris Field, Chair xii PREPUBLICATION COPYâUncorrected Proofs
DEDICATION T his report is dedicated to Paul J. Crutzen (1933-2021) and Steve Rayner (1953â2020). Paul Crutzen and Steve Rayner were pioneering researchers, widely recognized for diverse contributions. Both made foundational contributions to solar geoengineer- ing scholarship. Paul Crutzen was more than anything, a student of human impacts on Earth. He was a meteorologist best known for his research on stratospheric ozone depletion, work that earned him the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Crutzenâs coining of the term âAnthro- poceneâ underscores the focus of his scholarship on impacts. His 2006 essay on solar geoengineering set the stage for future discussions in stark, memorable terms, laying out the risks from climate disruption, the challenges of decarbonization, and the pros and cons of solar geoengineering. Steve Rayner, who called himself an âundisciplinedâ scholar, made major contributions to the understanding of how science and technology shape the relationship between societies and nature. Much of his focus was on the social science of addressing climate change. Deeply interested in the role of science in governance and the governance of science, Rayner was a strong proponent of ambitious action on climate but a harsh critic of the Kyoto Protocol. He established much of the framework for thinking about governance of solar geoengineering, especially through his role as lead author of the Oxford Principles for Geoengineering Governance. xiii PREPUBLICATION COPYâUncorrected Proofs
PREPUBLICATION COPYâUncorrected Proofs
Contents Summary 1 1 Introduction 19 1.1 Origins of This Study, 22 1.2 Scope and Motivation of This Report, 23 1.3 Solar Geoengineering Is Not a Substitute for Mitigation, 25 1.4 The Study Process, 28 1.5 The Report Roadmap, 29 2 Assessment of the Current Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance Landscape 31 2.1 Overview of Proposed Solar Geoengineering Methods, 31 2.2 Natural Sciences and Technology Dimensions, 38 2.3 Social Dimensions, 71 2.4 Synthesis of Research Assessment, 87 2.5 Current Mechanisms for Research Governance, 90 3. The Decision Space: Context and Key Considerations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance 111 3.1 Enabling Future Decision Makers, 111 3.2 Societal Context for Solar Geoengineering Research, 116 3.3 Intersecting Dimensions of Research, Society, and Research Governance, 125 3.4 Principles for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance, 133 4. A Solar Geoengineering Research Program: Goals and Approach 139 4.1 Introduction, 139 4.2 Goals and Attributes of a Solar Geoengineering Research Program. 140 4.3 Capacity Needed to Advance Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance, 146 4.4 Federal Agency Participation and Coordination 149 4.5 Roles for Philanthropic Support, 156 5. Solar Geoengineering Research Governance 159 5.1 Introduction, 159 xv PREPUBLICATION COPYâUncorrected Proofs
CONTENTS 5.2 National/Domestic Research Governance, 166 5.3 International Research Governance, 182 6. An integrated Agenda for Solar Geoengineering Research 191 6.1 High-Level Framing for the Research Agenda, 191 6.2 The Research Agenda Topics, 195 6.3 Outdoor Solar Geoengineering Experimentation, 245 6.4 Funding Considerations for Solar Geoengineering Research, 251 6.5 Concluding Thoughts, 256 References 259 Appendices A Statement of Task 287 B Speakers from the Committee Meetings & Webinars 291 C Scenarios Developed By The Committee for the âDecision Maker Needsâ Webinars 295 D Biographical Sketches of the Committee Members 301 E Acronyms and Abbreviations 309 xvi PREPUBLICATION COPYâUncorrected Proofs