Transcript Geoengineering presentation for investigation

Request to Investigate Geoengineering
Request to investigate
Geoengineering
Congressional Report
• Geoengineering: Governance and Technology
Policy
• Kelsi Bracmort Specialist in Agricultural
Conservation and Natural Resources Policy
• Richard K. Lattanzio Analyst in Environmental
Policy
• January 2, 2013
Geoengineering: Governance and
Technology Policy
• As a participant in several international agreements on
climate change, the United States has joined with other
nations to express concern about climate change. However,
in the absence of a national climate change policy, some
recent technological advances and hypotheses, generally
referred to as “geoengineering”technologies, have created
alternatives to these traditional approaches. If deployed,
these new technologies could modify the Earth’s climate on
a large scale. Moreover, these new technologies may
become available to foreign governments and entities in
the private sector to use unilaterally—
without authorization
from the United States government or an international
treaty—
Geoengineering: Governance and
Technology Policy
• In general, geoengineering technologies are
categorized as either a carbon dioxide removal (CDR)
method or a solar radiation management (SRM)
method.
• SRM methods address climate change by increasing the
reflectivity of the Earth’s atmosphere or surface.
Aerosol injection and space-based reflectors are
examples of SRM methods. SRM methods do not
remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, but
can be deployed faster with relatively immediate global
cooling results compared to CDR methods
Geoengineering: Governance and
Technology Policy
• To date, there is limited federal involvement in, or oversight
of, geoengineering. However, some states as well as some
federal agencies, notably the Environmental Protection
Agency, Department of Energy, Department of Agriculture,
and the Department of Defense, have taken actions related
to geoengineering research or projects. At the
international level, there is no international agreement or
organization governing the full spectrum of possible
geoengineering activities. Nevertheless, provisions of many
international agreements, including those relating to
climate change, maritime pollution, and air pollution,
would likely inform the types of geoengineering activities
that state parties to these agreements might choose to
pursue.
Geoengineering: Governance and
Technology Policy
• Public Engagement.
• The consequences of geoengineering —
including both
benefits and risks discussed above —
could affect people and
communities across the world. Public attitudes toward
geoengineering, and public engagement in the formation,
development, and execution of proposed governance,
could have a critical bearing on the future of the
technologies. Perceptions of risks, levels of trust,
transparency of actions, provisions for liabilities and
compensation, and economies of investment could play a
significant role in the political feasibility of geoengineering.
Public acceptance may require a wider dialogue between
scientists, policymakers, and the public.
Geoengineering: Governance and
Technology Policy
• Aerosol Injection
• Aerosol injection is the dispersal of aerosols, such as
hydrogen sulfide (H2S) or sulfur dioxide (SO2), into the
stratosphere to direct solar radiation back toward
space or absorb heat, thus cooling the Earth.
• Military aircraft, artillery shells, or stratospheric
balloons could be employed to inject the aerosols. The
annual cost for sulfur particle injection using airplanes
is calculated to be several billion dollars, depending on
the amount, location, and type of sulfur particle
injected into the stratosphere.
Geoengineering: Governance and
Technology Policy
• Conclusion
• Geoengineering is an emerging field that, like other areas
of scientific innovation, requires careful deliberation by
policymakers, and possibly, the development or
amendment of international agreements, federal laws, or
federal regulations. Currently, many geoengineering
technologies are at the conceptual and research stages,
and their effectiveness at reducing global temperatures has
yet to be proven. Very few studies have been published
documenting the cost, environmental effects, socio-political
impacts, and legal implications of geoengineering.
Nevertheless, if geoengineering technologies are deployed,
they are expected to have the potential to cause significant
transboundary effects.
A Coordinated Strategy Could Focus Federal Geoengineering
Research and Inform Governance Efforts
GAO-10-903: Published: Sep 23, 2010. Publicly Released: Oct
26, 2010.
• 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),
• 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.
Clouds and Aerosols
Lead US author: David Randall
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
• David Randall’s Present position:
• University Distinguished Professor, Department of
Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University,
and Director of the Center for Multiscale
Modeling of Atmospheric Processes, an NSF
Science and Technology Center
• Research interests:
• General circulation modeling, cloud-climate
studies, cloud parameterization
Table of Contents
•
•
•
•
Executive Summary...................................................................... 573
7.1 Introduction....................................................................... 576
7.2 Clouds.................................................................................. 578
7.3 Aerosols.............................................................................. 595
•
•
7.4 Aerosol–Cloud Interactions.......................................... 606
7.5 Radiative Forcing and Effective Radiative Forcing by Anthropogenic
Aerosols............................ 614
7.6 Processes Underlying Precipitation Changes.......... 624
7.7 Solar Radiation Management and Related
Methods.............................................................................. 627
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
References .................................................................................. 636
Frequently Asked Questions
FAQ 7.1 How Do Clouds Affect Climate and Climate
Change?.................................................................... 593
FAQ 7.2 How Do Aerosols Affect Climate and Climate
Change?.................................................................... 622
FAQ 7.3 Could Geoengineering Counteract Climate Change and What Side Effects
Might Occur?...... 632
Clouds and Aerosols
Solar Radiation Management: 7.7
• Geoengineering—also called climate
engineering—is defined as a broad set of
methods and technologies that aim to
deliberately alter the climate system in order to
alleviate impacts of climate change (Keith, 2000;
Izrael et al., 2009; Royal Society, 2009; IPCC,
2011). Two main classes of geoengineering are
often considered. Solar Radiation Management
(SRM) proposes to counter the warming
associated with increasing GHG concentrations by
reducing the amount of sunlight absorbed at the
surface.
The Guardian
Monday February 6, 2012
• Bill Gates backs climate scientists lobbying
for large-scale geoengineering
• Other wealthy individuals have also funded a
series of reports into the future use of
technologies to geoengineer the climate
Geoengineering Petition
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
RE: Petition for redress of grievances (Article 1, Section 3, Ohio Constitution; 1st Amendment,
United States Constitution) – Geoengineering
Dear Sheriff Dan Dunlap, State Representative Ron Young, Lake County Commissioner Dan Troy,
State Representative John Rogers, and State Senator John Eklund:
As citizens of Ohio, we petition you for a redress of grievances, per our rights guaranteed by the
United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution, in regard to geoengineering.
In this regard, please see the following:
"Geoengineering Investigation Demanded by Shasta County, CA Residents," July 15, 2014 (Video #3
on attached DVD)
July 15, 2014 Shasta County Board of Supervisors Meeting Minutes regarding geoengineering
(Attached)
The information provided at the Shasta County hearing by credible speakers to include a biologist,
commercial pilot, scientist, neurologist, aviation expert, physician, aerospace consultant,
chiropractor, and others, and the motion unanimously passed by the board to investigate
geoengineering and send information to state and federal government officials, show us that there
may exist a tremendous threat to environmental and human health, as well as illegal activity.
We therefore petition you to conduct a public hearing on the subject of geoengineering, and an
official investigation, in regard to the attached Shasta County, CA materials, into the science of
geoengineering, the results thereof, and whether or not illegal activity is involved. We also request
appropriate action be taken based on the findings thereof.
This petition is respectfully submitted by:
Shasta County Conclusion of Meeting
7/15/14
• By motion made, seconded, and unanimously carried, Board of
Supervisors directed staff to:
• 1. Gather and review information from Lassen National Park regarding:
• a. the size of the particulates that their system measures' and
• b. the data as to the measurements currently in their reports;
• 2. Compile the information from today's meeting in a succinct letter and
send with copies of the DVDs of the meeting to Shasta county's
representative in the California state Senate and Shasta County's
representatives in the U.S-.Senate and House of Representatives, and the
California transportation Department,-California Environmental Protection
Agency, u.s. Environmental Protection Agency, and California Air Resources
• Board, requesting a timely responses to the concerns voiced;
• 3.Deterrnine the cost for Shasta County to purchase equipment to monitor
• Particulate matter, and whether it would be more cost effective to
contract for the services.
Sheriff Arpaio press release:
July 17, 2012
• The Sheriff’s investigation into the President’s birth
certificate authenticity question began in October, 2011,
after 250 concerned Maricopa County citizens approached
Sheriff Arpaio saying they had reason to believe that the
electronic document presented in an April, 2011, news
conference from the White House to the American public,
as well as the citizens of Maricopa County, was a forgery.
• Arpaio promised to look into the matter. Six months into
the investigation, Sheriff’s Cold Case Posse concluded that
there is probable cause to believe that the Obama’s birth
certificate as well as his Selective Service registration card
were, in fact, suspected forgeries.
Ohio Constitution
Article 1: Bill of Rights
• BearIng arms; StandIng armIes; Military
power.
• §4 The people have the right to bear arms for
their defense and security; but standing
armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to
liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the
military shall be in strict subordination to the
civil power.
We request an investigation so someday our skies can
look like this again. The End?