AGU Publications — Related Pages
Information
AGU Contact
Elizabeth Landau
Senior Public Affairs Coordinator
Phone: +1 202 777 7535
Fax: +1 202 328 0566
E-mail: elandau@agu.org
Geoengineering Hearing 11/05/09
Geoengineering has recently surfaced as a hot-button item with potential solutions to mitigating global climate change. The House Committee on Science and Technology held a hearing on geoengineering, the first ever to be held on Capitol Hill, on 5 November. Among the witnesses were three AGU members, Drs. Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institute, James Fleming of Colby College, and Alan Robock of Rutgers University.
The Chairman of the Committee, Bart Gordon (D-TN), began by stating the uncertainties as well as the ethical and political concerns that surround geoengineering, including the potential for catastrophic side effects. He made it very clear that his “decision to hold this hearing should not be misconstrued as an endorsement of any geoengineering activity.” Chairman Gordon believes it is prudent to gather information on the subject in case the planet finds itself in a climate emergency. However, on the other side, the Committee’s Ranking Member Ralph Hall (R-TX) stated the debate about climate change is far from over and there are still many opinions as to the causes, effects, and the potential solutions.
During the question and answer portion of the hearing, Chairman Gordon mentioned the possibility of creating a new federally-funded research program on geoengineering. Dr. James Fleming of Colby College noted that such a program should include a social science component and Dr. John Shepherd of the University of Southampton stated that this kind of program would need to be international and not focus on just one technology. Dr. Caldeira testified that this should be thought of in terms of several research programs, while Mr. Lee Lane of the American Enterprise Institute stated that solar radiation management would have the largest economic payoff potential and much greater ability to reverse rapid, highly disruptive climate change, should that occur. Finally, Dr. Robock noted there are many possible undesirable consequences of geoengineering. He referred to the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, which was so large that the resulting sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere reflected solar radiation and subsequently cooled the planet, however, the eruption also resulted in many droughts across Africa and Asia. Dr. Robock stressed the need for much more research and asserted that NSF, NOAA, and NASA should take the lead in the US.
Congressman Vernon Ehlers (R-MI) explained that there is no single solution to the climate change problem and noted his continuing advocacy for alternative fuels. Next, Congressman Adrian Smith (R-NE) was concerned of the potential impacts on the livestock industry. Both Drs. Caldeira and Robock responded by stating the impact that livestock have on climate change due to methane emissions and by noting that weather conditions may change in the Midwest which could potentially impact the production of grain and the farming industry in general.
The witnesses emphasized the fact that various nations will differ in their interests in geoengineering. For example, some countries may desire warmer or colder temperatures than others, and this presents a huge problem because geoengineering would affect the entire planet and all of its people and ecosystems. Also, geoengineering should not be in lieu of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The entire witness panel agreed that no deployments of geoengineering should take place now and that much more research needs to be done. However, geoengineering may be necessary in the future as a last resort.