CLIMATE GEOENGINEERING: A GROWING FOREIGN POLICY AND PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS CHALLENGE, BUT CURRENTLY A LOW TECHNICAL THREAT

• Document Type: FOIA
• Collection: FOIA Collection
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 05773646
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 10
• Document Creation Date: December 28, 2022
• Document Release Date: May 14, 2018
• Case Number: F-2016-00405
• Publication Date: August 25, 2011

Approved for Release: 2018/01/30 C05773646
_--&Etitrf
(b)(3)
--S.EGRff
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
'
(b)(3)
Approved for Release: 2018/01/30 C05773646
v
Approved for Release: 2018/01/30 C05773646
,SSGRET
(b)(3)
Key Finding
Climate Geoengineering: A Growing Foreign
Policy and Public Perceptions Challenge, but
Currently a Low Technical Threat
At least 20 countries are studying climate geoengineering to counter the
effects of greenhouse gas emissions, and concerns regarding unregulated
research of potentially risky technologies will probably lead to calls for
international governance and transparency agreements. Interest in
geoengineering is likely to accelerate as mitigation and adaptation efforts
fall short of what the global scientific community says is necessary to
prevent severe effects from climate change.'
� Geoengineering refers to intentional measures to influence the earth's
climate to counter the effects of global warming. Proposed methods
include reflecting additional radiation to cool the earth's surface and
technologies to artificially remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Many scientists are opposed to geoengineering and stress that the risks
are diverse with insufficient research to reliably estimate the type or
magnitude of local or global side effects.2
�
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
open press reports4 5 6 7 reveal that more (b)(1)
than 120 scientists around the world�with nearly half based in the (b)(3)
United Kingdom and about two-thirds in Europe�are studying
geoengineering.
� Almost all open research is computer or lab based, with only two known
small field experiments conducted in 2009 with German, Indian, and
Russian government support, and one planned for late 2011 in the United
Kingdom.8 9 10 11 12 13
As geoengineering discussions and research gain momentum, public
attention to the issue and suspicion of countries pursuing geoengineering
research is likely to increase, particularly if research is seen as lacking
international consensus or having a military dimension. Proactive US
support for transparent international governance would probably allay
public fears and suspicions about Western geoengineering research. 14 15 16
�
multiple parties to the Convention on
Biological Diversity and the London Convention/Protocol on Marine
Dumping have urged regulation or bans on all geoengineering activities,
(b)(3)
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
ECRE-7
Approved for Release: 2018/01/30 C05773646
Approved for Release: 2018/01/30 C05773646
SECRif
Scope Note
This paper seeks to establish a baseline assessment of the emerging field of (b)(3)
climate geoengineering, referred to as geoengineering in this assessment.
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
Note that the civil engineering
field also called geoengineering concerns large-scale projects, such as
tunnels and dams, and is unrelated to climate modification.
iii
(b)(3)
�SE-eRET
Approved for Release: 2018/01/30 C05773646
Approved for Release: 2018/01/30 C05773646
___SSGltET7
(b)(3)
Climate Geoengineering: A
Growing Foreign Policy and
Public Perceptions Challenge, but
Currently a Low Technical
Threat
As global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
continue to lag behind UN targets for limiting
dangerous global climate change, interest in
geoengineering research is likely to continue gaining
momentum. Geoengineering could be implemented
unilaterally or with something less than universal
consensus, raising concerns and calls for international
governance and regulation of research. The United
States will increasingly be engaged in governance
discussions in international forums and will probably
encounter international suspicion about US
geoengineering research.
� Geoengineering refers to intentional measures to
influence the earth's climate to counter the effects
of global warming. Proposals include methods to
reflect additional radiation, for example, by adding
sulfate aerosols to the atmosphere or making clouds
more reflective, and technologies such as ocean
fertilization or air capture that could remove carbon
dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere (see foldout).
� Many countries have researched and used rain
enhancement or suppression for decades, but
weather modification programs generally have local
effects whereas geoengineering aims to influence
climate on a global scale.
Growing Interest in Geoengineering
Scientists, economists, and international English-
language media are increasingly discussing
geoengineering as a relatively low-cost, last-resort
option to prevent serious climate change effects as
international efforts to limit global emissions
continue to stall. UN Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC) Chief Christina Figueres
in June 2011 warned that if climate treaty
negotiations do not make progress the world may
require more powerful technologies to capture
emissions, which she described as "risky territory."22
� Global-scale geoengineering was first mentioned as
a policy option to counteract increasing carbon
dioxide as early as 1965,23 but experts comment
that the issue has gained more public attention in
recent years. 25 A survey of international wire
service reporting shows scant mention of
geoengineering before the mid-2000s, increasing to
dozens of articles per year during 2009-11. 26 27 N 29
30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
� Scientists who advocate geoengineering research
frame it as a potential option if the world faces a
"climate emergency," arguing that research to
determine effectiveness and side effects is
necessary to inform any potential discussions of
geoengineering use.51 '2 D3
� Most experts and scientific consensus reports agree
that geoengineering is only viable as a short-term
measure until permanent greenhouse gas reductions
can be made, because of unknown side effects and
concerns that interruption of a geoengineering
program could cause sudden and severe climate
shocks.54 55 " " 58 59
According to a survey of open literature, at least 122
foreign researchers in 20 countries are investigating
geoengineering, primarily using computer modeling
with a handful of known small-scale field
This assessment was prepared by the Office of Transnational Issues. Comments and queries are
welcome and may be directed to the Chief, CIA Center on Climate Change and National Security, OTI,
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
oPP))
(b)(3)
Approved for Release: 2018/01/30 C05773646
Approved for Release: 2018/01/30 C05773646
experiments. The majority of computer-based work
adapts existing climate models to simulate proposed
geoengineering measures.60
German
and Indian governmental institutes cosponsored a
$4.5 million ocean fertilization experiment in 2009,
which uncovered a previously unknown biological
feedback that prevented any significant carbon
sequestration, according to open-source reports.66
� The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) plans to include a discussion of
geoengineering science, risks, and uncertainties in
the 2013 Fifth Assessment report.� CIA analysts
assess inclusion in the premier international review
of climate change science reflects the
mainstreaming of geoengineering research.
High Uncertainties and Unknown Risks
Many scientists stress that because geoengineering
research is at such an early stage they cannot reliably
estimate the effectiveness of proposed techniques,
potential biological or climatic side effects, regional
distribution of effects, or possible unintended
consequences. A US National Research Council
report on weather modification noted that while
human activities such as pollution are known to
influence the climate, there is insufficient
2
experimental support for claims that specific
interventions can reliably produce desired weather
outcomes.68
� Follow-up studies to the 2009 German-Indian
experiment indicated that iron fertilization can
trigger production of small quantities of
neurotoxins, according to open-source reports.69 70
71 The 2007 IPCC report recommended further
research given ocean fertilization's uncertain carbon
sequestration benefits and potential harm to '
ecological communities 72
� According to studies of past volcanic eruptions and
computer modeling, stratospheric aerosols could
strengthen northern hemisphere weather cycles,
reduce precipitation globally, modify the Asian and
African monsoons, and hamper recovery of the
ozone layer.73 Cloud brightening can be conducted
only in specific areas and hence would most likely
have an impact on regional weather patterns,
potentially either increasing or decreasing
precipitation depending on the technique and
season.74
Public Awareness Limited, but Controversial
Among Those Knowledgeable
Among the scientists, activists, and media following
the issue, geoengineering is controversial because of
sensitivities about humans intentionally manipulating
global weather and disagreements about the
appropriate way to tackle climate change, but it is
difficult to assess the level of public awareness,
particularly in the developing world. During the past
few years, the issue has gained regular attention in
international English-language media,75 76 77 78 79 80 81
82 83 84
but is not a major topic of discussion in the
press and blogs in China, Mexico, the Middle East,
Russia, South Africa, and South Asia,
cRr
Approved for Release: 2018/01/30 C05773646
Approved for Release: 2018/01/30 005773646
Geoengineering: Methods To Counter the Effects of Greenhouse Gases
r.
the effects of globe! rt7i;iirint6er::firi,etrete two classes of geoengtneering are :ote4.tido,ceoun,
*Menagentent (SAM) to reflect tadiatiodendthUe'deel the'endji,s,Su. do_ on,und Carbon,
tOUrtifiCjittyiemitvuutt,tortgl�, CO2:tur the afmosphe{J
'Radiation"
from the Sari
� refleCted, and
� teemitted both
at the surface
� ' and at different �
laYera in the
: .atmosphere.
Geoengineei ing
seeks to change
'these energy
balances to
compensate
for human
emissions of
� greenhouse
� gases.
Visible radiation (light) Infrared radiation (heat),
Solar. Radiation Management: Carbon Dioxide Removal: �
increases reflection reduces greenhouse gases
in the atmosphere .
Greenhouse gases influence
1 rates of absorption and'
Note: The width of errows is proportional to the fraction of radiation
ahsorbed, emitted. ofreffeeted
�CSOlartiallatiOnlytertagemenf.(SRM). (0)
SAM techniques control the amount of radiation that reaches the earth's surface
SIV42E T
ipxldeRoM(CPR)
COiremoYel fronitheatino.Pheredireotlyedd teases teeerob10.:!, of �
CO2 erntsatUit,.i iicaintOtencjirliLn Wituid require seVeral years before::',"
Otinrate�.effectSjwcitild edebservectSditte.COR:tectiniques have
significant logistical challenges-in oeteining materials or sequestering r
ibilfternOired CO2 end some are energy intens no
:� Large-scale Ocean fertilizationboosting the levels anterienti in
the ocean to increase the activity at small CO2 absorbing organisms
such an elgeetwas onceponsiderede leading candidate forgeoengmneenng but field research tests suggested carbon reductions
would be minimal arid fertiliiatiaii:CoUld lead to Unintended CherniCiar
'thriaactitendediriclUdirie theeroductiOn'of teeed acids
.� lUr,�capttneand iiitirage,,Which*ouid directlyrernmowCO2 via
�:;air Senteideis.:fieeellie'SernienergY coat
::.ceallengesescarben capture and storage at power generation
� :plants. Erthanded rock Weathering or liming the-oe.sancould speed.
..:removal of -0O2 from theeii but Would pose suesteiitiet
challenges in and disposing of large quantities Of rock �
.41Affareitetlan:teferestafion, and Mocha! production Could be
�-�-.Cionsidered geoeneineenng techniques as -managed programs . � , ,
...reduce_greenhousegeses in the atmosphere, but they are.genetallY
considered lend management and agricultUre.issUes,' and all. ,
..WOUld Mean more Competition for land use. fl '
-�_Stratospheric aerosols, particularly sulfur, cattld be sprayed at high attitudes
and could be deployed quickly if developed loan operational stage. Many SAM to reflect additional radiation. Sulfate aerosols are one of the most frequently -
techniques are considered risky due to potential climatic side effects and because, discussed optiona for SAM. The Mt. Pinatubo Volcanic eruption provided
they would require 'continuous effort any disruption to SAM programs' could coven s,�-a Well-studied natural analogue, With volcanic sulfate aerosol lowering the, .
a severe climate shock as the earth's radiation balance would quickly rebound.. '; -global temperature approximately 0:6 degree Celsius in the Year following the
Also. because SAM does not reduce CO2 levels, some aspects of climate change.- -.eitiption, according. to scientific studies:However, precipitation significantly
such as increasing ocean acidification, would continue unabated. . decreased following the eruption, as did stratospheric ozone. Stratospheric
� ' ' - � � .- :aerosols probably posethe greatest risk for unilateretdeployment because �
� Cloud whitening methodi would spray aerosols such'as saltwater MiSi
escduld'deOloy then, quickly With lower Costs and fewer technical
Promote more condensation, making clouds more reflective; Cloud whitening . countries
challenges then other oPtiops,:according to the seine study.'. � �
. is considered the most promising geoengineering technology. today. . . . � r
However, it would be applied uneyep y where
climatic conditions permit, particularly over tropical regions. This could result'
is local weather effects, such as severe drought and temperature changes,
� because it could alter the distribution of clouds in unpredictable Ways
- � Albedo enhancement ideas include painting roofs white, covering deserts
, with white sheeting; developing crops or other plants with more reflective
leaves, or engineering ocean bubbles that would creates more reflective
ocean surface. These options are less studied because of concerns about,
weather or ecosystem side effect's or questions about cost effectiveness.
-
Space sunshades could be placed in orbit to reflect additional sunlight but,.
would be one of the more expensive optionsi
7-77-
CONFi0ENTIAL
Graphic source notes."'"
-
Selected Countries
With Ongoing
Research.
�tiateapherie aerosols and Mitrkint Seeding in the oceans ens discussed
in the inieinaiianalresierOhlcOMMUniti.and,tiaVea'coSt divOloonintit dotentibilltW.'
cts:glociMent SOOSidi and tirstentiai aliniate intriant
ou
�whiienin
vessels'
?;niies'iym 1,1�-Low� tvtediumj
'Air capture &. H igh; � Mediuni
.storage,
. .
,additioii to
;;the ocean '
Mediurn-
� Criteria 'used tor ranking 0,reirraseO geoengineering techniques, with rankingS
,determined by experts in the field. Impact is Measured in radiation unite of watts:
per`Souarermeter,(Wirrii),L
Potential Impact
� �
�
Cost
� OeVelopnient
detectabiliti
High
Medium
Low
' i>2`.0 W/m2 � W/m2 � *i 50.5
s$50eiilien/year' � $10450 billioryyear,-. 410 billion(
. ,
' Ratings are eased on scale of market impact experiment
, '','�UOS'enrabilitY�'deVeloOMOUt`tootOrint; and Whether I'm:J[110e:-
'Countries mast Coordinate irripleinentetion. :
years ' years: - .5 �years
, ,
�Accoicling to open induStry and press informetton. Not necessarily a ciatiplete fist
3
011 ,r.au.-11.1 sUe.e.Eit,
Ids5"(35
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
(b)(1)
(b)(3),(3)
"j)\`");1��1
(b)(3)
TM)
(b)(3)
Approved for Release: 2018/01/30 005773646
Approved for Release: 2018/01/30 C05773646
--SEeRET
'Weather Modification: Related Technology
�At leawstea2th4 eeremtinodificaltitsicuiruvcielyilgdene in -h probably
rid .
haveChula and Re. ssiato' a
programs, according90 9
On 1999,
Meteorologicales and expertise could
If a
Watl(c)I these _teehologgieoen.gineeling techniques;uld pro-a
be applied to some
Coll f it weather modification
could confidence
lnoere
public relations success, .:.,,icat'ionldwbasuseilaadrpc .
pfear investments in geoengineering
�
�.� Chinese bloggefs accused the government s'weather
,
modification program of causing- or exa ,er a ing
tintisually early and'heavy,snowfall in 2009,
according to 'Press'iep'Orting99'China'public1ST touts -
the program as ensuring good weather for ke
national events such as the 2008 ObthipiOs.
101
"techno-fix" that would have remotely equitable
impacts, and arguing that voluntary scientific self-
regulation is inadequate and preempts a public
discussion about whether geoengineering should be
pursued at all."6
� The UK National Environmental Research Council
(NERC) held several open forums on
geoengineering in 2010 attended by capacity
audiences who had low initial awareness of the
issue, were broadly opposed to intentional
interference with the climate, but who ultimately
gave cautious support for research and engaged
constructively in discussions about appropriate
governance and regulations.
Possible Motivations for Geoengineering
If research progresses to reduce some of the
uncertainties currently endemic to the field, countries
or nonstate actors could be motivated to develop a
program to reverse damaging climate change, or as a
publicity stunt to try to galvanize the international
debate about climate change mitigation. Worsening
climate conditions�including recurring weather
shocks or pending climate tipping points such as the
Asian monsoon�could drive any of the more
technically advanced nations to accelerate
geoengineering research and development.
� Only a few scientists and economists argue that
geoengineering would be an inexpensive
complement or alternative to pricier greenhouse gas
mitigation and clean energy measures.103 104 105 106
107
However, most experts argue that
geoengineering should be considered only in the
event of a "climate emergency,� 108 109 and as a
short-term option it cannot replace greenhouse as
reductions in mitigating climate change risks." 111
112 113 114 115
� A small geoengineering-focused Canadian NGO
railed against geoengineering events at the 2009
Copenhagen meeting, saying industrialized
countries cannot be trusted to attempt a climate
� A country that feels under mortal threat from
climate change�such as a small island state�may
grow desperate if it perceives global emissions
reductions are inadequate and might independently
attempt a program or partner with a wealthy nation
or donor in a public relations bid to push the
international community toward more aggressive
climate actions.
5
Approved for Release: 2018/01/30 C05773646
Approved for Release: 2018/01/30 C05773646
(b)(3)
� The 1976 Convention on the Prohibition of Military
or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental
Modification prohibits any military or hostile
weather modification that causes widespread, long-
lasting, or severe effects as a means of injury to any
party, and has been signed by 75 nations, including
China, Japan, Russia, and the UK.121 122 The
definition of environmental modification could
encompass some geoengineering techniques,
although the Convention permits environmental
modification for peaceful purposes.
International Governance Under Discussion
Calls for governance of geoengineering are growing
from governments concerned about the issue,
researchers seeking legal guidance for further work,
and activists opposed to geoengineering. Some
experts suggest that modification of existing
environmental protection treaties will be the most
feasible route for international governance initiatives,
possibly using multiple instruments to cover different
types of geoengineering technologies.123 124 125
� The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and
the London Convention/Protocol on Marine
Dumping both hosted contentious debates regarding
regulation of ocean fertilization in meetings in 2008
and 2010,
130 131 The 2008 nonbinding CBD resolution was
widely viewed as a de facto moratorium on ocean
fertilization and oceanographers were concerned
thiS- could effectively restrict scientific research, but
2011 CBD language would
not restrict US research interests.I35 13
� The 2010 Asilomar Conference�attended by 165
experts in the field�concluded that transparency,
public and intergovernmental engagement, and
governmental oversight are essential to responsible
conduct of geoengineering research.137 The UK
Royal Society likewise noted in 2009 that there is
no international treaty or institution with a
6
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
Approved for Release: 2018/01/30 C05773646
Approved for Release: 2018/01/30 C05773646
,SECIK-1171�10 F 0 RN
Potential Incentives for Private Industry if Carbon
Credits Permitted
A few companies are exp oring geoengineering
options to accelerate carbon removal from the
atmosphere, probably with the intent of selling carbon
credits on international exchanges such as the EU
,
Emissions Trading System (ETS) or the Kyoto
Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM),
. . . . .
or possibly to contract their geoengineering services
to interested governments.
� Multiple companies have - ,
�uegcr ,
tPis-tiein4a. 1.3e9,,,,4
developing.uten
40 141 i42 None
of these
technology
ocean wool� ' .�
� e hOpe offset credits , development
, .,2erierate.c . he ' d the '
, carbon Of- d a leVel'9.1. tobaoU
companies , roved a strong
Conventio
sue accreditation, commercial
0a,C, ' an but
jexiItn .uf in 200,8. ,1?.pt
nonbinding
at re
.s. , r � nip otoc , stric s
olution�th
ocean, fertilization
� Europe's ETS market was valued at about $100
billion in 2010, and the C1DM was worth about $20
billion, according to press reporting although the
� market value slid in 2011 because of continuing
economic weaknesses and oversupply of credits in
144 the Market. 14:.
sufficiently broad mandate to regulate
geoengineering activities and said there is an
immediate need for established frameworks to
deliberate and regulate geoengineering research.'"
Outlook: Increasing Attention and Accusations
Growing discussion and research of geoengineering
will probably lead to greater public attention and
controversy, particularly if research is seen as lacking
international consensus or having a military
dimension.
� An article in the official daily newspaper of the
Russian Ministry of Defense included two
viewpoints on whether the 2010 heat waves and
wildfires were the result of a US "climate
weapon."148
We assess there is also high potential for North-South
tensions regarding geoengineering in the absence of a
broadly accepted governance regime. The United
States may face accusations of delaying climate
mitigation in favor of geoengineering solutions,
ignoring the potential negative side effects on others.
� More than 125 environmental, development, and
human rights groups from 40 countries sent a letter
protesting the IPCC expert meeting on
geoengineering held in June 2011 in Lima, Peru,
saying the prospects for negative consequences for
the global south were too high to consider
geoengineering.15� The letter urged broader
participation from civil society groups in
geoengineering deliberations to counterbalance "the
more prominent and extreme positions of some
northern scientists."
Support for Governance Would Probably Allay
Concerns
Proactive US support for governance initiatives
requiring well-regulated and transparent research
could allay fears about uncontrolled geoengineering
and prevent a public backlash against climate
research efforts in related but benign areas.
Approved for Release: 2018/01/30 C05773646
Approved for Release: 2018/01/30 C05773646
�SEeRET
\
(b)(3)
Public concerns might be assuaged by an agreement
among technically advanced nations to pledge
transparency in any research and funding, establish a
scientific risk evaluation panel for proposed field
tests, and designate the UN Security Council or
similar international body as the arbiter of any
geoengineering deployments.
� Multiple groups including the Asilomar Conference
and UK Royal Society have called for scientific
organizations to establish a code of practice for
researchers to promote open and collaborative
research, risk management, and public
engagement.I53 154 However, these groups also
stress that governmental involvement will be
necessary, particularly when considering any
geoengineering research that could have cross-
boundary effects.
___sEeRET13,_
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
Approved for Release: 2018/01/30 C05773646