1 / 34

Foresight & Technology Assessment for the U.S. Congress: Climate Engineering

Foresight & Technology Assessment for the U.S. Congress: Climate Engineering. Disclaimer: These remarks do not necessarily reflect the views of the US GAO. Nancy J. Donovan Frederick K. Childers Virginia A. Chanley Applied Research & Methods, U.S. Government Accountability Office

tyanne
Download Presentation

Foresight & Technology Assessment for the U.S. Congress: Climate Engineering

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Foresight & Technology Assessment for the U.S. Congress: Climate Engineering Disclaimer: These remarks do not necessarily reflect the views of the US GAO Nancy J. Donovan Frederick K. Childers Virginia A. Chanley Applied Research & Methods, U.S. Government Accountability Office www.gao.gov Page 1

  2. U.S. Federal Government Overview

  3. GAO and Its Work for Congress • Independent, nonpartisan agency that works forthe U.S. Congress • Performs audits and investigations of federal programs and activities, primarily at the request of Congress • Makes recommendations to improve government programs or operations • Diverse workforce of about 3000 staff, including, among specialist/technical staff, social scientists, economists, engineers, and others • The Comptroller General is appointed to a 15-year term

  4. Evolution of GAO Mission • At first, the GAO’s primary function was federal financial management, including auditing responsibilities, accounting and claims functions, but over time it evolved to include performance auditing and evaluation • As GAO’s mission evolved, so did the expertise of its staff (from auditors to accountants, to social scientists and a wide range of experts in STEM) • GAO's legal name became the Government Accountability Office (2004) Legal name change GAO established 1921 1970 2002 2004 Oversee financial management processes of the Executive Branch Provide oversight of program performance & broader government-wide issues Tech Assessment Capability + +

  5. Evolution of Science and Technology Support to the Congress GAO (Scientists on staff) NAS Panel on Applied S&T NAS Panel on TA TA@GAO (pilot) TA@GAO (perm.) IOM, CRS NAS NRC GAO NAE OTA 1863 … 1916 … 1921 … 1964 1967 1969 1970 1972 1974 1995 2002 2007 Not to scale

  6. Emerging Context for GAO in 21st Century: Scientific and Technological Advances • World linked in new and rapidly evolving ways • Revolutionary possibilities and opportunities for renewable and sustainable resources, improved national security, productivity gains and economic growth • Challenges continue to arise out of innovation and the use of technologies such as social media, pervasive information systems, safety of materials, biotech and biomedical advances

  7. Congressional Direction to Establish Technology Assessment Function at GAO Conference report for the FY 2002 Legislative Branch Appropriation (H.R. Rep. No. 107-259 (2001)) directed GAO to obligate funds (up to $500,000) for a pilot program in technology assessment. Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended the establishment of a permanent technology assessment function within GAO (S. Rep. No. 110-89, at 42–43 (2007)). House Committee on Appropriations, in providing funding to GAO to perform technology assessment studies, noted that “it is necessary for the Congress to equip itself with effective means for securing competent, timely and unbiased information concerning the effects of scientific and technical developments and use the information in the legislative assessment of matters pending before the Congress" (H.R. Rep. No. 110-198, at 30 (2007)).

  8. Ranking Member of House Committee on Science & Technology Requests Technology Assessment of Climate Engineering 3 Major Areas of Examination (1) Current state of climate engineering science and technology (2) Experts’ views of the future of U.S. climate engineering research (3) Potential public responses to climate engineering Complements Earlier GAO Study Climate Change: A Coordinated Strategy Could Focus Federal Geoengineering Research and Inform Governance Efforts (GAO-10-903 September 23, 2010) Page 8

  9. Rise in Concentration of CO2Between 1960 and 2010

  10. Definition of Climate Engineering The “deliberate, large-scale intervention in the Earth’s climate system” (Royal Society, 2009) Two major approaches: • Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) Accelerating the movement of carbon from the atmosphere to terrestrial and oceanic carbon sinks • Solar radiation management (SRM) Controlling net incoming solar radiation by deflecting sunlight or increasing the reflectivity of the atmospheric clouds, or Earth’s surface

  11. Approaches to Climate Engineering Source: GAO. Page 11

  12. Climate Engineering: History and Recent Interest

  13. Ranking Member of House Committee on Science & Technology Requests Technology Assessment of Climate Engineering 3 Major Areas of Examination (1) Current state of climate engineering science and technology (2) Experts’ views of the future of U.S. climate engineering research (3) Potential public responses to climate engineering Complements Earlier GAO Study Climate Change: A Coordinated Strategy Could Focus Federal Geoengineering Research and Inform Governance Efforts (GAO-10-903 September 23, 2010) Page 13

  14. Climate Engineering TA:Combining Methods & Disciplines Technology Evaluation(physical scientists, engineers, economists) Used measures such as technology readiness level Eliciting Views of the Future Through Scenarios (social scientists, foresight methodologists, economists) Use of scenario axis approach (2 axis, double uncertainty) to create 4 scenarios to stimulate comments on the future from a broad range of experts Assessment of Public Perceptions(survey methodologists, social scientists) Conducted focus groups; surveyed 1006 individuals through online research panel

  15. Emerging Technologies:immature and challenged by current information gaps Currently not viable options immature (on a “technology readiness scale” of 1-9, most rated at level 2) effectiveness is uncertain, although some technologies are seen as “potentially fully effective” in countering anticipated warming may face challenges re: effectiveness, cost factors, and potential consequences May be potentially difficult to develop because of current gaps in climate data, models Page 15

  16. Future Directions: Use of Scenarios SIMPLA (Scenario-Initiated Multi-Phase Look Ahead): Phase I: Convened 6 scenario-builders to develop 4 scenarios as a foresight tool that look ahead 20 years for the future of climate engineering research (2010- 2030) Phase II: Elicited e-mail comments on scenarios/the future by larger number of experts (28) representing multiple perspectives; followup with multiple experts to further determine views Phase III: Interactive meeting with third group of experts (11 in neither of other categories) who reviewed initial synthesis of first 2 exercises Used scenarios in qualitative foresight synthesis to identify opportunities and threats/negative consequences, alternative views and options

  17. Phase I: Scenario Building Dave Rejeski, Wilson Center & Clem Bezold, Institute for Alternative Futures

  18. Phase II and III: Scenarios Elicit Comments from Wide Range of Experts Phase II: 28 experts chosen to represent varied backgrounds. . . • e.g., ethics, economics, the humanities and international relations; • range of organizational affiliations; • differing perspectives (some known to favor or oppose development of climate engineering technologies or expressed uncertainty about climate change trends) . . . & stimulated by 4 scenarios generated in 1st stage of dialogue process complete brief, three-part questionnaire on. . . • thoughts for future possibilities, e.g., mini-scenarios, for geoengineering research and what message about the future should be sent to policy-makers • suggestions about potential low-probability, high-impact events Phase III: Synthesis of above presented for further discussion at a meeting convened at the National Academy of Sciences

  19. Future Directions:experts* advocating research now—saw research as urgent or as “insurance” against worst climate scenarios*the majority of those we consulted. Source: Adapted from D. Rejeski, "S&T Challenges in the 21st Century: Strategy and Tempo," in A.Teich et al (eds.) AAAS Science and Technology Policy Yearbook 2003. Page 19

  20. Future Directions: certain experts flagged alternative possible futures These experts saw future technologies or efforts to develop them (or both) as negatively impacting future precipitation, the environment, populations in vulnerable countries; cause famine, mass deaths, and international conflict…or otherwise “backfire” undermining future emissions reduction efforts: “leaders faced with the choice of…unilateral reductions in…emissions and the illusion of a techno-fix, [will] go for the latter”--or not being needed in future because (1) climate change will not be of a magnitude to require intervention or (2) other approaches will prove sufficient, e.g., “building ecosystem… resilience” Page 20

  21. Future Directions: experts advocating research suggest key elements Anticipated a need to address risks e.g., developing norms for deployment decisions Federal effort envisioned (international focus, engagement of stakeholders, foresight) Page 21

  22. Potential Responses Research Questions • What is the awareness of climate engineering among the US public? • How does the public view potential research into and implementation of climate engineering technologies? • Support for research? • Support for climate engineering relative to reducing CO2 emissions? • Who should be involved in decisionmaking?

  23. Potential Responses: Design Options • Review and synthesis of literature • Expert panel/consultation with experts • Focus groups • Survey • Participatory technology assessment (pTA)

  24. Focus Groups: Objectives • Gauge awareness of and reactions to climate engineering • “Pretest” definition and information about climate engineering, including examples of different types of technologies • Help identify and develop survey questions

  25. Focus Groups: Implications for Survey Design • Based on the material we provided, did focus group participants seem to understand the concept of climate engineering and the basic logic of alternative technologies? • Did participant reactions differ based on different technologies? • What factors (e.g. practicality, cost-effectiveness, potential for harm) did participants most often identify as important in their assessments of different technologies?

  26. Survey Design/Administration Split-ballot/experiment-within-a-survey • Allowed more technologies to be included • Allowed assessment of effect of expert views about the potential for harm on public views of climate engineering Contracted with Knowledge Networks, Inc. for survey administration • On-line survey, using Knowledge Panel • Survey first asks about beliefs about climate change: Do you think climate change is happening? If so, how serious is it? • Respondent then given choice of reading, viewing/listening, or listening to information about climate engineering technologies (approx. 2 minutes of video/audio), followed by questions about climate engineering research and use

  27. Potential Responses:public likely to express concern about the potential for harm from climate engineering Majority of public is not yet familiar with climate engineering When provided information about climate engineering technologies, 50 percent or more of the public, across a range of demographic groups, express concern about the potential for harm from climate engineering technologies Public concern about the potential for harm is greater for technologies identified by experts as having risk of serious negative consequences Page 27

  28. Potential Responses:public likely to be open to research on climate engineering, despite concern about potential for harm About 65 percent of the public, exposed to the same type of information that our survey provided, would likely be open to research on climate engineering Research may be seen as way to assess the safety and effectiveness of climate engineering—in the words of one survey respondent: “Since the outcome is uncertain, more research needs to be done to find out how much of any one thing is enough or too much.” Page 28

  29. Potential Responses:public expresses stronger support for reducing CO2 emissions; relying more on alternative energy sources About 75 percent of the public support developing more fuel-efficient cars, power plants, and manufacturing processes to reduce carbon dioxide emissions encouraging businesses to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions relying more on solar and wind power Given information similar to that of our survey, about 50 percent of the public would potentially support developing geoengineering technologies that could cool the climate or absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere Page 29

  30. Potential Responses:public likely to support involvement of the scientific community; national/international governments in decision-making on use of technology In the words of one survey respondent: “national governments, along with the scientific community, should determine under what circumstances it would be okay to actually use geoengineering technologies.” Page 30

  31. Recent Innovations in Technology Assessment Process • Multidisciplinary co-authorship of report with focus on improved scientific pedagogy • Utilization of external experts in every phase of the TA (including review), with assistance from the National Academy of Sciences as needed • Incorporation of elements of foresight and participatory TA • New report format with design toward new electronic media

  32. Next Steps Codifying the quality assurance framework for TAs Review of methods and tools for conducting TAs Assessment of policy, scientific/technical, and foresight community response to recent report and innovations Planned development of metrics for impact, e.g., attention to distinctions such as conceptual and instrumental use (conceptual use changes perceptions and understanding of issues covered; instrumental use is where outputs are used directly to inform decision-making processes) Further develop and maintain capacity for both strategic and tactical TAs

  33. GAO Technology Assessment Reports TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: Using Biometrics for Border Security, GAO-03-174, November 14, 2002 TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: Cybersecurity for Critical Infrastructure Protection, GAO-04-321, May 28, 2004 TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: Protecting Structures and Improving Communications during Wildland Fires, GAO-05-380, April 26, 2005 TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: Securing the Transport of Cargo Containers, GAO-06-68SU, January 14, 2006 [Classification: For Official Use Only] TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: Explosives Detection Technology to Protect Passenger Rail, GAO-10-898, July 28, 2010 TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: Climate Engineering—Technical Status, Current Perspectives, and Future Prospects, GAO-11-71, July 28, 2011 TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: Neutron Detectors—Alternatives to Using Helium-3, GAO-11-753, September 29, 2011 Page 33

  34. THANK YOU For further questions, please contact us at: donovann@gao.gov childersf@gao.gov chanleyv@gao.gov www.gao.gov Page 34

More Related