Download Slide 1

Foresight & Technology Assessment for
the U.S. Congress: Climate Engineering
Nancy J. Donovan
Frederick K. Childers
Virginia A. Chanley
Applied Research & Methods,
U.S. Government Accountability Office
www.gao.gov
Disclaimer:
These remarks do not necessarily reflect the views of the US GAO
Page 1
U.S. Federal Government Overview
Page 2
GAO and Its Work for Congress
• Independent, nonpartisan agency that works for the 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
Page 3
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
GAO
established
1921
Oversee
financial management
processes of the
Executive Branch
1970
+
Provide oversight
of program
performance & broader
government-wide
issues
2002 2004
+
Tech Assessment
Capability
• 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)
Page 4
Evolution of Science and Technology
Support to the Congress
NAS
1863
NRC
…
1916
GAO
…
1921
NAE
…
1964
OTA
1967 1969 1970 1972 1974
1995
2002
2007
Not to scale
Page 5
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
Page 6
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)).
Page 7
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
Rise in Concentration of CO2
Between 1960 and 2010
Page 9
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
Page 10
Approaches to Climate Engineering
Source: GAO.
Page 11
Climate Engineering:
History and Recent Interest
Page 12
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
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
Page 14
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
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 (20102030)
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
Page 16
Phase I: Scenario Building
Dave Rejeski, Wilson Center & Clem Bezold, Institute for Alternative Futures
Page 17
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
Page 18
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
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
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
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?
22
Potential Responses: Design Options
• Review and synthesis of literature
• Expert panel/consultation with experts
• Focus groups
• Survey
• Participatory technology assessment (pTA)
23
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
24
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?
25
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
26
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
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
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
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
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
Page 31
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
Page 32
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
THANK YOU
For further questions, please contact us at:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
www.gao.gov
Page 34