* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Slide 1
German Climate Action Plan 2050 wikipedia , lookup
Climate resilience wikipedia , lookup
ExxonMobil climate change controversy wikipedia , lookup
Mitigation of global warming in Australia wikipedia , lookup
Fred Singer wikipedia , lookup
Soon and Baliunas controversy wikipedia , lookup
Michael E. Mann wikipedia , lookup
Climate change denial wikipedia , lookup
Climate change adaptation wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Tuvalu wikipedia , lookup
Climate change feedback wikipedia , lookup
Climatic Research Unit email controversy wikipedia , lookup
General circulation model wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and agriculture wikipedia , lookup
Economics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate sensitivity wikipedia , lookup
Politics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climatic Research Unit documents wikipedia , lookup
Attribution of recent climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in the United States wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on humans wikipedia , lookup
Public opinion on global warming wikipedia , lookup
Media coverage of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on Australia wikipedia , lookup
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme wikipedia , lookup
Climate governance wikipedia , lookup
Citizens' Climate Lobby wikipedia , lookup
Climate change, industry and society wikipedia , lookup
Scientific opinion on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and poverty wikipedia , lookup
Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup
Climate engineering wikipedia , lookup
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change wikipedia , lookup
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