Editorial Type:
Article
Article Type:
Research Article

Using Twentieth-Century U.S. Weather Modification Policy to Gain Insight into Global Climate Remediation Governance Issues

Rachel Hauser National Center for Atmospheric Research, and Environmental Studies Program, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado

Search for other papers by Rachel Hauser in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
Print Publication:
01 Apr 2013
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-11-00011.1
Page(s):
180–193
Restricted access

Abstract

With atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations increasing and binding agreements to reduce anthropogenic emissions wanting, interest in geoengineering as a climate remediation option to be used in tandem with climate change mitigation is growing. Solar radiation management (SRM), due to its relatively low financial cost and the potential for near-term reduction in average global temperature, is gaining particular attention despite the risks of its use, both identified and unanticipated. This paper considers the structure—the participants, positions, actions, outcomes, information, and positive and negative payoffs—of U.S. weather modification research and governance developed between 1947 and 1980, offering a case study that may be useful in thinking through how to move forward with SRM development and governance should a decision be made to contemplate augmenting mitigation and adaptation with geoengineering.

Corresponding author address: Rachel Hauser, NCAR, P.O. Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80307-3000. E-mail: rhauser@ucar.edu

Abstract

With atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations increasing and binding agreements to reduce anthropogenic emissions wanting, interest in geoengineering as a climate remediation option to be used in tandem with climate change mitigation is growing. Solar radiation management (SRM), due to its relatively low financial cost and the potential for near-term reduction in average global temperature, is gaining particular attention despite the risks of its use, both identified and unanticipated. This paper considers the structure—the participants, positions, actions, outcomes, information, and positive and negative payoffs—of U.S. weather modification research and governance developed between 1947 and 1980, offering a case study that may be useful in thinking through how to move forward with SRM development and governance should a decision be made to contemplate augmenting mitigation and adaptation with geoengineering.

Corresponding author address: Rachel Hauser, NCAR, P.O. Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80307-3000. E-mail: rhauser@ucar.edu
Save
Cover Weather, Climate, and Society
Weather, Climate, and Society

  • Alley, R. B., and Coauthors, 2007: Summary for policymakers. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, S. Solomon et al., Eds., Cambridge University Press, 1–18.

  • ASOC, 2010: The Asilomar conference recommendations on principles for research into climate engineering techniques. Asilomar Scientific Organizing Committee Conference Rep., 40 pp.

  • Atlas, D., 1977: The paradox of hail suppression. Science, 195, 139–145.

  • Ball, V., 1949: Shaping the law of weather control. Yale Law J., 58, 213–244.

  • Barrett, S., 2008: The incredible economics of geoengineering. Environ. Resour. Econ., 39, 45–54.

  • Blackstock, J. J., and Long J. S. C. , 2010: Climate change: The politics of geoengineering. Science, 327, 527.

  • Blackstock, J. J., and Coauthors, 2009: Climate engineering responses to climate emergencies. Novim Rep., 66 pp. [Available online at http://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.5140.]

  • Bodansky, D., 1996: May we engineer the climate? Climatic Change, 33, 309–321.

  • Brunner, R. D., and Lynch A. H. , 2010: Adaptive Governance and Climate. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 424 pp.

  • Butchbaker, A. F., 1973: Results of the Bowman-Slope Hail Suppression program. J. Wea. Modif., 5, 133–145.

  • Caldeira, K., 2011: We don’t need a “geoengineering” research program. Extended Abstracts, Fall Meeting, San Francisco, CA, Amer. Geophys. Union, Abstract U44B-07.

  • Caldeira, K., and Keith D. W. , 2010: The need for climate engineering research. Issues Sci. Technol., 27 (1), 57–62.

  • Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, 1975: Agreement relating to the exchange of information on weather modification activities. U.S. and Canadian Agreement. [Available online at http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/secret_projects2/project333.htm.]

  • Changnon, S. A., Farhar B. C. , and Swanson E. R. , 1978: Hail suppression and society. Science, 200, 387–394.

  • Cicerone, R. J., 2006: Geoengineering: Encouraging research and overseeing implementation. Climatic Change, 77, 221–226.

  • Clark, W. C., Mitchell R. B. , and Cash D. W. , 2006: Evaluating the influence of global environmental assessments. Global Environmental Assessments: Information and Influence, R. B. Mitchell et al., Eds., MIT Press, 1–28.

  • Collingridge, D., 1980: The Social Control of Technology. Open University Press, 210 pp.

  • Cotton, W. R., and Pielke R. A. Sr., 2007: Human Impacts on Weather and Climate. Cambridge University Press, 308 pp.

  • Cressey, D., 2012: Cancelled project spurs debate over geoengineering patents. Nature, 485, 429.

  • CRS, 2004: Weather modification: Programs, problems, policy and potential. Congressional Research Service Rep., 746 pp.

  • Crutzen, P. J., 2006: Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: A contribution to resolve a policy dilemma? Climatic Change, 77, 211–220.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Davis, R. J., 1974: Weather modification law developments. Okla. Law Rev., 27, 409–439.

  • Farhar, B. C., 1974: The impact of the Rapid City flood on public opinion about weather modification. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 55, 759–764.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Fleming, J. R., 2007: The climate engineers. Wilson Quarterly, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, DC, Spring, 46–60.

  • Fleming, J. R., 2010: Fixing the Sky: The Checkered History of Weather and Climate Control. Columbia Studies in International and Global History Series, Columbia University Press, 325 pp.

  • Folke, C., Hahn T. , Olsson P. , and Norberg J. , 2005: Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 30, 441–473.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Freeman, J., 2000: The private role in public governance. NYU Law Rev., 75, 543–642.

  • Friedlingstein, P., Solomon S. , Plattner G.-K. , Knutti R. , Ciais P. , and Raupach M. R. , 2011: Long-term climate implications of twenty-first century options for carbon dioxide emission mitigation. Nat. Climate Change, 1, 457–461, doi:10.1038/nclimate1302.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Gardiner, S. M., 2010: Is “arming the future” with geoengineering really the lesser evil? Some doubts about the ethics of intentionally manipulating the climate system. Climate Ethics: Essential Readings, S. M. Gardiner et al., Eds., Oxford University Press, 284–312.

  • Gardiner, S. M., 2011: Some early ethics of geoengineering the climate: A commentary on the values of the Royal Society report. Environ. Values, 20, 163–188.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Haas, J. E., 1973: Social aspects of weather modification. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 54, 647–657.

  • Hale, B., and Dilling L. , 2011: Geoengineering, ocean fertilization, and the problem of permissible pollution. Sci. Technol. Human Values, 36, 190–212.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Hegerl, G. C., and Coauthors, 2007: Understanding and attributing climate change. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, S. Solomon et al., Eds., Cambridge University Press, 663–745.

  • Joronen, S., Oksanen M. , and Vuorisalo T. , 2011: Towards weather ethics: from chance to choice with weather modification. Ethics Policy Environ.,14, 55–67.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Keith, D. W., 2000: Geoengineering the climate: History and prospect. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ., 25, 245–284.

  • Keith, D. W., Parson E. , and Morgan M. G. , 2010: Research on global sunblock needed now. Nature, 463, 426–427.

  • Kellogg, W. W., and Schneider S. S. , 1974: Climate stabilization: For better or for worse? Science, 186, 1163–1172.

  • Lambright, W. H., 1972: Government and technological innovation: Weather modification as a case in point. Public Adm. Rev., 32, 1–10.

  • Lambright, W. H., and Changnon S. A. Jr., 1989: Arresting technology: Government, scientists and weather technology. Sci. Technol. Human Values, 14, 340–359.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Lasswell, H. D., 1958: Politics: Who Gets What, When, How. Meridian, 222 pp.

  • MacCracken, M. C., 2006: Geoengineering: Worthy of cautious evaluation? Climatic Change, 77, 235–243.

  • MacCracken, M. C., 2010: Beyond mitigation: Potential options for counter-balancing the climatic and environmental consequences of the rising concentrations of greenhouse gases. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 4938, 45 pp.

  • Matthews, H. D., and Caldeira K. , 2008: Stabilizing climate requires near zero emissions. Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L04705, doi:10.1029/2007GL032388.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • NAS-NRC, 1964: Scientific problems of weather modification. National Academy of Sciences–National Research Council Panel on Weather and Climate Modification Final Rep., Publication 1236, 56 pp.

  • NAS-NRC, 1966a: Weather and climate modification problems and prospects. Volume I: Summary and recommendations. National Academy of Sciences–National Research Council Panel on Weather and Climate Modification Final Rep., Publication 1350, 28 pp.

  • NAS-NRC, 1966b: Weather and climate modification problems and prospects. Volume II: Research and development. National Academy of Sciences–National Research Council Panel on Weather and Climate Modification Final Rep., Publication 1350, 198 pp.

  • NRC, 2003: Critical issues in weather modification research. National Research Council Committee on the Status and Future Directions in U.S Weather Modification Research and Operations Rep., 144 pp.

  • NRC, 2011: A review of the U.S. Global Change Research program’s draft strategic plan. National Research Council Committee to Advise the U.S. Global Change Research Program Rep., 72 pp.

  • NSF, 1959: Reappraisal and reorganization: The status of science in the United States 1958-59. National Science Foundation Annual Rep., Section 2, 18 pp.

  • Olson, R. L., 2012: Soft geoengineering: A gentler approach to addressing climate change. Environment, 54, 29–39.

  • Ostrom, E., 1999: Coping with tragedies of the commons. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci., 2, 493–535.

  • Pielke, R. A., Jr., 2009a: The British Climate Change Act: A critical evaluation and proposed alternative approach. Environ. Res. Lett., 4, 024010, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/4/2/024010.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Pielke, R. A., Jr., 2009b: Mamizu climate policy: An evaluation of Japanese carbon emissions reduction targets. Environ. Res. Lett., 4, 044001, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/044001.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Pielke, R. A., Jr., 2011: An evaluation of the targets and timetables of the proposed Australian emissions trading scheme. Environ. Sci. Policy, 14, 20–27.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Pittock, A. B., Ackerman T. P. , Crutzen P. J. , MacCracken M. C. , and Shapiro C. S. , 1986: Environmental Consequences of Nuclear War. Volume I: Physical and Atmospheric Effects. John Wiley and Sons, 359 pp.

  • Rayner, S., Redgwell C. , Savulescu J. , Pidgeon N. , and Kruger T. , 2009: Memorandum on draft principles for the conduct of geoengineering research. U.K. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Enquiry, 5 pp. [Available online at http://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/research/sts/Documents/regulation-of-geoengineering.pdf.]

  • Robock, A., 2008a: 20 reasons why geoengineering may be a bad idea. Bull. Atmos. Sci., 64, 14–18.

  • Robock, A., 2008b: Whither geoengineering? Science, 320, 1166–1167.

  • Rogelj, J., and Coauthors, 2010: Copenhagen Accord pledges are paltry. Nature, 464, 1126–1128.

  • Russell, L. M., and Coauthors, 2012: Ecosystem impacts of geoengineering: A review for developing a science plan. Ambio, 41, 350–369, doi:10.1007/s13280-012-0258-5.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Samuels, J. W., 1973: International control of weather modification activities: Peril or policy? Nat. Resour. J., 13, 327–342.

  • Sand, P., 1991: Lessons learned in global environmental governance. Boston Coll. Environ. Aff. Law Rev., 18, 213–277.

  • Schneider, S. H., 2008: Geoengineering: Could we or should we make it work? Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc., 366, 3843–3862.

  • Scott, J., and Sturm S. , 2006: Courts as catalysts: Re-thinking the judicial role in new governance. Columbia J. Eur. Law, 13, 565–594.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Shepherd, J., and Coauthors, 2009: Geoengineering the climate: Science, governance and uncertainty. Royal Society Policy Doc., 82 pp.

  • SRMGI, 2011: Solar radiation management: The governance of research. Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative, 70 pp. [Available online at http://www.srmgi.org/files/2012/01/DES2391_SRMGI-report_web_11112.pdf.]

  • Suarez, P., Blackstock J. , and van Alst M. , 2010: Towards a people-centered framework for geoengineering governance: A humanitarian perspective. Geoengineering Quarterly, Oxford Engineering Institute, Oxford, United Kingdom, No. 1, 2–4.

  • Task Force on Climate Remediation Research, 2011: Geoengineering: A national strategic plan for research on the potential effectiveness, feasibility, and consequences of climate remediation technologies. Bipartisan Policy Center Rep., 33 pp.

  • Taubenfeld, H. J., 1967: Weather modification and control: Some international legal implications. Calif. Law Rev., 55, 493–506.

  • Travis, W. R., 2010: Geoengineering the climate: Lessons from purposeful weather and climate modification. University of Colorado Department of Geography Working Paper, 11 pp. [Available online at www.colorado.edu/geography/class_homepages/geog_3402_s07/Travis_geoengineering.pdf.]

  • UN, 1976: Convention on the prohibition of military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques. United Nations Treaty Series 1108, 151 pp.

  • UNEP, 1980: Provisions for cooperation between states in weather modification. United Nations Environment Programme Governing Council Decision 8/7/A, 2 pp.

  • U.S. Department of Commerce, 1979: National weather modification policy and programs: A report to the President and Congress. U.S. Department of Commerce Rep., 93 pp.

  • U.S. GAO, 2011: Climate engineering: Technical status, future directions and potential response. Center for Science, Technology and Engineering Rep., 135 pp.

  • U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Oceans and International Environment, 1974: Transcript from top secret hearing on weather modification. U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Oceans and International Environment.

  • Victor, D. G., Morgan M. G. , Apt J. , Steinbruner J. , and Ricke K. , 2009: The geoengineering option—A last resort against global warming. Foreign Affairs,64, 64–76.

  • Weather Modification Advisory Board, 1978: The management of weather resources: Proposals for a national policy and program. Weather Modification Advisory Board Final Rep., 93 pp.

  • Weiss, E. B., 1975: International response to weather modification. Int. Organ.,29, 805–826.

  • Weiss, E. B., 1977: Weather modification: Principles for international agreement. Futures, 9, 490–501.

  • Wigley, T. M. L., 2006: A combined mitigation/geoengineering approach to climate stabilization. Science, 314, 452–454.

  • WMO, 2007: Executive summary of the WMO statement on weather modification. Commission for Atmospheric Sciences Management Group, 10 pp.

  • Wollan, M., 1968: Controlling the potential hazards of government-sponsored technology. George Washington Law Rev., 36, 1105–1137.

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 2341 1464 59
PDF Downloads 1026 472 11