Administrative handling of geoengineering experiments
Key Administrative Challenges
Regulatory Authority
Determining which federal agencies have jurisdiction (EPA, NOAA, FAA, etc.).
Applicability of environmental laws like NEPA, Clean Air Act, or FIFRA.
Environmental Review and Risk Assessment
Requirement of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) or Environmental Assessments (EA) under NEPA.
Balancing scientific innovation with potential risks to public health and environment.
Public Participation and Transparency
Ensuring community input on geoengineering projects.
Disclosure and access to information.
Liability and International Implications
Addressing cross-boundary effects and international legal concerns.
Relevant Case Law and Administrative Precedents
1. Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, 528 U.S. 167 (2000)
Issue: Enforcement of environmental regulations under the Clean Water Act.
Significance: Established that plaintiffs have standing to sue based on environmental harm.
Implication: For geoengineering, this case supports public standing to challenge administrative approvals of geoengineering experiments potentially causing environmental damage.
2. Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. NRDC, 462 U.S. 87 (1983)
Issue: The scope of environmental review under NEPA for agency actions.
Significance: Confirmed that NEPA requires comprehensive environmental review for major federal actions.
Implication: Geoengineering experiments requiring federal permits or funding trigger NEPA, mandating environmental assessments or full EIS.
3. Center for Biological Diversity v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 538 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2008)
Issue: Adequacy of NEPA review when agency adopts new rules.
Significance: Courts require agencies to conduct thorough environmental analysis.
Implication: Agencies overseeing geoengineering experiments must conduct detailed environmental reviews, not cursory assessments.
4. Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007)
Issue: EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.
Significance: Established EPA’s duty to regulate carbon emissions.
Implication: This ruling supports EPA’s potential role in regulating geoengineering projects that affect the atmosphere.
5. Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy v. EPA, 614 F.3d 1229 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
Issue: Regulation of substances affecting the atmosphere.
Significance: Affirmed EPA’s broad authority to regulate substances impacting the environment.
Implication: EPA could regulate aerosol or particulate releases in geoengineering.
6. Massachusetts v. EPA and Public Citizen v. NRC (administrative challenges and judicial oversight of agency discretion)
Demonstrate the courts’ role in reviewing agency decisions involving environmental risk.
Administrative Handling Steps Based on Legal Principles and Cases
1. Agency Jurisdiction and Coordination
Multiple agencies may have roles depending on experiment type:
EPA: Pollution, air quality, climate impacts.
NOAA: Oceanic and atmospheric research.
FAA: If aircraft-based experiments.
FDA/FIFRA: If chemical dispersants or biological agents are involved.
Coordination among agencies is essential to avoid regulatory gaps.
2. Environmental Review Under NEPA
NEPA requires agencies to evaluate environmental consequences.
For geoengineering experiments, this means preparing:
Environmental Assessment (EA): To determine if a full EIS is needed.
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): Detailed study of potential impacts.
Courts require detailed and reasoned environmental analysis (per Baltimore Gas & Electric and Center for Biological Diversity).
3. Risk Assessment and Public Participation
Agencies must transparently assess risks.
Public must be given notice and opportunity to comment.
Agencies must address public concerns meaningfully.
4. Liability and International Considerations
Geoengineering impacts may cross borders.
Administrative agencies must consider international treaties and cooperation.
The Convention on Biological Diversity and other international agreements may guide policy.
Summary
Administrative oversight of geoengineering experiments is fragmented but relies heavily on existing environmental laws like NEPA.
Courts demand thorough environmental review, public participation, and reasoned agency decisions.
Agencies like EPA, NOAA, and FAA play key roles depending on experiment specifics.
Case law supports public standing to challenge inadequate reviews or arbitrary agency decisions.
The evolving nature of geoengineering calls for clear administrative guidelines and interagency cooperation.
RELATED Blog
0 comments