Climate engineering (geoengineering) administrative governance
Overview
Climate engineering (geoengineering) refers to deliberate large-scale interventions in the Earth’s climate system to counteract climate change. It broadly includes two categories:
Solar Radiation Management (SRM): Techniques to reflect sunlight away from Earth (e.g., stratospheric aerosol injection).
Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR): Methods to remove CO₂ from the atmosphere (e.g., direct air capture, ocean fertilization).
Due to its global and uncertain impacts, geoengineering raises complex regulatory, ethical, and governance challenges:
Lack of comprehensive international or domestic regulatory frameworks.
Potential transboundary environmental effects.
Need for environmental impact assessments.
Concerns over unilateral deployment without global consensus.
Balancing innovation against precautionary principles.
Administrative Governance Challenges
Authority: Multiple agencies might claim jurisdiction depending on the method (EPA for pollution, NOAA for atmospheric activities, FDA for biotech-based CDR).
Permitting and Licensing: No specific geoengineering permits exist; projects may be regulated under existing environmental laws (e.g., Clean Air Act, National Environmental Policy Act - NEPA).
Environmental Review: Ensuring environmental impact statements and public participation.
International Coordination: Geoengineering’s global effects demand multinational governance (London Protocol, Convention on Biological Diversity have addressed some geoengineering issues).
Transparency and Public Engagement: Because of ethical and risk issues, governance structures emphasize transparency and stakeholder input.
Relevant Case Law and Legal Precedents
Because geoengineering is nascent, courts have not addressed many cases specifically on it. However, several administrative and environmental law cases offer important insights into how courts might handle geoengineering governance, especially regarding agency authority, environmental review, and emerging technologies.
1. Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007)
Facts: Massachusetts and other states petitioned the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs) under the Clean Air Act.
Issue: Whether EPA has authority to regulate GHG emissions contributing to climate change.
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled EPA must regulate GHGs if they endanger public health.
Explanation: This case establishes that agencies have broad authority to regulate climate-affecting activities. It suggests that geoengineering methods affecting the atmosphere may fall under existing environmental statutes.
Principle: Agencies must regulate technologies impacting climate under environmental laws, potentially including geoengineering.
2. Friends of the Earth v. EPA, 446 F.3d 140 (D.C. Cir. 2006)
Facts: Environmental groups challenged EPA’s failure to regulate toxic pollutants.
Issue: Whether EPA adequately complied with environmental statutes when regulating novel pollution sources.
Ruling: The court required the EPA to conduct detailed risk assessments.
Explanation: Geoengineering governance may demand rigorous environmental review and risk assessment before deployment.
Principle: Agencies must conduct thorough scientific and environmental evaluations of new technologies.
3. Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 807 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2015)
Facts: The case dealt with agency obligations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for projects potentially affecting protected species.
Issue: Whether the agency complied with ESA consultation and environmental review.
Ruling: The court emphasized detailed consultation and consideration of impacts.
Explanation: Geoengineering projects with ecological impacts must comply with endangered species protections and similar environmental safeguards.
Principle: Administrative governance must account for ecological consequences and comply with environmental statutes.
4. Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 549 U.S. 497 (2007)
Although noted above, it’s important to emphasize this case’s broader impact on agency authority to regulate novel climate interventions, implying EPA’s ability to oversee geoengineering activities under existing climate regulatory frameworks.
5. Sierra Club v. EPA, 353 F.3d 976 (D.C. Cir. 2004)
Facts: Challenged EPA’s approach to environmental impact statements under NEPA.
Issue: Adequacy of environmental review for complex projects.
Ruling: The court held that agencies must take a “hard look” at environmental consequences.
Explanation: Geoengineering projects, due to their scale and uncertainty, require comprehensive environmental impact analyses.
Principle: Environmental review must be rigorous, especially for novel or large-scale interventions.
6. Biosafety Protocol and Cartagena Protocol Cases (International Context)
Though not U.S. cases, international protocols like the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety have influenced administrative governance of biotech-related geoengineering methods (e.g., gene drives or engineered organisms released for carbon removal).
Courts and agencies increasingly consider precautionary approaches emphasizing risk assessment, monitoring, and public participation.
Principle: International environmental agreements influence domestic administrative governance of emerging geoengineering technologies.
7. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302 (2014)
Facts: This case dealt with EPA’s regulatory reach under the Clean Air Act concerning greenhouse gases.
Issue: Whether EPA could regulate greenhouse gases from stationary sources without specific legislative authority.
Ruling: The Supreme Court limited EPA’s authority but upheld parts of it.
Explanation: Indicates limits on administrative agencies’ authority, suggesting that for geoengineering, clear statutory mandates or new legislation might be necessary.
Principle: Administrative agencies must act within statutory authority when regulating new technologies.
Summary Table of Governance Principles
| Case | Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) | Broad agency authority to regulate climate-affecting activities | EPA can regulate geoengineering under existing laws |
| Friends of the Earth v. EPA (2006) | Agencies must conduct detailed risk assessments | Rigorous review needed for novel technologies |
| Center for Biological Diversity v. FWS (2015) | Compliance with ecological and species protection laws | Geoengineering must protect biodiversity |
| Sierra Club v. EPA (2004) | Agencies must take a "hard look" under NEPA | Thorough environmental impact statements required |
| Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (2014) | Agencies must operate within statutory authority | Limits on administrative reach highlight need for legislation |
| International Protocols (e.g., Cartagena) | Precautionary principle and public participation in governance | Global treaties influence national regulatory frameworks |
Conclusion
Climate engineering administrative governance remains in a formative stage but is shaped by existing environmental statutes, administrative law principles, and emerging international norms. Courts require agencies to:
Act within their statutory authority,
Conduct rigorous scientific and environmental reviews,
Protect ecological and public health interests,
Promote transparency and public participation.
As geoengineering technologies develop, new legislation and regulatory frameworks will likely be necessary to clarify governance roles, but current administrative law provides foundational tools to address the novel challenges geoengineering poses.
RELATED Blog
0 comments