AEI fellow Dr. Roger Pielke offered recommendations for regulation and oversight of “weather modification activity” at a hearing Tuesday titled, Playing God with the Weather – a Disastrous Forecast.” He represents 500 scientists who have written a letter recommending a global “solar-engineering non-use agreement.” “Our 70-year history with weather modification should give us some humility in thinking that we can understand what the consequences might be. We’ve been trying to modify the weather for 70 years, and we don’t know if we’re modifying the weather,” he said. “We have one Earth, and experimenting on it carries considerable and catastrophic risks.” Here’s Pielke’s full written testimony.

ROGER PIELKE JR. (PROFESSOR; SENIOR FELLOW, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE): Chairman Green, Ranking Member Stansbury, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. For the past 30 years, I’ve studied the connections of atmospheric science, research, and decision-making-first as a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, then as a professor at the University of Colorado, and most recently as a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. My written testimony discusses policy issues associated with weather modification and geoengineering. My prepared remarks begin with three recommendations, followed by ten take-home points, which are discussed in depth in my written testimony. First recommendation. Congress should enact legislation to improve oversight of weather modification activities, including (1) requesting an assessment from the National Academy of Sciences that precisely quantifies what is known and unknown about the effectiveness of weather modification projects to date, and clarifies the prospects for ever being able to achieve certainty in quantifying that effectiveness; and (2) improving the required reporting and communication of weather modification activities under the 1972 law that defines weather modification in the United States. Second recommendation. Congress should standardize U.S. federal law governing weather modification, ensuring that all states are governed by identical legislative authority. Third recommendation. The United States should lead diplomatic talks on an international solar-engineering non-use agreement, with the ultimate goal of reaching broad agreement on a collective ban on outdoor experiments involving solar geoengineering, and sufficient institutionalized capability to monitor the atmosphere to ensure compliance with the ban. My ten take-home points. 1. Weather modification and geoengineering have various definitions, and science-and-policy precision is necessary for effective discussion. 2. Under the 1972 U.S. law, a weather modification activity is defined as any activity performed with the intention of producing artificial changes in the composition, behavior, or dynamics of the atmosphere. 3. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, geoengineering refers to a broad set of methods and technologies that aim to deliberately alter the climate system in order to alleviate the impacts of climate change. Thus, most forms of geoengineering fall under the definition of weather modification activity. Arguably, the direct air capture of carbon dioxide would not fall under this definition, but other simple technologies-maybe painting roofs to change albedos to cool cities, or afforestation-could fall under this definition. 4. Weather modification activities have been widely implemented in the United States and around the world for 70 years. Many decades ago, weather modification was called weather control. Nobody calls it weather control anymore because scientists understand that controlling the weather is simply not possible. 5. Despite the long track record of experience with operational weather modification activities, the effectiveness of weather-modifying activities for actually modifying the weather is unknown. A hypothesis worth exploring systematically would be whether the precise quantification of the outcomes associated with weather modification is even possible. 6. Given the scientific record, there is no record of geoengineering being implemented anywhere in the world. Some proposed projects, such as in Washington State and in Sweden, have been halted prior to implementation. 7. Due to the uncertain effects of weather modification and the fact that geoengineering has not occurred, there is no basis for occasional assertions that governments or others are actually altering the weather. 8. Supporters of geoengineering deployment experiments involve an interesting coalition of interests: those who think we are in a climate emergency and have to act; those who believe we’re not in a climate emergency but geoengineering would be better than emissions reductions; and, finally, those who support or are involved in geoengineering research. 9. The U.S. Congress has options for improving research, understanding, and oversight of weather-modifying activities. My written testimony summarizes many of these, drawing upon the excellent work of the Government Accountability Office and Congressional Research Service-two crown jewels in this institution. 10. Finally, my written testimony explains my decision to join more than 500 other scientists and academics from around the world to call for a solar-engineering non-use agreement. I’ll briefly state: first, the understandings are not sufficiently developed to know what the outcomes would be, and unintended consequences are almost certain to happen. Second, our 70-year history with weather modification should give us some humility in thinking that we can understand what the consequences might be. We’ve been trying to modify the weather for 70 years, and we don’t know if we’re modifying the weather. And finally, we have one Earth, and experimenting on it carries considerable and catastrophic risks.

RealClearPolitics Videos