Here CIEIF provides some background materials and resources that may be useful for investigators. The categories are: Various major reports; Assorted papers; Other resources; Some major U.S. EIA consulting firms; and Notes.
The resources provided are illustrative, not exhaustive. Suggestions of general legal guidance are not intended as specific legal advice for any project. This collection of resources is an ongoing project and will be added to over time.
Various major reports on climate interventions and their impacts
Cross, J.N., Sweeney, C., Jewett, E.B., et al. 2023. Strategy for NOAA Carbon Dioxide Removal Research: A white paper documenting a potential NOAA CDR Science Strategy as an element of NOAA’s Climate Interventions Portfolio. NOAA Special Report. NOAA, Washington DC. DOI: 10.25923/gzke-8730
https://sciencecouncil.noaa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/mCDR-glossy-final.pdf
- includes extensive discussion of EIA and impact modeling for a variety of interventions.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25762.https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/25762/chapter/1
- goes beyond just SRM to address other climate interventions involving solar radiation and albedo changes; includes not just EIA recommendations but also highlights the need for public outreach and stakeholder engagement.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. A Research Strategy for Ocean-based Carbon Dioxide Removal and Sequestration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26278. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/26278/a-research-strategy-for-ocean-based-carbon-dioxide-removal-and-sequestration
- includes thorough review of numerous possible ocean interventions and scopes their potential impacts.
On methane removal and its impacts, note the ongoing National Academy of Sciences study, described at this website: Atmospheric Methane Removal: Development of a Research Agenda, https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/atmospheric-methane-removal-development-of-a-research-agenda
Assorted papers
We highlight this paper co-authored by two CIEIF personnel :
Sturtz, T. M., Jenkins, P. T., & de Richter, R. (2022) “Environmental impact modeling for a small-scale field test of methane removal by iron salt aerosols.” Sustainability, 14(21), 14060. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14060
Bakkaloglu, S., Cooper, J., & Hawkes, A. (2022). “Life cycle environmental impact assessment of methane emissions from the biowaste management strategy of the United Kingdom: Towards net zero emissions.” Journal of Cleaner Production, 376, 134229. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095965262203801X
Cherubini, Francesco, et al. “Bridging the gap between impact assessment methods and climate science.” Environmental Science & Policy 64 (2016): 129-140. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901116303513
Enríquez-de-Salamanca, Álvaro. “Simplified environmental impact assessment processes: review and implementation proposals.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 90 (2021): 106640. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925521000901
Homagain, Krish, et al. “Life cycle environmental impact assessment of biochar-based bioenergy production and utilization in Northwestern Ontario, Canada.” Journal of Forestry Research 26 (2015): 799-809. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11676-015-0132-y
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “Seeding oceans with iron may not impact climate change: study finds Earth’s oceans contain just the right amount of iron; adding more may not improve their ability to absorb carbon dioxide.” ScienceDaily. Feb. 18, 2020. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200217162348.htm
Meinhard, D. and Adebayo, M. “Effective integration of climate change into impact assessment: the importance of meaningful public engagement.” SSRN Electronic Journal. July 18, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4165975
NOAA Research: This solar geoengineering idea has a Goldilocks problem, Oct. 13, 2021 https://research.noaa.gov/2021/10/13/this-solar-geoengineering-idea-has-a-goldilocks-problem/
Seghetta, M., & Goglio, P. (2020). “Life cycle assessment of seaweed cultivation systems.” Biofuels from Algae: Methods and Protocols, 103-119. https://link.springer.com/protocol/10.1007/7651_2018_203
Shafique, Muhammad, et al. “An overview of life cycle assessment of green roofs.” Journal of Cleaner Production 250 (2020): 119471. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652619343410
Thomas, J-BE, et al. “A comparative environmental life cycle assessment of hatchery, cultivation, and preservation of the kelp Saccharina latissima.” ICES Journal of Marine Science 78.1 (2021): 451-467. https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/78/1/451/5892999
Thonemann, Nils, et al. “Environmental impacts of carbon capture and utilization by mineral carbonation: A systematic literature review and meta life cycle assessment.” Journal of Cleaner Production 332 (2022): 130067. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652621042335
Other resources
There are several specialized EIA journals such as: https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/environmental-impact-assessment-review and https://environmentalsystemsresearch.springeropen.com/about
International Association for Impact Assessment, www.iaia.org. Some resources are available at: https://www.iaia.org/reference-and-guidance-documents.php .
Any investigator proposing to place material in international waters as part of a climate intervention field test should comply with the EIA requirements in the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) London Protocol Resolution LP.4(8), particularly in Annex 5 – Assessment Framework, https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresources/en/KnowledgeCentre/IndexofIMOResolutions/LCLPDocuments/LP.4(8).pdf
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Article 14.1 directs its 193 parties (which do not include the United States), to have an Environmental Impact Statement process to assess the likely effect of its actions and to warn other parties of potential harm to their ecosystems. https://www.cbd.int/convention/articles/?a=cbd-14#:~:text=The%20Conference%20of%20the%20Parties%20shall%20examine%2C%20on,where%20such%20liability%20is%20a%20purely%20internal%20matter. The Conference of the Parties has adopted Guidance for implementing Article 14.1 and 14.2 with regard to certain elements. These include, among others:
Involving and assessing the impacts on Indigenous Peoples Under Article 14.1 and 8(j):Akwé: Kon guidelines: COP-7 adopted the Akwé: Kon guidelines, the voluntary guidelines for the conduct of cultural, environmental and social impact assessment regarding developments proposed to take place on, or which are likely to impact on, sacred sites and on lands and waters traditionally occupied or used by indigenous and local communities.
The U.S. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance on the National Environmental Policy Act is a well-established EIA standard: Many sub-links are at: https://ceq.doe.gov/get-involved/international_impact_assessment.html
example: Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment in the Arctic https://ceq.doe.gov/docs/get-involved/eiaguide.pdf
- It should be noted that CEQ is revising its implementing regulations and guidance.
EIA in Europe: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/law-and-governance/environmental-assessments/environmental-impact-assessment_en & https://environment.ec.europa.eu/law-and-governance/environmental-assessments/environmental-impact-assessment_en#publications
Dutch EIA: https://www.eia.nl/en/countries/netherlands+(the)/esia-profile & https://www.eia.nl/annualreport2022/ & https://www.commissiemer.nl/english
French EIA: Environmental evaluation charter for engineering firms
German EIA: https://www.bmuv.de/en/topics/education-participation/participation/environmental-assessments-eia-sea
Arctic and Antarctic EIA: Chuffart, R., and J. Jabour. “Environmental Impact Assessment in the Polar Regions.” In Routledge Handbook of Polar Law, ed. Tanaka Y., Johnstone R. L., and Ulfbeck, V., 189–204. London: Routledge, 2023, https://www.routledge.com/The-Routledge-Handbook-of-Polar-Law/Tanaka-Johnstone-Ulfbeck/p/book/9780367711702
Some major U.S. EIA consulting firms
This is not an exhaustive list, nor are these endorsements.
Environmental Science Associates, www.esassoc.com
ICF Consulting, https://www.icf.com/work/environment
Ramboll-Environment, https://www.ramboll.com/en-us/environmental-nature-based-services
Trinity Consulting, https://www.trinityconsultants.com/consulting
Notes
A useful 2-page summary of climate interventions and impact concerns is: State of the Science – NOAA Fact Sheet – Climate Intervention, July 2021 https://csl.noaa.gov/factsheets/climateinterventionsos.pdf
A cautionary overview article: Kitchen, D. 2023. “Geoengineering sounds like a quick climate fix, but without more research and guardrails, it’s a costly gamble − with potentially harmful results.” The Conversation, Aug. 21 https://theconversation.com/geoengineering-sounds-like-a-quick-climate-fix-but-without-more-research-and-guardrails-its-a-costly-gamble-with-potentially-harmful-results-211705
Investigators involved in various aspects of solar geoengineering should be aware of the facts and arguments in this: Open Letter – We Call for an International Non-Use Agreement on Solar Geoengineering, https://www.solargeoeng.org/non-use-agreement/open-letter/. It makes the case for currently prohibiting SRM but also mentions examples of exceptions to the prohibition, such as localized experiments on albedo changes, to which the letter organizers are not opposed.