Futures contracts are exchange-traded financial instruments that enable parties to fix a price in advance, for later performance on a contract. Forward contracts also entail future settlement, but they are traded directly between two parties. Futures and forwards are used in commodities trading, as producers seek financial security when planning production. We discuss the potential use of futures contracts in Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) markets; concluding that they have one principal advantage (near-term price security to current polluters), and one principal disadvantage (a combination of high price volatility and high trade volume means contracts issued by the private sector may cause systemic economic risk). Accordingly, we note the potential for the development of futures markets in CDR, but urge caution about the prospects for market failure. In particular, we consider the use of regulated markets: to ensure contracts are more reliable, and that moral hazard is minimised. While regulation offers increased assurances, we identify major insufficiencies with this approach-finding it generally inadequate. In conclusion, we suggest that only governments can realistically support long-term CDR futures markets. We note existing long-term CDR plans by governments, and suggest the use of statebacked futures for supporting these assurances.
Abstract. This Benchmark is designed to predict the fracture of a food can after drawing, reverse redrawing and expansion. The aim is to assess different sheet metal forming difficulties such as plastic anisotropic earing and failure models (strain and stress based Forming Limit Diagrams) under complex nonlinear strain paths. To study these effects, two distinct materials, TH330 steel (unstoved) and AA5352 aluminum alloy are considered in this Benchmark. Problem description, material properties, and simulation reports with experimental data are summarized.
Geoengineering is the deliberate modification of the climate system. It has been discussed as a technique to counteract changes expected as a result of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).1 Speculation has occurred that the possibility of geoengineering will reduce or delay efforts to mitigate AGW. This possible delay or reduction in mitigation has been described as ‘moral hazard’ by various authors. We investigate the definitions and use of the term ‘moral hazard’, and the related (but significantly different) concept of ‘morale hazard’, in relevant law, economic and insurance literatures. We find that ‘moral hazard’ has been generally misapplied in discussions of geoengineering, which perhaps explains unexpected difficulties in detecting expected effects experimentally.2 We clarify relevant usage of the terms, identifying scenarios that can properly be described as moral hazard (malfeasance), and morale hazard (lack of caution or recklessness). We note generally the importance of correctly applying this distinction when discussing geoengineering. In conclusion, we note that a proper consideration of the risks of both moral and morale hazards allows us to easily segment framings for both geoengineering advocacy and the advocate groups who rely on these framings. We suggest mnemonics for groups vulnerable to moral hazard (Business as Usuals) and morale hazard (Chicken Littles) and suggest the development of an experimental methodology for validating the distinction thus drawn.
Solar geoengineering, also known as Solar Radiation Modification (SRM), has been proposed to alter Earth’s radiative balance to reduce the effects of anthropogenic climate change. SRM has been identified as a research priority, as it has been shown to effectively reduce surface temperatures, while substantial uncertainties remain around side effects and impacts. Global modeling studies of SRM have often relied on idealized scenarios to understand the physical processes of interventions and their widespread impacts. These extreme or idealized scenarios are not directly policy-relevant and are often physically implausible (such as imposing global solar reduction to counter the warming of an instantaneous quadrupling of CO2). The climatic and ecological impacts of politically relevant and potentially plausible SRM approaches have rarely been modeled and assessed. Nevertheless, commentators and policymakers often falsely assume that idealized or extreme scenarios are proposed solutions to climate change. This paper proposes 18 scenarios that appear to be broadly plausible from political and Earth System perspectives and encompass futures that could be both warnings or perhaps desirable. We place these scenarios into four groups following broader strategic contexts: (1) Global Management; (2) Regional Emergencies; (3) Coordinated Regional Interventions; and (4) Reactive Global Interventions. For each scenario, relevant model experiments are proposed. Some may be performed with existing setups of global climate models, while others require further specification. Developing and performing these model experiments – and assessing likely resulting impacts on society and ecosystems – would be essential to inform public debate and policymakers on the real-world issues surrounding SRM.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.