Disentangling the rhetoric of public goods from their externalities: The case of climate engineering

Holahan, Robert; Kashwan, Prakash

doi:10.1016/j.glt.2019.07.001

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Solid, green arrows indicate a positive relationship between the variables, meaning that an increase in one variable tends to lead to an increase in the other variable. Dashed pink arrows indicate an inverse relationship between the variables, meaning that an increase in one variable tends to lead to a decrease in the other variable This analysis comports with the SRM governance literature, which makes clear that distribution of benefits and costs is uncertain and could be uneven both between and within countries (Chhetri et al, 2018;Holahan and Kashwan, 2019;Jinnah, 2018). This could ameliorate or intensify the distribution problem for SRM deployment, depending on the extent to which the preferred scenario for some states turns out to diverge significantly from the preferred scenario for other states.…”

Section: Distribution Problemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These different deployments will likely distribute costs and benefits in different ways, and it remains unclear how far states’ preferences over those scenarios might converge. This analysis comports with the SRM governance literature, which makes clear that distribution of benefits and costs is uncertain and could be uneven both between and within countries (Chhetri et al, 2018; Holahan and Kashwan, 2019; Jinnah, 2018). This could ameliorate or intensify the distribution problem for SRM deployment, depending on the extent to which the preferred scenario for some states turns out to diverge significantly from the preferred scenario for other states.…”

Section: Analyzing the Problem Structures Of Srm And Cdrmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Splitting Climate Engineering Governance: How Problem Structure Shapes Institutional Design

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article adds conceptual discipline to a well‐rehearsed but largely intuitive argument within the climate engineering community that carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and solar radiation management (SRM) should be treated separately – ‘split’ rather than ‘lumped’ – in policy discussions. Specifically, we build the first, theoretically derived argument for ‘splitting’. We do this by engaging a set of theoretical insights from the international relations literature, having to do with the relationship between problem structure and institutional design. Centrally, we apply some key elements of problem structure – which allows us to compare policy issues along variables such as geographic scope, costs, and actor number and asymmetries – to the cases of SRM and CDR. By analyzing their problem structures, we demonstrate that SRM and CDR are different in ways that are likely to yield different state preferences for institutional design, and thus policy proposals that split SRM and CDR are more likely to be adopted by states. In short, we construct a theoretical argument for ‘splitting’ SRM and CDR governance in global policy discussions.

show abstract

Section: Distribution Problemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Analyzing the Problem Structures Of Srm And Cdrmentioning

confidence: 99%

Splitting Climate Engineering Governance: How Problem Structure Shapes Institutional Design

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our core concern as governance scholars is that solar geoengineering at planetary scale would require complex global decisions on the places and manner of deployment, the intensity of deployment (i.e., the degree of cooling), the duration of deployment, and the responsibility and compensation for any harm that may be caused (Jinnah et al, 2019). As solar geoengineering would impact all countries, fair and just governance would require the effective control over the deployment of such technologies by all countries (Holahan & Kashwan, 2019). Importantly, the type and degree of deployment would affect different countries differently, and risks would be unevenly spread.…”

Section: Can We Govern Solar Geoengineering Fairly and Effectively?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Solar geoengineering: The case for an international non‐use agreement

Biermann

Oomen

Gupta

et al. 2022

WIREs Climate Change

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Solar geoengineering is gaining prominence in climate change debates as an issue worth studying; for some it is even a potential future policy option. We argue here against this increasing normalization of solar geoengineering as a speculative part of the climate policy portfolio. We contend, in particular, that solar geoengineering at planetary scale is not governable in a globally inclusive and just manner within the current international political system. We therefore call upon governments and the United Nations to take immediate and effective political control over the development of solar geoengineering technologies.

show abstract

“…The intergenerational issues associated with climate change identifies it as an externality associated with carbon dioxide and other GHG emissions because it involves costs that are borne by future generations who have not created the emissions [34][35][36][37][38]. Climate change economists have introduced the concept of "social costs of carbon," which externalizes the externalities of these emissions by denoting the damages caused by them with a monetary value [35,[39][40][41].…”

Section: The Risks Of Stranding In the Energy Sectormentioning

confidence: 99%

Tackling the Risk of Stranded Electricity Assets with Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence

Nyangon¹

2021

Sustainable Energy Investment - Technical, Market and Policy Innovations to Address Risk

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Paris Agreement on climate change requires nations to keep the global temperature within the 2°C carbon budget. Achieving this temperature target means stranding more than 80% of all proven fossil energy reserves as well as resulting in investments in such resources becoming stranded assets. At the implementation level, governments are experiencing technical, economic, and legal challenges in transitioning their economies to meet the 2°C temperature commitment through the nationally determined contributions (NDCs), let alone striving for the 1.5°C carbon budget, which translates into greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) gap. This chapter focuses on tackling the risks of stranded electricity assets using machine learning and artificial intelligence technologies. Stranded assets are not new in the energy sector; the physical impacts of climate change and the transition to a low-carbon economy have generally rendered redundant or obsolete electricity generation and storage assets. Low-carbon electricity systems, which come in variable and controllable forms, are essential to mitigating climate change. These systems present distinct opportunities for machine learning and artificial intelligence-powered techniques. This chapter considers the background to these issues. It discusses the asset stranding discourse and its implications to the energy sector and related infrastructure. The chapter concludes by outlining an interdisciplinary research agenda for mitigating the risks of stranded assets in electricity investments.

show abstract

Disentangling the rhetoric of public goods from their externalities: The case of climate engineering

Cited by 6 publications

References 45 publications

Splitting Climate Engineering Governance: How Problem Structure Shapes Institutional Design

Splitting Climate Engineering Governance: How Problem Structure Shapes Institutional Design

Solar geoengineering: The case for an international non‐use agreement

Tackling the Risk of Stranded Electricity Assets with Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About