Geoengineering and Abatement: A 'Flat' Relationship Under Uncertainty

Abstract

The potential of geoengineering as an alternative or complementary option to mitigation and adaptation has received increased interest in recent years.The scientific assessment of geoengineering is driven to a large extent by assumptions about its effectiveness, costs, and impacts, all of which are highly uncertain. This has led to a polarizing debate. This paper evaluates the role of Solar Radiation Management (SRM) on the optimal abatement path, focusing on the uncertainty about the effectiveness of SRM and the interaction with uncertain climate change response. Using standard economic models of dynamic decision theory under uncertainty, we show that abatement is decreasing in the probability of success of SRM, but that this relation is concave and thus that significant abatement reductions are optimal only if SRM is very likely to be effective. The results are confirmed even when considering positive correlation structures between the effectiveness of geoengineering and the magnitude of climate change. Using a stochastic version of an Integrated Assessment Model, the results are found to be robust for a wide range of parameters specification. * A previous version of this paper was circulated under the name "Geoengineering and uncertainty". The authors would like to thank Michael Ghil and participants of a Workshop on Coupled Climate-Economics Modelling and Data Analysis at ENS, Paris and of the FEEM-CMCC convention 2012 in Venice for very helpful comments. This work is part of the research developed under the GEMINA project, funded by the Italian Ministry for the Environment, Land and Sea. The usual caveat applies.† Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM) and Centro-Euro Mediterraneo per i Cambiamenti Climatici (CMCC), Corso Magenta, 63,

Climate tipping points and solar geoengineering

“…Gramstad and Tjøotta (2010) include SGE in DICE and conduct a cost-benefit analysis of SGE under various assumptions about the level undertaken and its costs. Emmerling and Tavoni (2013) use a different IAM, WITCH, to model SGE and mitigation policy. None of these papers consider the possibility of climate tipping points.…”

Solar geoengineering economics: From incredible to inevitable and half‐way back

“…Researchers have built dynamic stochastic programming into existing IAMs to incorporate different sources of uncertainty and determine their impacts on optimal climate policy. Emmerling and Tavoni [] and Heutel et al . [] use the World Induced Technical Change Hybrid model (WITCH) and DICE IAMs, respectively, to analyze the optimal mitigation and solar geoengineering levels in the presence of uncertainty.…”

“…For economic applications of dynamic stochastic analysis see Miranda and Fackler [].) Emmerling and Tavoni [] consider uncertainty in the success of solar geoengineering, while Heutel et al . [] considers uncertainty in climate change and solar geoengineering.…”

Cooperation and Competition in Climate Change Policies: Mitigation and Climate Engineering when Countries are Asymmetric

“…For example (+20%& 90%), (+20%& 70%), means that the speci…c parameter increases 20% from its central value for country one, and the same parameter is reduced by 90% in one run and by 70% in another run for country two. 11 Using this type of approach we hope to capture the e¤ect of both symmetric and asymmetric di¤erences between the two countries. …”