The Intergenerational Transfer of Solar Radiation Management Capabilities and Atmospheric Carbon Stocks

Goeschl, Timo; Heyen, Daniel; Moreno‐Cruz, Juan

doi:10.1007/s10640-013-9647-x

Cited by 56 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Though SAI may reduce present costs, it increases future costs, creating a situation of both higher costs and escalating climate change (cf. Goeschl et al 2013). The ethical discussion also takes account of the DICE model.…”

Section: The Uncertainties Implications For Results and Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ambivalence in calculating the future: the case of re-engineering the world

Hansson

2014

Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, climate engineering and particularly sulphur aerosol injection (SAI) have entered the arena of international climate change politics. The idea behind SAI is very simple: to reflect sunlight and heat back into space by injecting particles into the stratosphere. SAI has the theoretical potential to moderate anthropogenic climate change in a timely fashion and at very low costs but may also cause major environmental harm. Determining the future of SAI will entail dealing with many major uncertainties such as assessing risks, costs and benefits. This paper critically investigates scientific knowledge production under conditions of major uncertainty. It discusses how uncertainty, ethics and social considerations are treated in the SAI literature, which applies techno-economic models. In the simplest studies, important uncertainties are excluded from the models, but the more complex studies include many uncertainties, which may have considerable influence on the results and recommendations. In some cases the modelled results are overshadowed or strengthened by ethical discussions or methodological reflexivity that emphasize uncertainties and model limitations. There seems to be ambivalence between constructing certainty, on one hand, and an awareness of methodological limitations, on the other. Finally, the value of these papers for decision-makers and other concerned groups is discussed.

show abstract

Section: The Uncertainties Implications For Results and Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To conclude, SAI may create intergenerational injustice because it transfers abatement costs to future generations (cf. Goes et al 2011;Bickel and Agrawal 2013;Goeschl et al 2013).…”

Section: Presentation and Framing Of Uncertaintiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ambivalence in calculating the future: the case of re-engineering the world

Hansson

2014

Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This means that neither the decision makers nor those who will be affected by the decisions are constants in our equation: Our political decision maker who decides the direction we take today in climate politics (e.g., over the funding of research programs on stratospheric aerosols) is not necessarily the one who will be affected by this direction, nor the one who is going to decide over the strategies in the future (e.g., over a possible deployment of the stratospheric aerosol method in case of a climate emergency). Thus, the dynamics of the situation give rise to questions concerning, for example, intergenerational justice and the question what the preferences of future generations might look like [36][37][38].…”

Section: Dynamics As a Characteristic Of A Ce Related Complex Decisionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dealing with the uncertainties of climate engineering: Warnings from a psychological complex problem solving perspective

Amelung¹,

Funke²

2013

Technology in Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tDecision-makers in the context of climate politics are confronted with considerable uncertainties due to the complexities inherent in the relevant natural and social systems. Nonetheless, pressure on decision-makers to find solutions to dangerous climate change is rising due to the inertia in the climate system. Considering these pressures, technological options (climate engineering) have been proposed to counteract the effects of climatic change. However, introducing options that bear their own scientific uncertainties means further adding to the complexity of the situation. By adopting the psychological perspective of complex problem solving research, we analyze one frequently neglected source of uncertainty with regard to climate engineering: errors of the political problemsolver in his interaction with the situational demands of complex problems. More specifically, we examine the psychological sources for human error that are common in dealing with the uncertainties implied in this type of problem. We will conclude from the complex problem solving perspective that a consideration of climate engineering in the context of climate change can provide a dangerous illusion of controllability.

show abstract

“…Environmental R&D can either be analysed in a social planner framework (Goeschl and Perino 2007;Teubal 1978), with regard to an intergenerational dimension (Goeschl et al 2013), or -most common -the international dimension; the latter literature is closely connected to the industrial organization literature on R&D games (Brander and Spencer 1983;D'Aspremont and Jacquemin 1988;Kamien et al 1992;Cozzi 1999). Several studies analyse the effects of actually providing R&D incentives, e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

STRATEGIC CONFLICTS ON THE HORIZON: R&D INCENTIVES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES

Heyen

2016

Clim. Change Econ.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Technological innovation is a key strategy for tackling climate change and other environmental problems. The required R&D expenditures however are substantial and fall on self-interested countries. Thus, the prospects of successful innovation critically depend on innovation incentives. This paper focuses on a specific mechanism for strategic distortions in this R&D game. In this mechanism, the outlook of future conflicts surrounding technology deployment directly impacts on the willingness to undertake R&D. Apart from free-riding, a different deployment conflict with distortive effects on innovation can occur. Low deployment costs and heterogeneous preferences might give rise to 'free-driving' (Weitzman 2015): The country with the highest preference for technology deployment, the free driver, may dominate the deployment outcome to the detriment of others. The present paper develops a simple two stage model for analysing how technology deployment conflicts, free-riding and free-driving, shape R&D incentives of two asymmetric countries. The framework gives rise to rich findings, underpinning the narrative that future deployment conflicts extend to the R&D stage. While the outlook of free-riding unambiguously weakens innovation incentives, the findings for free-driving are more complex, including the possibility of excessive R&D as well as incentives for counter-R&D.

show abstract

The Intergenerational Transfer of Solar Radiation Management Capabilities and Atmospheric Carbon Stocks

Cited by 56 publications

References 33 publications

Ambivalence in calculating the future: the case of re-engineering the world

Ambivalence in calculating the future: the case of re-engineering the world

Dealing with the uncertainties of climate engineering: Warnings from a psychological complex problem solving perspective

STRATEGIC CONFLICTS ON THE HORIZON: R&D INCENTIVES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About