Reexamining the economics of aerosol geoengineering

In this paper, we extend the work of Goes, Tuana, and Keller (Climatic Change 2011; GTK) by reexamining the economic benefit, of aerosol geoengineering. GTK found that a complete substitution of geoengineering for CO₂ abatement fails a cost-benefit test over a wide range of scenarios regarding (i) the probability that such a program would be aborted and (ii) the economic damages caused by geoengineering itself. In this paper, we reframe the conditions under which GTK assumed geoengineering would/could be used. In so doing, we demonstrate that geoengineering may pass a cost-benefit test over a wide range of scenarios originally considered by GTK.     

The economics (or lack thereof) of aerosol geoengineering

Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are changing the Earth’s climate and impose substantial risks for current and future generations. What are scientifically sound, economically viable, and ethically defendable strategies to manage these climate risks? Ratified international agreements call for a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to avoid dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Recent proposals, however, call for a different approach: to geoengineer climate by injecting aerosol precursors into the stratosphere. Published economic studies typically neglect the risks of aerosol geoengineering due to (i) the potential for a failure to sustain the aerosol forcing and (ii) the negative impacts associated with the aerosol forcing. Here we use a simple integrated assessment model of climate change to analyze potential economic impacts of aerosol geoengineering strategies over a wide range of uncertain parameters such as climate sensitivity, the economic damages due to climate change, and the economic damages due to aerosol geoengineering forcing. The simplicity of the model provides the advantages of parsimony and transparency, but it also imposes severe caveats on the interpretation of the results. For example, the analysis is based on a globally aggregated model and is hence silent on intragenerational distribution of costs and benefits. In addition, the analysis neglects the effects of learning and has a very simplistic representation of climate change impacts. Our analysis suggests three main conclusions. First, substituting aerosol geoengineering for CO₂ abatement can be an economically ineffective strategy. One key to this finding is that a failure to sustain the aerosol forcing can lead to sizeable and abrupt climatic changes. The monetary damages due to such a discontinuous aerosol geoengineering can dominate the cost-benefit analysis because the monetary damages of climate change are expected to increase with the rate of change. Second, the relative contribution of aerosol geoengineering to an economically optimal portfolio hinges critically on, thus far, deeply uncertain estimates of the damages due to aerosol forcing. Even if we assume that aerosol forcing could be deployed continuously, the aerosol geoengineering does not considerably displace CO₂ abatement in the simple economic optimal growth model until the damages due to the aerosol forcing are rather low. Third, substituting aerosol geoengineering for greenhouse gas emission abatement can fail an ethical test regarding intergenerational justice. Substituting aerosol geoengineering for greenhouse gas emissions abatements constitutes a conscious risk transfer to future generations, in violation of principles of intergenerational justice which demands that present generations should not create benefits for themselves in exchange for burdens on future generations.     

针对冰盖的定向地球工程研究

针对冰盖的定向地球工程研究旨在增强冰盖稳定性和减缓冰盖物质流失,从源头上减少冰盖对海平面上升的贡献,有望为应对气候变化和保护海岸线争取几百年的时间。冰盖地球工程主要作用在冰底和冰架-海洋界面上,主要途径如下：(1)排干或冻结冰盖底部水来干燥冰床,增强冰盖底部摩擦力;(2)在海洋中建造人造岛来支撑漂浮的冰架;(3)在冰架前端建造水下隔离墙,阻止温暖的海水到达冰川底部以减缓其融化。冰盖地球工程包括数值模拟、方案设计、工程试验和政治法律等诸多方面的研究。国际上的研究团队正在开展数值模拟和方案设计方面的研究,工程试验和政治法律等方面的研究尚未起步。预计工程试验的难度阶梯很可能是从实验室试验开始,到小尺度的野外试验,接着到格陵兰冰盖的入海冰川,最后到南极冰盖的入海冰川。针对冰盖的定向地球工程研究很有可能成为21世纪全球变化领域新兴的研究方向。     

The who, what, and wherefore of geoengineering governance

The potential of geoengineering to reverse global warming rapidly and cheaply makes it alluring to groups across the political spectrum. But geoengineering also poses significant risks and raises the specter of technology gone awry. This article analyzes the basic governance issues raised by geoengineering, including the possible functions, forms, objects and agents of governance. It then explores these issues by focusing on four scenarios of particular concern: inadequate research funding, premature rejection, unilateral individual action, and unilateral state action.     

A review of climate geoengineering proposals

Climate geoengineering proposals seek to rectify the current radiative imbalance via either (1) reducing incoming solar radiation (solar radiation management) or (2) removing CO₂ from the atmosphere and transferring it to long-lived reservoirs (carbon dioxide removal). For each option, we discuss its effectiveness and potential side effects, also considering lifetime of effect, development and deployment timescale, reversibility, and failure risks. We present a detailed review that builds on earlier work by including the most recent literature, and is more extensive than previous comparative frameworks. Solar radiation management propsals are most effective but short-lived, whilst carbon dioxide removal measures gain effectiveness the longer they are pursued. Solar radiation management could restore the global radiative balance, but must be maintained to avoid abrupt warming, meanwhile ocean acidification and residual regional climate changes would still occur. Carbon dioxide removal involves less risk, and offers a way to return to a pre-industrial CO₂ level and climate on a millennial timescale, but is potentially limited by the CO₂ storage capacity of geological reservoirs. Geoengineering could complement mitigation, but it is not an alternative to it. We expand on the possible combinations of mitigation, carbon dioxide removal and solar radiation management that might be used to avoid dangerous climate change.     

Some whats, whys and worries of geoengineering

In this paper I discuss the nature of geoengineering, some of its attractions, and some reasons for concern. I claim that there is confusion in the use of the term ‘geoengineering’ that is related to larger concerns about the language in which responses to climate change are discussed. I conclude that despite some reasonable grounds for suspicion, research in areas that involve carbon dioxide removal and solar radiation management should go on as part of the general portfolio of climate-related research, competing with the full panoply of other possible responses to climate change.     

Studying geoengineering with natural and anthropogenic analogs

Solar radiation management (SRM) has been proposed as a possible option for offsetting some anthropogenic radiative forcing, with the goal of reducing some of the associated climatic changes. There are clearly significant uncertainties associated with SRM, and even small-scale experiments that might reduce uncertainty would carry some risk. However, there are also natural and anthropogenic analogs to SRM, such as volcanic eruptions in the case of stratospheric aerosol injection and ship tracks in the case of marine cloud albedo modification. It is essential to understand what we can learn from these analogs in order to validate models, particularly because of the problematic nature of outdoor experiments. It is also important to understand what we cannot learn, as this might better focus attention on what risks would need to be solely examined by numerical models. Stratospheric conditions following a major volcanic eruption, for example, are not the same as those to be expected from intentional geoengineering, both because of confounding effects of volcanic ash and the differences between continuous and impulsive injection of material into the stratosphere. Nonetheless, better data would help validate models; we thus recommend an appropriate plan be developed to better monitor the next large volcanic eruption. Similarly, more could be learned about cloud albedo modification from careful study not only of ship tracks, but of ship and other aerosol emission sources in cloud regimes beyond the narrow conditions under which ship tracks form; this would benefit from improved satellite observing capabilities.     

On geoengineering and the CO2 problem

The problem of CO₂ control in the atmosphere is tackled by proposing a kind of fuel cycle for fossil fuels where CO₂ is partially or totally collected at certain transformation points and properly disposed of.CO₂ is disposed of by injection into suitable sinking thermohaline currents that carry and spread it into the deep ocean that has a very large equilibrium capacity.The Mediterranean undercurrent entering the Atlantic at Gibraltar has been identified as one such current; it would have sufficient capacity to deal with all CO₂ produced in Europe even in the year 2100.     

太阳辐射管理地球工程对海洋酸化影响的模拟研究

研究地球工程对海洋酸化的影响对于评估地球工程对全球气候和环境的影响有重要意义。文中使用中等复杂程度的地球系统模式,模拟了典型CO₂高排放情景RCP8.5下,实施太阳辐射管理地球工程对海洋表面的pH和文石（碳酸钙的一种亚稳形态）饱和度的影响,并定量分析了各环境因子对海洋酸化影响的机理。模拟结果表明,在RCP8.5情景下,到2100年,相对于工业革命前水平,全球海洋表面平均pH下降了0.43,文石饱和度下降了1.77。相对于RCP8.5情景,2100年地球工程情景下全球海洋表面平均pH增加了0.003,而文石饱和度降低了0.16。地球工程通过改变溶解无机碳、碱度、温度等环境因子影响海洋酸化。相对于RCP8.5情景,实施地球工程引起的溶解无机碳浓度的增加使pH和文石饱和度均减小,碱度的增加使pH和文石饱和度均增大,温度的降低使pH增大而使文石饱和度减小。总体而言,太阳辐射管理地球工程可以降低全球温度,但无法减缓海洋酸化。     

Governing geoengineering research for the Great Barrier Reef

Coral reefs are highly vulnerable to the impacts of rising marine temperatures and marine heatwaves. Mitigating dangerous climate change is essential and urgent, but many reef systems are already suffering on current levels of warming. Geoengineering options are worth exploring to protect the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) from extreme warming conditions, but we contend that they require strong governance and public consultation from the outset. Australian governments are currently funding feasibility testing of three geoengineering proposals for the GBR. Each proposal involves manipulating ocean or atmospheric conditions to lower water temperatures and thereby reduce the threat of mass coral bleaching events. Innovative strategies to protect the GBR and field testing of these is essential, but current laws do not guarantee robust governance for field testing of these technologies. Nor do they provide the foundation for a more coherent national policy on climate intervention technologies more generally. Responsible governance frameworks, including detailed risk assessment and early public consultation, are necessary for geoengineering research to build legitimacy and promote scientific progress.

Key policy insights

• Marine heatwaves pose a serious threat to coral reefs, including Australia’s iconic Great Barrier Reef.

• Australian governments have recognized the threats of warming waters, and are funding research of geoengineering options for the Great Barrier Reef.

• The limited earlier field testing of geoengineering demonstrates the need for specific governance to manage risks, build legitimacy and maintain public support.

• Australia requires a framework to govern geoengineering research and development before deployment of such technologies.

     

Climate policy under uncertainty: a case for solar geoengineering

Solar Radiation Management (SRM) has two characteristics that make it useful for managing climate risk: it is quick and it is cheap. SRM cannot, however, perfectly offset CO₂-driven climate change, and its use introduces novel climate and environmental risks. We introduce SRM in a simple economic model of climate change that is designed to explore the interaction between uncertainty in the climate’s response to CO₂ and the risks of SRM in the face of carbon-cycle inertia. The fact that SRM can be implemented quickly, reducing the effects of inertia, makes it a valuable tool to manage climate risks even if it is relatively ineffective at compensating for CO₂-driven climate change or if its costs are large compared to traditional abatement strategies. Uncertainty about SRM is high, and decision makers must decide whether or not to commit to research that might reduce this uncertainty. We find that even modest reductions in uncertainty about the side-effects of SRM can reduce the overall costs of climate change in the order of 10%.     

Technical characteristics of a solar geoengineering deployment and implications for governance

ABSTRACT

Consideration of solar geoengineering as a potential response to climate change will demand complex decisions. These include not only the choice of whether to deploy solar engineering, but decisions regarding how to deploy, and ongoing decision-making throughout deployment. Research on the governance of solar geoengineering to date has primarily engaged only with the question of whether to deploy. We examine the science of solar geoengineering in order to clarify the technical dimensions of decisions about deployment – both strategic and operational – and how these might influence governance considerations, while consciously refraining from making specific recommendations. The focus here is on a hypothetical deployment rather than governance of the research itself. We first consider the complexity surrounding the design of a deployment scheme, in particular the complicated and difficult decision of what its objective(s) would be, given that different choices for how to deploy will lead to different climate outcomes. Next, we discuss the on-going decisions across multiple timescales, from the sub-annual to the multi-decadal. For example, feedback approaches might effectively manage some uncertainties, but would require frequent adjustments to the solar geoengineering deployment in response to observations. Other decisions would be tied to the inherently slow process of detection and attribution of climate effects in the presence of natural variability. Both of these present challenges to decision-making. These considerations point toward particular governance requirements, including an important role for technical experts – with all the challenges that entails.

Key policy insights

• Decisions about solar geoengineering deployment will be informed not only by political choices, but also by climate science and engineering.

• Design decisions will pertain to the spatial and temporal goals of a climate intervention and strategies for achieving those goals.

• Some uncertainty can be managed through feedback, but this would require frequent operational decisions.

• Some strategic decisions will depend on the detection and attribution of climatic effects from solar geoengineering, which may take decades.

• Governance for solar geoengineering deployment will likely need to incorporate technical expertise for making short-term adjustments to the deployment and conducting attribution analysis, while also slowing down decisions made in response to attribution analysis to avoid hasty choices.

     

International governance of a possible geoengineering intervention to combat climate change

This article explores international governance issues related to a possible future use of geoengineering techniques. Despite the serious arguments against geoengineering, policy-makers may start to take an interest in it in the medium term. The article identifies non-technical characteristics of geoengineering which might influence governance models, and then discusses three broad approaches: through the United Nations, by one state unilaterally, and through a consortium of states. An examination of international legal instruments reveals none that would pose an insuperable barrier to geoengineering. Finally, the article argues for early exploration of the technological, environmental, political and regulatory issues raised by geoengineering, to maximize the chances of good, science-based multilateral decision making if and when geoengineering’s day arrives.     

On the taboo on researching in the field of global climate geoengineering

The material presented by Meleshko et al., in the article “Is Aerosol Scattering in the Stratosphere a Safety Technology Preventing Global Climate Warming?” published in this number of the journal is under critical review. The references to the opinions of many prestigious foreign scientists are cited not in a quite correct way. Out of a huge data massif of observations the names of those scientists are selected whose viewpoints agree with the points of view of the authors of the paper considered. A conclusion is made that the paper under consideration does not contain scientific information for taking responsible solutions.     

Public perceptions of geoengineering research governance: An experimental deliberative approach

Recent attempts to conduct experiments in climate ‘geoengineering’ have demonstrated the deeply controversial nature of this field of scientific research. Social scientists have begun to explore public perceptions of geoengineering, and have documented a significant degree of concern over the effective governance of research and experimentation in this area. Yet, public perception on what constitutes a legitimate geoengineering experiment and how it should be governed remains under-researched. In this article we report on a series of experimental deliberative workshops with members of the public designed to elicit and explicate diverse understandings of geoengineering experiments and their governance. In contrast to previous methods of invited public deliberation, which privilege egalitarian-consensual models of discourse and decision-making, we test a novel approach that places majoritarian, individualistic, and consensual forms of public deliberation on an equal footing. Our study suggests that the perceived controllability of experimental interventions is central to public views on their acceptability, but that controllability is itself a complex, multifaceted quality, drawing together a set of heterogeneous concerns about the purpose and repercussions of scientific work. The citizens who participated in our workshops employed four criteria to adjudicate the acceptability of geoengineering experiments: (1) the degree of containment; (2) the uncertainty surrounding experimental outcomes; (3) the reversibility of impacts; and (4) the scientific purity of the enterprise. We theorize that the public legitimacy of geoengineering experiments depends on variable, context-specific combinations of these criteria, and that technical determinations of the proper ‘scale’ or ‘location’ for geoengineering research will be poor predictors of the sorts of public concerns that will be triggered by further experimentation in this area.     

Why geoengineering is a public good,even if it is bad

Stephen Gardiner argues that geoengineering does not meet the “canonical technical definition” of a global public good, and that it is misleading to frame geoengineering as a public good. A public good is something that is nonrival and nonexcludable. Contrary to Gardiner’s claims, geoengineering meets both of these criteria. Framing geoengineering as a public good is useful because it allows commentators to draw on the existing economic, philosophical, and social scientific literature on the governance of public goods.     

Next steps in geoengineering scenario research: limited deployment scenarios and beyond

Climate engineering has received increasing attention, but its discussion has remained on the sidelines of mainstream climate policy. The policy relevance of this previously exotic option is poised to rise because of the gap between the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement and slow global mitigation efforts. It is therefore crucial to understand the risks and benefits of the proposed schemes, and the social implications of policy choices. Assessment of the risks and benefits of solar geoengineering strongly depends on scenarios, but previous scenarios have not reflected the full range of social choices. In light of concerns over risks, a newer set of scenarios is desirable, which represents both uncertainties and social choices more fully. Borrowing and extending lessons from recent literature on the new community climate scenario process, we envision a possible scenario-building process that combines interdisciplinary scholarship with the involvement of stakeholders and citizens. The resultant scenarios would better characterize uncertainties of, and policy choices for, solar geoengineering, and foster critical appraisal of its risks and benefits. Such societal choices might include not only total ban and large-scale deployment, but also limited deployment, which has received less attention in the scenario literature. The interaction between scenario and governance research would be able to highlight the central issues at stake, including ethical, social, and political dimensions.

Key policy insights

• A more comprehensive assessment of solar geoengineering is necessary to evaluate its risks and benefits, necessitating new scenario research

• It is crucial to reflect the full span of policy choices and uncertainties with interdisciplinary collaboration in such scenarios

• Such societal choices might include not only total ban and large-scale deployment, but also limited deployment, which has received less attention in the scenario literature

• Participatory scenario research would enable incorporating the concerns and opinions of stakeholders and citizens in scenario creation

     

Defining success and limits of field experiments to test geoengineering by marine cloud brightening

Marine cloud brightening (MCB) has been suggested as a possible solar radiation management approach to geoengineering the Earth’s climate in order to offset anthropogenic global warming. We discuss the utility of field experiments to test MCB. These experiments, if appropriately designed, would provide an unprecedented controlled environment to not only test MCB, but to understand aerosol impacts on climate. We discuss the science of MCB and review a set of field experiments that has been proposed as de minimis first steps to field test the concept. Our focus is upon issues of success determination, international oversight and/or governance, and outcomes if initial tests are deemed successful.     

On geoengineering with sulphate aerosols in the tropical upper troposphere and lower stratosphere

This paper is in response to the Editorial Essay by Crutzen and the Editorial Comment by Cicerone in the August 2006 issue of Climatic Change. We reprise the evidence from atmospheric nuclear weapon testing in the 1950s and 1960s which is salient to the mooted maintenance of an artificial sulphate aerosol layer in the lower stratosphere, including a hitherto and now posthumous unpublished analysis of the ¹⁸⁵W Hardtack data. We also review recent investigations by ourselves, which have considerable bearing on some relevant questions concerning meteorological dynamics, aerosol chemistry and physics and the photodissociation of stratospheric sulphuric acid.