I'm pretty sure the authors didn't intend this article as an endorsement of "social authoritarianism," but that seems to be the conclusion reached here ...
Josh Horton http://www.science20.com/news_articles/geoengineering_committee_time_get_totalitarian-104431 Geoengineering By Committee? Time To Get Totalitarian By News Staff <http://www.science20.com/profile/news_staff> | February 22nd 2013 11:03 AM | 19 comments<http://www.science20.com/news_articles/geoengineering_committee_time_get_totalitarian-104431#comments> | Print <http://www.science20.com/print/104431> | E-mail<http://www.science20.com/forward/104431> | Track Comments<http://www.science20.com/news_articles/trackarticle/104431?destination=node%2F104431> <http://www.science20.com/news_articles/feed> <http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php> Tweet <http://twitter.com/share> News Articles <http://www.science20.com/news_articles> *MORE ARTICLES* - Alcohol Sales In England Far Higher Than Self-Reported Consumption<http://www.science20.com/news_articles/alcohol_sales_england_far_higher_selfreported_consumption-104864> - Can You Give Kids A Choice And Still Have Healthy School Lunches?<http://www.science20.com/news_articles/can_you_give_kids_choice_and_still_have_healthy_school_lunches-104856> - Bariatric Surgery Restores Pancreatic Function In Diabetes Patients<http://www.science20.com/news_articles/bariatric_surgery_restores_pancreatic_function_diabetes_patients-104767> All Articles <http://www.science20.com/news_articles> *ABOUT NEWS* News From All Over The World, Right To You... View News's Profile <http://www.science20.com/profile/news_staff> [image: User pic.]News Staff <http://www.science20.com/profile/news_staff> Solar geo-engineering is one proposed approach to mitigating the effects of climate change - the idea being to deflect some of the sun's incoming radiation. Ignoring the technology issues, in a world where countries can't even agree they contribute to greenhouse gases, the political uncertainties and geopolitical questions about who would be in charge of solar geo-engineering activity and its goals are daunting. A UN of climate change is the worst of all possible worlds. Social authoritarianism may be the way to go, according to modeling work from Carnegie's Katharine Ricke and Ken Caldeira and Juan Moreno-Cruz from the Georgia Institute of Technology. Their game-theoretic computer model found that a suitably powerful coalition would have incentive to exclude other countries from participating in the decision-making process about geo-engineering Earth. Though carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of coal, oil, and gas have decreased in developed nations, they have been increasing over the past decades due to greater emissions by developing nations. Feedbacks aside, no one disagrees that CO2 is bad. The idea behind solar geoengineering is to constantly replenish a layer of small particles in the stratosphere - basically duplicating the effect of volcanic eruptions, which scatter sunlight back into space. "Attempts to form coalitions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have repeatedly hit the wall, because it's difficult to get everybody to participate in a substantive and meaningful way," Ricke said. "Members of coalitions to reduce emissions have incentives to include more countries, but countries have incentives not to participate, so as to avoid costs associated with emission reduction while benefiting from reductions made elsewhere." The model developed by Ricke, Caldeira and Moreno-Cruz found that when it comes to geoengineering, the opposite is true. Smaller coalitions would be more desirable to the participants, not less, because those members could set the target temperature to their liking without having to make everyone happy. And excluded countries would want to 'get with the program' if they they could move the thermostat in the direction that better suits their interests. Since the costs of geoengineering are lower than mitigation, once a coalition has formed and has successfully implemented geoengineering, it would have an incentive to exclude permanently other willing participants. "My view, aside from any technical result, is that it should remain a central goal to maintain openness and inclusiveness in geoengineering coalitions, so that all people who want a voice in the decision-making process are able to have that voice," Caldeira said. Published in *Environmental Research Letters*. On Saturday, February 23, 2013 8:12:16 PM UTC-5, Ron wrote: > > Katherine: > > Thanks for the very complete response. Almost nothing left to ask. I > have excised all below except for a few follow-ups. > > ------------------------------ > *From: *"K.Ricke" <kle...@gmail.com <javascript:>> > *To: *geoengi...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> > *Cc: *kle...@gmail.com <javascript:>, "Ken Caldeira" > <kcal...@gmail.com<javascript:>>, > "Juan Moreno-Cruz" <juan.mor...@econ.gatech.edu <javascript:>> > *Sent: *Friday, February 22, 2013 1:27:41 PM > *Subject: *Re: [geo] Strategic incentives for climate geoengineering > coalitions to exclude broad participation (new paper) > > Dear Ron, > > Thanks for your questions. I am going to post some answers below > point-by-point for clarity's sake. I hope these answers help clarify and > please feel free to contact me directly > (kri...@carnegiescience.edu<javascript:>) > if they don't. > > Kate > > RWL: Here is my summary of where we stand: > > 2. OK >> > 3. OK >> > 4. RWL .......... *That is - is the "Grand Coalition" curve of >> Figure 3 also the origin on the ordinate of Figure 2?* >> > KLR: My paraphrasing you - "No" (but (me) *"numerically > similar*", and I'd like to better understand the departures) > 5. All parts related to the Supplementary figures now better > understood. Thanks. > >> 6. OK. >> > 7. OK on Grand Coalition looking better. >> 8. Re applicability to CDR, we agreed not so. But I am not yet ready >> to agree with the first part of your final sentence - at least as it >> applies to biochar. You said: >> > *"It is slow and expensive ....." *Biochar applications thousands of > years ago were taking place in Brazil without subsidy, simply for ag > benefits. Much similar is happening around the world today in small test > plots. Speed will depend on our global sense of urgency. > >> 9. OK on ignoring costs. I was pleasantly surprised to find that the >> recommended McClellan article was NOT behind a paywall. >> > McClellan J, Keith D and Apt J 2010 Cost analysis of stratospheric albedo > modification delivery systems *Environ. Res. Lett.* *7* 034019 > (Note the "2010" typo in your reference list - should be 2012) >> >> The CDR topic (including biochar) needs similar treatment; biochar is >> NOT easy to analyze. >> 10. Me: ....* Might the full set of your output data be >> available anywhere (now or later)? >> * >> > You mostly had a complete response here. Thanks. I visited > the climateprediction.net site and will look up your three cites related > to the paper under discussion. But I think it would also be helpful to > also provide somewhere a table showing all the output data for the > twenty-two regions - not just the (mostly complete) data for the winning > coalition. I would hope for all six analysis years, not just 2070. > > Again thanks. I learned a good bit from digging more deeply (such as *"Nash > bargaining*") , and especially your very complete responses > > Ron > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
