This ignores the possibility that some northern regions of the world prefer warming and may not want overall CO2 emissions reduction, but rather localized control of cooling.and this is a tough issue to deal with since I doubt they can be forced to stop emitting CO2. However, it may not make a huge difference if they don't Focusing on localized cooling might be a more successful approach to achieving cooling as desired. Nordhaus may be right. Moreover countries like the US are nearing the ability to be self sufficient on fossil fuels requirements, the best is yet to come, and the economic advantages are immense so CO2 emission reduction might not be economically popular in the US. This is a tough political arena.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Caldeira" <kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu> To: "andrew lockley" <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> Cc: "geoengineering" <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 11:04:35 AM Subject: Re: [geo] FEEM - Geoengineering and Abatement: A ’flat’ Relationship under Uncertainty Also, these sorts of analyses assume that Homo economicus is an adequate model of human social behavior. Nordhaus pointed out in the early 1990's that if solar geoengineering works as advertised, basic economic modeling indicates this would reduce incentive to mitigate emissions. However, if we do get ourselves in a situation where the broad public comes to believe that climate change poses a major threat, then I can conceive of a situation in which society "decides" to do everything feasible to reduce this threat, including both emissions reduction and solar geoengineering. In public events, I have seen people who doubted the reality of climate science accept the possibility of catastrophic outcomes when presented with a potential "quick fix". So, solar geoengineering can help get people to accept the potential for bad outcomes, and then once they accept that, then the next step is to see that the "quick fix" isn't all that much of a fix after all. In other words, I think that consideration of solar geoengineering may lead more people to want to work harder on emissions reduction, and thus lead to greater, not lesser, emissions reductions. --- I note also that this paper makes the assumption that it will be uncertain for some time whether solar geoengineering will "work". As Andrew points out, early tests, etc, that lead to more information could change the results. On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 3:55 AM, Andrew Lockley < andrew.lock...@gmail.com > wrote: Poster's note : will be interesting to see how their analysis is constrained as the error bars on SRM are reduced over time. http://www.feem.it/getpage.aspx?id=5456&sez=Publications&padre=73 2013.031 NOTE DI LAVORO Geoengineering and Abatement: A ’flat’ Relationship under Uncertainty Authors: Johannes Emmerling, Massimo Tavoni Series: Climate Change and Sustainable Development Keywords: Geoengineering, Mitigation, Climate Policy, Uncertainty JEL n.: Q54, C63, D81 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. -- 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 . -- 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 . -- 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.
