FEEM - Geoengineering and Abatement: A ’flat’ Relationship under Uncertainty

[Andrew Lockley]

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.

[Ken Caldeira]

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. 

--
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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@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.
 
 

[Andrew Lockley]

Following on from Ken's comments: the serious games work on geoengineering I've collaborated on implies that the 'moral hazard' term is actually negative. It seems that people find the idea of SRM so distasteful that the threat of it is more motivating than climate change.

(This work is in revision at present, but it's been presented at Planet Under Pressure. I can send further info to anyone who's interested.)

Thanks

A

[eugg...@comcast.net]

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.

---

From: "Ken Caldeira" <kcal...@carnegiescience.edu>
To: "andrew lockley" <andrew....@gmail.com>
Cc: "geoengineering" <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 11:04:35 AM
Subject: Re: [geo] FEEM - Geoengineering and Abatement: A ’flat’ Relationship under Uncertainty

[J.L. Reynolds]

Ken wrote: "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."

That was essentially a conclusion from a study by the Cultural Cognition group at Yale: " we found that subjects exposed to information about geoengineering were slightly more concerned about climate change risks than those assigned to a control condition."

- Jesse

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1981907

Geoengineering and the Science Communication Environment: A Cross-Cultural Experiment

Dan M. Kahan 

Yale University - Law School; Harvard University - Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics

Hank C. Jenkins-Smith 

University of Oklahoma - Department of Political Science

Tor Tarantola 

Cultural Cognition Lab, Yale Law School

Carol L Silva 

University of Oklahoma - Main - Department of Political Science

Donald Braman 

George Washington University - Law School; Cultural Cognition Project

January 9, 2012

The Cultural Cognition Project Working Paper No. 92 
7th Annual Conference on Empirical Legal Studies Paper 

Abstract:      
We conducted a two-nation study (United States, n = 1500; England, n = 1500) to test a novel theory of science communication. The cultural cognition thesis posits that individuals make extensive reliance on cultural meanings in forming perceptions of risk. The logic of the cultural cognition thesis suggests the potential value of a distinctive two-channel science communication strategy that combines information content (“Channel 1”) with cultural meanings (“Channel 2”) selected to promote open-minded assessment of information across diverse communities. In the study, scientific information content on climate change was held constant while the cultural meaning of that information was experimentally manipulated. Consistent with the study hypotheses, we found that making citizens aware of the potential contribution of geoengineering as a supplement to restriction of CO2 emissions helps to offset cultural polarization over the validity of climate-change science. We also tested the hypothesis, derived from competing models of science communication, that exposure to information on geoengineering would provoke discounting of climate-change risks generally. Contrary to this hypothesis, we found that subjects exposed to information about geoengineering were slightly more concerned about climate change risks than those assigned to a control condition.

-----------------------------------------
Jesse L. Reynolds, M.S.
PhD Candidate
European and International Public Law
Tilburg Sustainability Center
Tilburg University, The Netherlands
email: J.L.Re...@uvt.nl
http://www.tilburguniversity.edu/webwijs/show/?uid=j.l.reynolds
http://twitter.com/geoengpolicy

---

From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com [geoengi...@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Ken Caldeira [kcal...@carnegiescience.edu]
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 5:04 PM
To: andrew....@gmail.com
Cc: geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] FEEM - Geoengineering and Abatement: A ’flat’ Relationship under Uncertainty

[Mike MacCracken]

Sorry Gene—While some resource extraction companies are interested in a warmer Arctic, the people of the north have petitioned for their right to be cold, and the species that are there depend on it being cold.

Mike

[Fred Zimmerman]

While it is certainly true that many people residing in the far north are accustomed to colder weather and would prefer to have it remain unchanged by human behavior, and it is certainly true that resource extraction companies will benefit from warmer northern temperatures, the story is a bit more complex than that.

* The far north is a big place with lots of people living in it.  Many of them might prefer a warmer future with greater wealth. For example, I am virtually certain that there are a great many people living in Alaska who would gladly accept this bargain.

* When I was in college (a long time ago ...) I was a research assistant for a graduate student who did research on why so-called "indigenous" peoples wound up in extreme climatic regions. I looked at hundreds of groups using the microfilmed Human Research Area Files in the 8th floor of the University of Michigan Graduate Library.  His research concluded that it was because they had lost conflicts with neighboring groups and been pushed to the margins of the habitable zone. This calls into question the whole premise that indigenous peoples are living "where they want to be."

* Studies have repeatedly shown that cold has a stronger effect on mortality than heat.
* Far northern regions are part of larger nation-states that set policy for the nation as a whole, so petitions have no force of law and are not going to settle anything.

As for the species living there ... yes, I support the concept of preserving large areas of untouched habitat.  As you are probably aware, the research by Jackson et al. on novel climates http://nctc.fws.gov/EC/Resources/climate_change/lcc/nov_10/williams_and_jackson%20_2007_frontiers.pdf suggests that absent reductions in radiative forcings, we are going to see a lot of disappearing habitats. 

---

Fred Zimmerman

Geoengineering IT!   

Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology

GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080 

--

[Mike MacCracken]

While I would agree I should have said only some in the North want to maintain the cold conditions, that is also something all living near the coasts of the world should favor, for along with warming of the Arctic comes some significant rise in global sea level due to melting of mountain glaciers and the Greenland ice sheet, rising sea level around the world, thawing of permafrost and release of CO2 and/or CH4 that amplifies global warming, disruption of mid-latitude weather, biodiversity loss, migrating species well-being and more. So, I’d suggest that all of is in the world have a vested interest in keeping the Arctic cold, and should be pushing hard for a cold Arctic.

Mike

On 4/17/13 8:45 AM, "Fred Zimmerman" <geoengin...@gmail.com> wrote:

While it is certainly true that many people residing in the far north are accustomed to colder weather and would prefer to have it remain unchanged by human behavior, and it is certainly true that resource extraction companies will benefit from warmer northern temperatures, the story is a bit more complex than that.

* The far north is a big place with lots of people living in it.  Many of them might prefer a warmer future with greater wealth. For example, I am virtually certain that there are a great many people living in Alaska who would gladly accept this bargain.
* When I was in college (a long time ago ...) I was a research assistant for a graduate student who did research on why so-called "indigenous" peoples wound up in extreme climatic regions. I looked at hundreds of groups using the microfilmed Human Research Area Files in the 8th floor of the University of Michigan Graduate Library.  His research concluded that it was because they had lost conflicts with neighboring groups and been pushed to the margins of the habitable zone. This calls into question the whole premise that indigenous peoples are living "where they want to be."
* Studies have repeatedly shown that cold has a stronger effect on mortality than heat.
* Far northern regions are part of larger nation-states that set policy for the nation as a whole, so petitions have no force of law and are not going to settle anything.

As for the species living there ... yes, I support the concept of preserving large areas of untouched habitat.  As you are probably aware, the research by Jackson et al. on novel climates http://nctc.fws.gov/EC/Resources/climate_change/lcc/nov_10/williams_and_jackson%20_2007_frontiers.pdf suggests that absent reductions in radiative forcings, we are going to see a lot of disappearing habitats. 


---
Fred Zimmerman
Geoengineering IT!   
Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology
GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080 


On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Mike MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net> wrote:

Sorry Gene—While some resource extraction companies are interested in a warmer Arctic, the people of the north have petitioned for their right to be cold, and the species that are there depend on it being cold.

Mike



On 4/15/13 11:59 AM, "eSubsc...@montgomerycountymd.gov <http://eSubsc...@montgomerycountymd.gov> " <eugg...@comcast.net <http://eugg...@comcast.net> > wrote:

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.

---

From: "Ken Caldeira" <kcal...@carnegiescience.edu <http://kcal...@carnegiescience.edu> >
To: "andrew lockley" <andrew....@gmail.com <http://andrew....@gmail.com> >
Cc: "geoengineering" <geoengi...@googlegroups.com <http://geoengi...@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....@gmail.com <http://andrew....@gmail.com> > wrote:

[Fred Zimmerman]

I think the interesting question that is not yet resolved is whether there might be regional variations in climate or GE effects that will result in some nations finding a warm arctic a net benefit to themselves even though that results in a net loss to the world as a whole.

---

Fred Zimmerman

Geoengineering IT!   

Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology

GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080 

[eugg...@comcast.net]

There are obviously different perspectives on this issue of the northern regions preferring cold or allowed to get warmer as global warming proceeds; different strokes for different folks and the animal species have no say. I think Mike's absolute statement that the people of the north prefer cold climate is possibly questionable or at least too broad. Where is the data and how widespread and definitive is it?

-gene

---

From: "Fred Zimmerman" <geoengin...@gmail.com>
To: mmac...@comcast.net
Cc: "eSubsc...@montgomerycountymd.gov" <eugg...@comcast.net>, "Ken Caldeira" <kcal...@gmail.com>, "Geoengineering" <Geoengi...@googlegroups.com>, "Andrew Lockley" <andrew....@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 8:45:58 AM