Thinking about a process to quantify the moral hazard of SRM poses lots of "interesting" questions

[Bruce Parker]

Quantifying the "moral hazard of SRM" would start with the development of “lots” of specific GHG emissions pathways that would include “implementation costs” but exclude CDR costs:

1.       BAU

2.       All countries “net zero” in 2050

3.       “Net zero” years: 2050 for developed countries; 2060 for China; 2070 for all other countries

4.       Combinations of “policies” (likely different for the various countries)

a.       Replacing fossil fuels use for electricity generation

b.      Electric vehicle mandates

c.       Residential and commercial mandates for fossil-free appliances

d.      Industrial policies

e.      Afforestation/deforestation

For the various policies, to what extent would (or could) “decision makers” reduce their mitigation effort?

 

These pathways could then be “analyzed” for

1.       Various  “2021-2100 carbon budgets” based on the “67th percentile” carbon budgets of table 2.2 of the IPCC’s ”1.5°C Report and 100 GTCO2e from natural feedbacks (e.g., the budgets for 1.5°C, 1.75°C, and 2.0°C are 170 GTCO2e, 510 GTCO2e, and 920 GTCO2erespectively)

2.       Various costs CO2 removal per year (i.e., several “charts” for 2030, 2035, etc.)

3.       Total costs and annual costs for both “rich” and “poor” countries (depends partly on which countries fund CDR and how much “mitigation aid” is provided to “poor” countries by “rich” countries)

4.       “Realism” – politically and socially (e.g., “All countries “net zero in 2050” is not realistic; CDR costs under ___ are not realistic; expecting India to pay full mitigation and CDR costs is not realistic)

 

The above might provide a “framework” for a possible “economic quantification”.  But I think there are too many variables and too many unknowns to develop a satisfactory quantification.  For example:

 

1.       What will the costs be in the next 50 years from weather-related disasters? From sea level rise?

2.       What is the highest temperature increase that society can “tolerate”?

3.       What is the highest temperature increase that prevents collapse of the many ecosystems that we depend on?

4.       What is the temperature increase that will cause the global weather patterns to change enough to really disrupt our agricultural system (which would cause wide-spread economic collapse). 

5.       What is the temperature increase that “must be avoided at all costs?”

6.       How will we know if has become almost certain that mitigation and CDR efforts will fail to limit the temperature increase to the desired amount (most likely because CDR is too expensive at the needed scale)?

7.       What is the temperature increase that will trigger the use of SRM to prevent “catastrophic climate change”?

8.       How much GHG mitigation (from 2021-2050) in “poor countries” will paid for by “rich” countries?

9.       What global GHG emissions pathway should be use “for planning purposes”?

10.   What quantities of CO2 will need to be removed from the atmosphere to limit the temperature increase to “well under  2.0°C”?

11.   What will be the likely CO2 removal cost ($/ton) in the 2040’s?

12.   What will the likely CO2 removal costs/year be in the 2040’s?

13.   How much of the CO2 removal should be paid for by “rich” countries?

14.   How much will “rich countries” be willing to spend annually in the 2040’s for their share of CO2 mitigation in “poor countries” and their share of global CO2 removal?

15.   If CO2 removal is “too expensive” to do “at scale”, at what point will a “hot house Earth” become unavoidable?