RE: [geo] The value of information about solar geoengineering and the two-sided cost of bias
Robert Tulip
I have read this article and want to emphasise its welcome lead conclusion that “the value of information that eliminates uncertainty about Solar Geoengineering efficacy is up to roughly $10 trillion.”
This is an immense benefit, 5000 times greater than the cost estimate of $2 billion. Governments should stump up immediately to provide the budget and political agreement to address this yawning information deficit. It should also be noted that geoengineering has an existential either/or dimension, as possibly the only way to prevent catastrophic planetary phase shift that is beyond costing.
I was also pleased to see the reference to An Assessment of Earth's Climate Sensitivity Using Multiple Lines of Evidence which rebuts the IPCC claim that net zero emissions could stabilise the climate in any meaningful way.
Despite this, the article quite strangely emphasises spurious risks of geoengineering deployment, while totally failing to mention its major expected benefits. It should have noted that brightening the planet and related methods is the only systemic way to mitigate immediate risks of extreme weather, biodiversity loss, tipping points and sea level rise in this decade. These risks are very costly, harmful and dangerous. I suppose it is about bending over backwards to seem balanced and placate hostile critics, but the actual result is that the scientific argument is not balanced.
A more balanced presentation would recognise that advantages of brightening the planet are prima facie far greater than the imagined harms conjured up by ignorant political opponents.
Robert Tulip
From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com <geoengi...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Tuesday, 5 July 2022 11:49 PM
To: geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [geo] The value of information about solar geoengineering and the two-sided cost of bias
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14693062.2022.2091509?s=03
The value of information about solar geoengineering and the two-sided cost of bias
Anthony R. Harding, Mariia Belaia & David W. Keith
ABSTRACT
Solar geoengineering (SG) might be able to reduce climate risks if used to supplement emissions cuts and carbon removal. Yet, the wisdom of proceeding with research to reduce its uncertainties is disputed. Here, we use an integrated assessment model to estimate that the value of information that reduces uncertainty about SG efficacy. We find the value of reducing uncertainty by one-third by 2030 is around $4.5 trillion, most of which comes from reduced climate damages rather than reduced mitigation costs. Reducing uncertainty about SG efficacy is similar in value to reducing uncertainty about climate sensitivity. We analyse the cost of over-confidence about SG that causes too little emissions cuts and too much SG. Consistent with concerns about SG’s moral hazard problem, we find an over-confident bias is a serious and costly concern; but, we also find under-confidence that prematurely rules out SG can be roughly as costly. Biased judgments are costly in both directions. A coin has two sides. Our analysis quantitatively demonstrates the risk-risk trade-off around SG and reinforces the value of research that can reduce uncertainty.
Key policy insights
The value of reducing uncertainty about solar geoengineering is comparable to the value of reducing uncertainty about other key climate factors, such as equilibrium climate sensitivity.
The benefits of research that reduces uncertainty about solar geoengineering may be more than a thousand times larger than the cost of a large-scale research programme.
Under-confidence in solar geoengineering’s effectiveness can be as costly as over-confidence.
The majority of the benefits of reduced uncertainty come from reducing climate damages rather than from slowing emissions reductions.
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-07pxpp%3D-3E861_o6oJvmRGGOkg9baEH%3D%2BCkpecuwLQezw%40mail.gmail.com.
H simmens
On Jul 13, 2022, at 1:42 PM, Renaud de RICHTER <renaud.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
This short movie explains well the article https://player.vimeo.com/video/714634132
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/016d01d8916a%247bc41ac0%24734c5040%24%40yahoo.com.au.
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAHodn9_TreELLwTNnW3MzSyx0ZzteicTkdmJ58ByR-gi%2BjK4LQ%40mail.gmail.com.
rob...@rtulip.net
Herb
The paper is co-authored by David Keith who appears in the video and leads the Harvard geoengineering group. It discusses the substitution question you raise, stating “If SG works, it is a quick but imperfect substitute for emissions cuts.”
The “imperfection” is primarily that CO2 acidifies the ocean, so just brightening the planet does nothing about that existential threat. As well, a collapse of global cooperation on solar geoengineering would create a sudden temperature rise, with planetary security implications.
Given the intractability and slowness and expense of cutting GHGs, I suspect this “quick but imperfect substitute” is going to be the best available option. I find this an interesting use of language, challenging the popular climate rhetoric that of course substitution is not possible, which is a statement of ideology not science. Long term SG is not a substitute for lower GHG levels, but for the short term it is, if our focus is temperature.
On you question about the presumption that a high level of confidence in geoengineering will automatically lead to a reduction in efforts to decarbonize, it seems more about marginal utility. High confidence means a dollar put into solar geoengineering will deliver a much higher climate return than a dollar put into decarbonising. That is not an “automatic” switch, but rather a rational economic choice, if our objective is planetary cooling.
Here in Australia, as in other countries, we have a growing call from the political right to slow the exit from burning coal (see attached article). I think it is inevitable that this pro-coal view will come to advocate planetary brightening as a climate strategy that substitutes for emission cuts.
Robert Tulip
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/8DB82EB8-09E9-43E7-BE29-62320AD39F3E%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.