A fairly technical exploration of impact of adding OIF to intl carbon markets on the dynamics of those markets, leakage impacts, how the allocation of credits amongst nations would impact emissions reductions efforts and ongoing negotiations.
Kiel Working Paper No. 1573 | December 2009 Economic prospects of ocean iron fertilization in an international carbon market Wilfried Rickels, Katrin Rehdanz, Andreas Oschlies http://www.ifw-members.ifw-kiel.de/publications/economics-prospects-of-ocean-iron-fertilization-in-an-international-carbon-market/kwp1573 Abstract: To stay within the 2°C temperature increase target for climate change calls for ambitious emission reduction targets already for the 2012-2020 compliance period. Cost-efficiency is a crucial criterion for the enforcement of such ambitious targets, requiring analyses of all possible abatement options. Among others, enhancing the oceanic carbon sink by ocean iron fertilization (OIF) could be such an option but is currently not seriously considered due to its potentially adverse side effects. In our analysis we consider short- term large-scale OIF modeling experiments for a Post-Kyoto compliance problem to assess the economic prospects of OIF. Our analysis reveals that the critical unit costs per net ton of CO2 sequestered by OIF are in a range of 21.9 to 27.7 USD (price level 2000) assuming that the current limitations regarding the use of carbon credits generated in low cost countries and from forestation is completely relaxed. The critical unit costs are defined as those that would make an emitter indifferent between various abatement options. We are also able to show that already seven years of OIF in the area of 30° south provide the same amount of credits equivalent to a global forestation project for the duration of 20 years. Over all, our results indicate that OIF should be considered as an abatement option, but, further research, especially on adverse side effects, is needed. (I trust it is no longer necessary for me to insert disclaimers about Climos and carbon credits for OIF in this forum anymore--i.e. we don't advocate the use of carbon credits to finance the next stage of research expeditions. if OIF is ever pursued for mitigation, the world will figure out whether it wants to pay for the activity performed or the measured effect that is produced, and that will likely be a lively debate.) Also, reading through this paper, there was reference to another quite interesting piece I had not seen before: Responding to Threats of Climate Change Mega-Catastrophes Carolyn Kousky, Olga Rostapshova, Michael Toman, and Richard Zeckhauser* Resources for the Future http://www.rff.org/RFF/Documents/RFF-DP-09-45.pdf I would say this looks like required reading... very interesting exploration exploring economics of decision-making under situations where the NPV of future risk is essentially 100%. Also, an investigation of limitations of tradtional rational-choice (RC)- based methods for analyzing response options under these conditions. However, more relevant to this group, are the three types of response options explored 1. dramatic global abatement to rapidly stabilize the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere at a level low enough to significantly reduce the probability of a catastrophe, 2. development and deployment of controlled geoengineering to reduce the impacts of GHG accumulation on the climate system and thus on human well-being, and 3. various large-scale adaptation measures that would reduce the consequences of megacatastrophes or short-circuit the cascading of more localized disasters. Abstract There is a low but uncertain probability that climate change could trigger "mega-catastrophes," severe and at least partly irreversible adverse effects across broad regions. This paper first discusses the state of current knowledge and the defining characteristics of potential climate change mega-catastrophes. While some of these characteristics present difficulties for using standard rational choice methods to evaluate response options, there is still a need to balance the benefits and costs of different possible responses with appropriate attention to the uncertainties. To that end, we present a qualitative analysis of three options for mitigating the risk of climate mega-catastrophes-- drastic abatement of greenhouse gas emissions, development and implementation of geoengineering, and large-scale ex ante adaptation-- against the criteria of efficacy, cost, robustness, and flexibility. We discuss the composition of a sound portfolio of initial investments in reducing the risk of climate change mega-catastrophes. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
