Drs. Ricke and Caldera cc list 1. Thanks for sharing your work. I think I now understand a fair amount about your work (which is most easily found at http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/1/014021/article but let me ask a few questions.
2. I looked carefully only at the South Asia region - in part because it was large and stood out (apparently [in figs 1 and 2] always (all years?) wanting about .19 rather than .2 for preferred aerosol optical depth). I read that Fig1 says that South Asia comprises 25% (by population?) of the 7-member winning coalition when population is the criterion but only 10% (of the GDP?) of the excluded 16 members, should the decision be made on a GDP basis (when the coalition is only 6 members). 3. Can you explain the numbers +3% and -6% for South Asia in Fig 2? How do I get to 100% from these numbers? 4. Figure 3 has three parts; not clear to me is part b). The above numbers for South China look close to, but not exactly the same as the differences of the red-dashed and blue-solid curves from the "Grand Coalition" curve. That is - is the "Grand Coalition" curve of Figure 3 also the origin on the ordinate of Figure 2? 5. The supplementary material gives more data for all 22 regions. For South Asia, Figure S1 (open) shows four numbers close to 91%. Is the complement (9%) similar to the -6% number above? In Figure S-2, the values of about 6% (in a coalition) and 14% (out) have same meaning as in Figure 1 of main paper? (But surprisingly, in opposite order of magntude) Figure S-3 is much like Main Fig 2 and Figure S-4 like Figure 3a - but just different decision criteria? I have looked up "IFP" but do not yet know who would favor its use over the other three and why? 6. This last question is what really interests me. I don't see too much difference from being in or out of the "power" coalition, but if I were representing "South Asia", I clearly would rather have the decisions being based on population and not GDP. Could your team now rank order the four criteria you studied on any ethical basis? 7. I also have a gut feeling that the "Grand Coalition" looks "better" in some average sense than any of the four decision criteria you studied. . Might you agree? Should population be the criteria, in your six decadal decisions, South Asia would be in and out three times each. Maybe logical, but the rationale for this result must be pretty hard to figure out My gut reaction is based only on increasing likely inter-country disagreements - and the fact that the differences were not large (as measured in the "desired" optical depth or years to achieve a specific depth. 8. My reason for digging this deeply was to see if I could transfer your very novel approach over to the other side of geoengiineering: CDR. So far, I have failed to see any answer clearly. I guess (no proof) that the decision should be like the one you recommend for mitigation - all regions should always do as much as they can. Would that be your "guess" also? 9. It seems there were no costs at any time for any region. True? It seems that some cost should be involved somewhere, but I missed it. 10. I think this gaming effort was noble, but I have not been convinced that we will such a decision process develop - and I don't think you are recommending it necessarily either .But I think a lot of helpful dialog could result if people could see more detail on the geographic regions of most interest to them - and how they would benefit from lobbying for one decision criterion or another. Are any regions left behind every year for each criterion? Might the full set of your output data be available anywhere (now or later)? Thanks for any answers you can supply. Apologies to any who would rather not have seen this much detail. Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "K.Ricke" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: "Ken Caldeira" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 7:48:28 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Strategic incentives for climate geoengineering coalitions to exclude broad participation (new paper) Andrew, The scenario in our paper assumes rising concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. So, yes, decisions about mitigation have already been made before decisions about solar geoengineering, and the implementation of solar geoengineering does not influence future decisions about how much CO2 to emit. On the timescales this game is played on, this lack of interplay is sensible because the climate effects from emissions reductions are so much slower than the effects of geoengineering. We assume that at any given time, geoengineering is the only tool available to increase or decrease damages from climate change in the coming decade. The model is actually much more applicable to near-term than far-term scenarios because, of course, as time goes on past decisions about geoengineering will have influenced decisions about mitigation, perhaps in a way that our assumed emissions scenario is no longer realistic enough to allow us to correctly simulate the basic dynamics of the geoengineering game. Your torture analogy is interesting, though it would be difficult to test any hypotheses you might make based on it in an empirically-based model. Such is the tradeoff between models like ours and realism. Kate On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 11:28:25 PM UTC-8, andrewjlockley wrote: As I understand it, this scenario excludes the interplay between games in mitigation and games in geoengineering. Present political debate around GE is highly affected by the interplay. Indeed, it could be argued that this interplay is the central factor in current debate. The simplifying assumption used by the authors therefore applies only in a decarbonised world, and is thus inapplicable to all near-term scenarios. Therefore, a more realistic model is that of torture. For example, the UK has a history of posturing against torture, whilst tacitly and deeply co-operating with states that torture - in both the practice of torture and the utilization of intelligence gained by torture. We should expect similar double-standards from developed nations with an active environmental lobby in the case of GE. A On Feb 13, 2013 3:09 AM, "Ken Caldeira" < [email protected] > wrote: <blockquote> Kate Ricke, Juan Moreno-Cruz and I have a paper out today in Environmental Research Letters (attached). http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/1/014021/ YouTube video at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZihgJbvABE Environmental Research Letters Volume 8 Number 1 Katharine L Ricke et al 2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8 014021 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/014021 Strategic incentives for climate geoengineering coalitions to exclude broad participation OPEN ACCESS Katharine L Ricke 1 , Juan B Moreno-Cruz 2 and Ken Caldeira 1 Abstract Solar geoengineering is the deliberate reduction in the absorption of incoming solar radiation by the Earth's climate system with the aim of reducing impacts of anthropogenic climate change. Climate model simulations project a diversity of regional outcomes that vary with the amount of solar geoengineering deployed. It is unlikely that a single small actor could implement and sustain global-scale geoengineering that harms much of the world without intervention from harmed world powers. However, a sufficiently powerful international coalition might be able to deploy solar geoengineering. Here, we show that regional differences in climate outcomes create strategic incentives to form coalitions that are as small as possible, while still powerful enough to deploy solar geoengineering. The characteristics of coalitions to geoengineer climate are modeled using a 'global thermostat setting game' based on climate model results. Coalition members have incentives to exclude non-members that would prevent implementation of solar geoengineering at a level that is optimal for the existing coalition. These incentives differ markedly from those that dominate international politics of greenhouse-gas emissions reduction, where the central challenge is to compel free riders to participate. _______________ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 [email protected] http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira Caldeira Lab is hiring postdoctoral researchers. http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_employment.html Our YouTube videos -- 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 [email protected] . To post to this group, send email to [email protected] . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out . </blockquote> -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
