https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10640-018-0261-9

Cost-Risk Trade-Off of Mitigation and Solar Geoengineering: Considering
Regional Disparities Under Probabilistic Climate Sensitivity

   - Authors
   <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10640-018-0261-9#authors>
   - Authors and affiliations
   
<https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10640-018-0261-9#authorsandaffiliations>


   - Elnaz RoshanEmail author <elnaz.ros...@uni-hamburg.de>
   - Mohammad M. Khabbazan
   - Hermann Held


   -
      -
   <elnaz.ros...@uni-hamburg.de> <http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1023-6490>
   -
      -
   -
      -


   1. 1.

Article
First Online: 06 June 2018
<https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10640-018-0261-9#article-dates-history>

   - 5Shares
   
<http://www.altmetric.com/details.php?citation_id=43548414&domain=link.springer.com>
   -
   - 24Downloads

Abstract

Solar geoengineering (SGE) constitutes a viable option to ameliorate
anthropogenic temperature rise. However, it does not simultaneously
compensate for anthropogenic changes in further climate variables in a
perfect manner. Here, we investigate to what extent a proponent of the
2 °C-temperature target would apply SGE in conjunction with mitigation in
view of regional disparities in temperature and precipitation. We apply
cost-risk analysis (CRA), which is a decision analytic framework that
trades-off expected welfare-loss from climate policy costs and climate
risks from transgressing a climate target. Here, in ‘Giorgi’-regional-scale
analyses, we evaluate the optimal mix of SGE and mitigation under
probabilistic information about climate sensitivity and generalize CRA in
order to include regional temperature and precipitation risks. In addition
to a mitigation-only analysis, social welfare is maximized for the
following three joint-mitigation-SGE scenarios: temperature-risk-only,
precipitation-risk-only, and equally weighted both-risks. We find that for
regionally differentiated precipitation targets, the usage of SGE will be
restricted. Our results indicate that SGE would save 70–75% of welfare-loss
in the precipitation-risk-only and both-risks scenarios compared to a
purely mitigation-based analysis with approximate overall welfare loss of
4% in terms of balanced growth equivalent from economic costs and climate
risks.
KeywordsClimate targets Cost-risk analysis Decision under uncertainty
Mitigation Solar geoengineering

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to