How can solar geoengineering and mitigation be combined under climate targets?
-
Published:2021-12-08
Issue:4
Volume:12
Page:1529-1542
-
ISSN:2190-4987
-
Container-title:Earth System Dynamics
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Earth Syst. Dynam.
Author:
Khabbazan Mohammad M.ORCID, Stankoweit Marius, Roshan Elnaz, Schmidt HaukeORCID, Held Hermann
Abstract
Abstract. So far, scientific analyses have mainly focused on the pros and cons of solar geoengineering or solar radiation management (SRM) as a climate policy option in mere isolation. Here, we put SRM into the context of mitigation by a strictly temperature-target-based approach. As the main innovation, we present a scheme that extends the applicability regime of temperature targets from mitigation-only to SRM-mitigation analyses. We explicitly account for one major category of side effects of SRM while minimizing economic costs for complying with the 2 ∘C temperature target. To do so, we suggest regional precipitation guardrails that are compatible with the 2 ∘C target. Our analysis shows that the value system enshrined in the 2 ∘C target leads to an elimination of most of the SRM from the policy scenario if a transgression of environmental targets is confined to 1/10 of the standard deviation of natural variability. Correspondingly, about half to nearly two-thirds of mitigation costs could be saved, depending on the relaxation of the precipitation criterion. In addition, assuming a climate sensitivity of 3 ∘C or more, in case of a delayed enough policy, a modest admixture of SRM to the policy portfolio might provide debatable trade-offs compared to a mitigation-only future. Also, in our analysis which abstains from a utilization of negative emissions technologies, for climate sensitivities higher than 4 ∘C, SRM will be an unavoidable policy tool to comply with the temperature targets. The economic numbers we present must be interpreted as upper bounds in the sense that cost-lowering effects by including negative emissions technologies are absent. However, with an additional climate policy option such as carbon dioxide removal present, the role of SRM would be even more limited. Hence, our results, pointing to a limited role of SRM in a situation of immediate implementation of a climate policy, are robust in that regard. This limitation would be enhanced if further side effects of SRM are taken into account in a target-based integrated assessment of SRM.
Funder
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Publisher
Copernicus GmbH
Subject
General Earth and Planetary Sciences
Reference52 articles.
1. Anthoff, D. and Tol, R. S. J.:
The Impact of Climate Change on the Balanced Growth Equivalent: An Application of FUND,
Environ. Resour. Econ.,
43, 351–367, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-009-9269-5, 2009. a 2. Arino, Y., Akimoto, K., Sano, F., Homma, T., Oda, J., and Tomoda, T.:
Estimating option values of solar radiation management assuming that climate sensitivity is uncertain,
P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA,
113, 5886–5891, 2016. a 3. Asseng, S., Foster, I., and Turner, N. C.:
The impact of temperature variability on wheat yields,
Glob. Change Biol.,
17, 997–1012, 2011. a 4. Bahn, O., Chesney, M., Gheyssens, J., Knutti, R., and Pana, A. C.:
Is there room for geoengineering in the optimal climate policy mix?,
Environ. Sci. Policy,
48, 67–76, 2015. a 5. Bala, G., Duffy, P., and Taylor, K.:
Impact of geoengineering schemes on the global hydrological cycle,
P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA,
105, 7664–7669, 2008. a, b
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|