IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fem/femwpa/2013.31.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Geoengineering and Abatement: A “flat” Relationship under Uncertainty

Author

Listed:
  • Johannes Emmerling

    (Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM) and Centro-Euro Mediterraneo per i Cambiamenti Climatici (CMCC), Italy)

  • Massimo Tavoni

    (Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM) and Centro-Euro Mediterraneo per i Cambiamenti Climatici (CMCC), Italy)

Abstract

The potential of geoengineering as an alternative or complementary option to mitigation and adaptation has received increased interest in recent years. The scientific assessment of geoengineering is driven to a large extent by assumptions about its effectiveness, costs, and impacts, all of which are highly uncertain. This has led to a polarizing debate. This paper evaluates the role of Solar Radiation Management (SRM) on the optimal abatement path, focusing on the uncertainty about the effectiveness of SRM and the interaction with uncertain climate change response. Using standard economic models of dynamic decision theory under uncertainty, we show that abatement is decreasing in the probability of success of SRM, but that this relation is concave and thus that significant abatement reductions are optimal only if SRM is very likely to be effective. The results are confirmed even when considering positive correlation structures between the effectiveness of geoengineering and the magnitude of climate change. Using a stochastic version of an Integrated Assessment Model, the results are found to be robust for a wide range of parameters specification.

Suggested Citation

  • Johannes Emmerling & Massimo Tavoni, 2013. "Geoengineering and Abatement: A “flat” Relationship under Uncertainty," Working Papers 2013.31, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
  • Handle: RePEc:fem:femwpa:2013.31
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.feem.it/userfiles/attach/20134121213214NDL2013-031.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Trivedi, Pravin K. & Zimmer, David M., 2007. "Copula Modeling: An Introduction for Practitioners," Foundations and Trends(R) in Econometrics, now publishers, vol. 1(1), pages 1-111, April.
    2. Enrica De Cian & Valentina Bosetti & Alessandra Sgobbi & Massimo Tavoni, 2009. "The 2008 WITCH Model: New Model Features and Baseline," Working Papers 2009.85, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    3. Marlos Goes & Nancy Tuana & Klaus Keller, 2011. "The economics (or lack thereof) of aerosol geoengineering," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 109(3), pages 719-744, December.
    4. Olivier Sterck, 2011. "Geoengineering as an alternative to mitigation: specification and dynamic implications," Working Papers halshs-00635487, HAL.
    5. Juan Moreno-Cruz & David Keith, 2013. "Climate policy under uncertainty: a case for solar geoengineering," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 121(3), pages 431-444, December.
    6. Adam Millard-Ball, 2012. "The Tuvalu Syndrome," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 110(3), pages 1047-1066, February.
    7. Frank Ackerman & Elizabeth Stanton & Ramón Bueno, 2013. "Epstein–Zin Utility in DICE: Is Risk Aversion Irrelevant to Climate Policy?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(1), pages 73-84, September.
    8. Johan Eyckmans & Jan Cornillie, 2000. "Efficiency and Equity of the EU Burden Sharing Agreement," Energy, Transport and Environment Working Papers Series ete0002, KU Leuven, Department of Economics - Research Group Energy, Transport and Environment, revised Jun 2002.
    9. Bosetti, Valentina & Tavoni, Massimo, 2009. "Uncertain R&D, backstop technology and GHGs stabilization," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(Supplemen), pages 18-26.
    10. Victor Brovkin & Vladimir Petoukhov & Martin Claussen & Eva Bauer & David Archer & Carlo Jaeger, 2009. "Geoengineering climate by stratospheric sulfur injections: Earth system vulnerability to technological failure," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 92(3), pages 243-259, February.
    11. Juan Moreno-Cruz & Katharine Ricke & David Keith, 2012. "A simple model to account for regional inequalities in the effectiveness of solar radiation management," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 110(3), pages 649-668, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Johannes Emmerling & Vassiliki Manoussi & Anastasios Xepapadeas, 2016. "Climate Engineering under Deep Uncertainty and Heterogeneity," Working Papers 2016.52, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    2. Garth Heutel & Juan Moreno-Cruz & Katharine Ricke, 2016. "Climate Engineering Economics," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 8(1), pages 99-118, October.
    3. Tommi Ekholm & Hannele Korhonen, 2016. "Climate change mitigation strategy under an uncertain Solar Radiation Management possibility," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 139(3), pages 503-515, December.
    4. Heutel, Garth & Moreno-Cruz, Juan & Shayegh, Soheil, 2016. "Climate tipping points and solar geoengineering," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 132(PB), pages 19-45.
    5. Baker, Erin & Olaleye, Olaitan & Aleluia Reis, Lara, 2015. "Decision frameworks and the investment in R&D," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 275-285.
    6. Vassiliki Manoussi & Anastasios Xepapadeas, 2014. "Cooperation and Competition in Climate Change Policies: Mitigation and Climate Engineering when Countries are Asymmetric," DEOS Working Papers 1408, Athens University of Economics and Business.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Geoengineering; Mitigation; Climate Policy; Uncertainty;

    JEL classification:

    • Q54 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Climate; Natural Disasters and their Management; Global Warming
    • C63 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Computational Techniques
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fem:femwpa:2013.31. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (barbara racah). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/feemmit.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.