No abstract

Side effects of “solar-radiation management” (SRM) might be perceived as an important metric when society decides on implementing SRM as a climate policy option to alleviate anthropogenic global warming. We generalize cost-risk analysis that originally trades off expected welfare loss from climate policy costs and risks from transgressing climate targets to also include risks from applying SRM. In a first step of acknowledging SRM risks, we represent global precipitation mismatch as a prominent side effect of SRM under long-tailed probabilistic knowledge about climate sensitivity. We maximize a social welfare function for the following three scenarios, considering alternative relative weights of risks: temperature-risk-only, precipitation-risk-only, and equally-weighted both-risks. Our analysis shows that in the temperature-risk-only scenario, perfect compliance with the 2 °C-temperature target is attained for all numerically represented climate sensitivities, a unique feature of SRM, but the 2 °C-compatible precipitation corridor is violated. The precipitation-risk-only scenario exhibits an approximate mirror-image of this result. In addition, under the both-risks scenario, almost 90% and perfect compliance can be achieved for the temperature and precipitation targets, respectively. Moreover, in a mitigation-only analysis, the welfare loss from mitigation cost plus residual climate risks, compared to the no-climate-policy option, is approximately 4.3% (in terms of balanced growth equivalent), while being reduced more than 90% under a joint-mitigation-SRM analysis.

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.

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 a main innovation, we present a scheme by which the applicability regime of temperature targets is extended from mitigation-only to SRM-mitigation analyses. Hereby we explicitly account for a risk-risk comparison of SRM and global warming, while minimizing economic costs for complying with the 2 °C temperature target. To do so, we suggest precipitation guardrails that are compatible with the 2 °C target. Our analysis shows that the value system enshrined in the 2 °C target would be almost prohibitive for SRM, while still about half to nearly two-third of mitigation costs could be saved, depending on the choice of extra room for precipitation. 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. In addition, in our analysis for climate sensitivities higher than 4 °C, SRM will be an unavoidable policy tool to comply with the temperature targets.

Transition to green economy is urgently needed in order to reach the climate targets by the end of this century. We investigate the optimal pathways for transitioning of the global economy from one dominated by the fossil-fueled (brown) sector to one dominated by the zero-emission (green) sector. We consider three transition regimes: a "Linear" regime with a constant growth rate of the green sector, a "Delayed" regime composed of a much lower early growth rate until 2050 followed by a higher growth rate afterwards, and a "Fast" regime composed of a much higher early growth rate until 2050 followed by a slower growth rate afterwards. Our results indicate that the labor market is more sensitive to the pace of transition than the capital market. We also find that slow green growth under the "Delayed" regime induces higher rates of abatement in the brown sector which are amplified by early R&D investment in green capital productivity. Finally, we show that rapid transition to green economy requires substantial upfront investment in renewable energy infrastructure and human capital development which in turn, reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 60% in 2050 compared to the "Delayed" regime.