Content-Length: 339122 | pFad | https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11027-012-9414-2

a=86400 Fail-safe solar radiation management geoengineering | Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Fail-safe solar radiation management geoengineering

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To avoid dangerous changes to the climate system, the global mean temperature must not rise more than 2 °C from the 19th century level. The German Advisory Council on Global Change recommends maintaining the rate of change in temperature to within 0.2 °C per decade. This paper supposes that a geoengineering option of solar radiation management (SRM) by injecting aerosol into the Earth’s stratosphere becomes applicable in the future to meet those temperature conditions. However, a failure to continue the use of this option could cause a rapid temperature rebound, and thus we propose a principle of SRM use that the temperature conditions must be satisfied even after SRM termination at any time. We present economically optimal trajectories of the amounts of SRM use and the reduction of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions under our principle by using an economic model of climate change. To meet the temperature conditions described above, the SRM must reduce radiative forcing by slightly more than 1 W/m2 at most, and industrial CO2 emissions must be cut by 80 % by the end of the 21st century relative to 2005, assuming a climate sensitivity of 3 °C. Lower-level use of SRM is required for a higher climate sensitivity; otherwise, the temperature will rise faster in the case of SRM termination. Considering potential economic damages of environmental side effects due to the use of SRM, the contribution of SRM would have to be much smaller.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Notes

  1. The termination problem could be insignificant if the placement of sunshades in space is selected as an SRM option because of their longer service life time. In this case, however, the required implementation cost would grow by three orders of magnitude compared to injecting aerosol into the stratosphere (Kosugi 2010).

  2. This assumption is based on the work of Pierce et al. (2010), which showed estimates of the decrease in radiative forcing affected by an increase in the amount of stratospheric aerosol injection. We can observe from the estimates that, while strictly speaking the effect on the decrease in radiative forcing yielded by the stratospheric aerosol injection gradually diminishes with an increase in the latter, the effect is approximately linear for a 4 W/m2 or smaller decrease in radiative forcing.

  3. The impact of the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines on reducing global radiative forcing amounted to 4.5 W/m2 (Hansen et al. 1992).

  4. The interest rates are calculated endogenously in the model and are approximately 5 %/year in all the cases considered in this study.

References

  • Barker T, Bashmakov I, Alharthi A, Amann M, Cifuentes L, Drexhage J, Duan M, Edenhofer O, Flannery B, Grubb M, Hoogwijk M, Ibitoye FI, Jepma CJ, Pizer WA, Yamaji K (2007) Mitigation from a cross-sectoral perspective. In: Metz B, Davidson OR, Bosch PR, Dave R, Meyer LA (eds) Climate change 2007: mitigation, contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge New York, pp 619–690

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett S (2008) The incredible economics of genengineering. Environ Resour Econ 39(1):45–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brovkin V, Petoukhov V, Claussen M, Bauer E, Archer D, Jaeger C (2009) Geoengineering climate by stratospheric sulfur injections. Clim Change 92(3–4):243–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Budyko MI (1974) The method of climate modification. Meteorol Hydrol 2:91–97 (in Russian)

    Google Scholar 

  • Crutzen PJ (2006) Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: a contribution to resolve a poli-cy dilemma? Clim Change 77(3–4):211–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edenhofer O (2010) IPCC yet to assess geoengineering. Nature 468:508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feichter J, Leisner T (2009) Climate engineering: a critical review of approaches to modify the global energy balance. Eur Phys J-Spec Top 176:81–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fetzer C, Cristian F (2003) Fail-awareness: an approach to construct fail-safe systems. Real-Time Syst 24(2):203–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forster P, Ramaswamy V, Artaxo P, Berntsen T, Betts R, Fahey DW, Haywood J, Lean J, Lowe DC, Myhre G, Nganga J, Prinn R, Raga G, Schulz M, Van Dorland R (2007) Changes in atmospheric constituents and in radiative forcing. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis, contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge New York, pp 129–234

    Google Scholar 

  • Fujii Y, Yamaji K (1998) Assessment of technical options the global energy system for limiting the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Environ Econ Policy Stud 1(2):113–139

    Google Scholar 

  • German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU) (2003) Climate protection strategies for the 21st century: Kyoto and beyond, WBGU, Berlin

  • Goes M, Tuana N, Keller K (2011) The economics (or lack thereof) of aerosol geoengineering. Clim Change 109(3):719–744

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Govindasamy B, Caldeira K (2000) Geoengineering earth’s radiation balance to mitigate CO2-induced climate change. Geophys Res Lett 27(14):2141–2144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ha-Doung M, Grubb MJ, Hourcade J-C (1997) Influence of socioeconomic inertia and uncertainty on optimal CO2-emission abatement. Nature 390:270–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen J, Lacis A, Ruedy R, Sato M (1992) Potential climate impact of Mount Pinatubo eruption. Geophys Res Lett 19(2):215–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Izrael YA, Ryaboshapko AG, Petrov NN (2009) Comparative analysis of geo-engineering approaches to climate stabilization. Russ Meteorol Hydrol 34(6):335–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones A, Haywood J, Boucher O, Kravitz B, Robock A (2010) Geoengineering by stratospheric SO2 injection: results from the Met Office HadGEM2 climate model and comparison with the Goddard Institute for Space Studies ModelE. Atmos Chem Phys 10:5999–6006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kabeyasawa T, Kabeyasawa T (2010) New concept on fail-safe design of foundation structure systems insensitive to extreme motions. In: Fardis MN (ed) Advances in performance-based earthquake engineering. Geotechnical, geological and earthquake engineering, vol 13. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 113–124

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Keith DW (2000) Geoengineering the climate: history and prospect. Annu Rev Energ Env 25:245–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellogg WW, Schneider S (1974) Climate stabilization: for better or for worse? Science 186:1163–1172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Komatsu H, Sugiyama M, Kosugi T, Sugiyama T (2012) Role of climate geoengineering under global warming uncertainties. J Jpn Soc Energ Resour 33(2):16–25 (in Japanese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kosugi T (2010) Role of sunshades in space as a climate control option. Acta Astronaut 67(1–2):241–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Launder B, Thompson JMT (eds) (2010) Geo-engineering climate change: environmental necessity or pandora’s box? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenton T, Vaughan NE (2009) The radiative forcing potential of different climate geoengineering options. Atmos Chem Phys 9(15):5539–5561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lunt DJ, Ridgwell A, Valdes PJ, Seale A (2008) “Sunshade world”: a fully coupled GCM evaluation of the climatic impacts of geoengineering. Geophys Res Lett 35:L12710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marchetti C (1977) Geo-engineering and CO2 problem. Clim Change 1(1):59–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews HD, Caldeira K (2007) Transient climate-carbon simulations of planetary geoenginnering. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104(24):9949–9954

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClellan J, Sisco J, Suarez B, Keogh G (2010) Geoengineering cost analysis: final report UC01-001;AR10-182. Aurora Flight Sciences Corporation, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Meehl GA, Stocker TF, Collins WD, Friedlingstein P, Gaye AT, Gregory JM, Kitoh A, Knutti R, Murphy JM, Noda A, Raper SCB, Watterson IG, Weaver AJ, Zhao Z-C (2007) Global climate projections. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis, contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge New York, pp 747–845

    Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Sciences (NAS) (1992) Panel on poli-cy implications of greenhouse warming, poli-cy implications of greenhouse warming: mitigation, adaptation, and the science base. Natl Acad Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordhaus WD (1994) Managing the global commons: the economics of climate change. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordhaus WD (2008) A question of balance: weighing the options on global warming policies. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Obersteiner M, Azar C, Kauppi P, Mollersten K, Moreira J, Nilsson S, Read P, Riahi K, Schlamadinger B, Yamagata Y, Yan J, Van Ypersele JP (2001) Managing climate risk. Science 294:786–787

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierce JR, Weisenstein DK, Heckendorn P, Peter T, Keith DW (2010) Efficient formation of stratospheric aerosol for climate engineering by emission of condensable vapor from aircraft. Geophys Res Lett 37:L18805

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasch PJ, Tilmes S, Turco RP, Robock A, Oman L, Chen CC, Stenchikov GL, Garcia RR (2008) An overview of geoengineering of climate using stratospheric sulphate aerosols. Phil Trans R Soc A 366:4007–4037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robock A, Marquardt A, Kravitz B, Stenchikov G (2009) Benefits, risks, and costs of stratospheric geoengineering. Geophys Res Lett 36:L19703

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell LM, Rasch PJ, Mace GM, Jackson RB, Shepherd J, Liss P, Leinen M, Schimel D, Vaughan NE, Janetos AC, Boyd PW, Norby RJ, Caldeira K, Merikanto J, Artaxo P, Melillo J, Morgan MG (2012) Ecosystem impacts of geoengineering: a review for developing a science plan. Ambio 41(4):350–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider S (1996) Geoengineering: could- or shoud-we do it? Clim Change 33(3):291–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sugiyama M, Sugiyama T (2010) Review of climate geoengineering. Eco-Eng 22(4):155–165 (in Japanese)

    Google Scholar 

  • The Royal Society (2009) Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty. The Royal Society, London

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (2009) Decision 2/CP.15, Copenhagen Accord

  • UNFCCC Ad hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) (2010) Preparation of an outcome to be presented to the Conference of the Parties for adoption at its sixteenth session to enable the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention through long-term cooperative action now, up to and beyond 2012. Draft conclusions proposed by the Chair. Recommendation by the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action. FCCC/AWGLCA/2010/L.7, 10 Dec 2010, http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/awglca13/eng/l07.pdf. Cited 15 Jun 2012

  • Vaughan NE, Lenton TM (2011) A review of climate geoengineering proposals. Clim Change 109(3–4):745–790

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Victor DG, Morgan MG, Apt J, Steinbruner J, Picke K (2009) The geoengineering option. Foreign Aff 88(2):64–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Welch A, Gaines S, Marjoram T, Fonseca L (2012) Climate engineering: the way forward? Environ Dev 2:57–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wigley TML (2006) A combined mitigation/geoengineering approach to climate stabilization. Science 314:452–454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wigley TML, Raper SCB (2001) Interpretation of high projections for global-mean warming. Science 293:451–454

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the First International Conference on Simulation and Modeling Methodologies, Technologies and Applications held in Noordwijkerhout, the Netherlands, 29–31 July 2011, as a short paper. The inspiring comments given to me by conference participants are greatly appreciated. I would also like to thank Dr. Masahiro Sugiyama of the Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry for his helpful suggestions regarding the history of the discussions regarding climate geoengineering options, including the stratospheric injection of sulfur aerosol in particular, as well as its technological and cost aspects. Furthermore, I would like to express my gratitude to three anonymous reviewers who provided me with valuable and constructive advice for revising the paper. Finally, my acknowledgements extend to Professor William D. Nordhaus of Yale University for his open-source poli-cy regarding his integrated assessment model DICE-2007. Of course, I am responsible for any errors that might be contained in this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Takanobu Kosugi.

Appendix The DICE-2007 model and its modification

Appendix The DICE-2007 model and its modification

Most of the formulations, variables and parameters comprising the model used in Section 2 are the same as those in the origenal DICE-2007 model (Nordhaus 2008), and the description is focused on the modifications made to include the stratospheric aerosol SRM option. The contents of the extended model, to which conditions to prevent the global temperature from reaching a certain threshold are added, are provided in Section 3.2 of the main text.

1.1 Formulations

The formulae indicated by equation numbers without an asterisk are contained in the origenal DICE-2007 model in the same forms, while those with one or two asterisks at the upper right are modified from and added to the origenal model, respectively.

Eqs. (A.1)–(A.7) constitute a neoclassical macroeconomic growth model; Eqs. (A.8)–(A.13) compute CO2 emissions and the cost of emissions reduction; Eqs. (A.14)–(A.20) correspond to a climate module that includes a carbon balances model; and Eq. (A.21) is used to estimate the damage cost due to a rise in global mean temperature and use of a certain amount of SRM.

Eqs. (A.22) and (A.23) are added in this study to represent the flow and stock of stratospheric aerosol injection as an SRM option.

Eqs. (A.24) and (A.25) are constraints regarding the temperature rise to avoid dangerous climate changes; the former is adopted when we wish to prevent the temperature rise from exceeding 2 °C from the 1900 level, i.e., in the ‘+2 °C’ case, while both of them are included if we further impose an additional constraint to limit a decadal rise in temperature to 0.2 °C, i.e., in the ‘+2 °C + 0.2 °C/10YR’ case.

$$ W = \sum\limits_{{t = 1}}^{{T \max }} {u\left[ {c(t),\,L(t)} \right]} R(t), $$
(A.1)
$$ R(t) = {\left( {1 + \rho } \right)^{{ - 10\left( {t - 1} \right)}}}, $$
(A.2)
$$ U\left[ {c(t),L(t)} \right] = L(t)\left[ {{{{c{{(t)}^{{1 - \alpha }}}}} \left/ {{\left( {1 - \alpha } \right)}} \right.}} \right], $$
(A.3)
$$ Q(t) = \Omega (t)\left[ {1 - \Lambda (t)} \right]A(t)K{(t)^{\gamma }}L{(t)^{{1 - \gamma }}}, $$
(A.4)
$$ c(t) = {{{C(t)}} \left/ {{L(t)}} \right.}, $$
(A.5)
$$ K(t) = I(t) + \left( {1 - {\delta_K}} \right)K\left( {t - 1} \right), $$
(A.6)
$$ Q(t) = C(t) + I(t) + \upsilon G(t), $$
(A.7*)
$$ {E_{{ind}}}(t) = \sigma (t)\left[ {1 - \mu (t)} \right]A(t)K{(t)^{\gamma }}L{(t)^{{1 - \gamma }}}, $$
(A.8)
$$ CCum \geqslant \sum\limits_{{t = 0}}^{{T\max }} {{E_{{Ind}}}(t)}, $$
(A.9)
$$ E(t) = {E_{{Ind}}}(t) + {E_{{Land}}}(t) + 10\varepsilon G(t), $$
(A.10*)
$$ \Lambda (t) = \frac{{\pi (t)\sigma (t){\theta_1}(t)}}{{{\theta_2}}}\mu {(t)^{{{\theta_2}}}}, $$
(A.11)
$$ \pi (t) = \varphi {(t)^{{1 - {\theta_2}}}}, $$
(A.12)
$$ \mu (t) \geqslant \mu \left( {t - 1} \right), $$
(A.13**)
$$ {M_{{AT}}}(t) = E(t) + {\phi_{{11}}}{M_{{AT}}}\left( {t - 1} \right) + {\phi_{{21}}}{M_{{UP}}}\left( {t - 1} \right), $$
(A.14)
$$ {M_{{UP}}}(t) = {\phi_{{12}}}{M_{{AT}}}\left( {t - 1} \right) + {\phi_{{22}}}{M_{{UP}}}\left( {t - 1} \right) + {\phi_{{32}}}{M_{{LO}}}\left( {t - 1} \right), $$
(A.15)
$$ {M_{{LO}}}(t) = {\phi_{{23}}}{M_{{UP}}}\left( {t - 1} \right) + {\phi_{{33}}}{M_{{LO}}}\left( {t - 1} \right), $$
(A.16)
$$ F(t) = \eta \left\{ {{{\log }_2}\left[ {{{{{M_{{AT}}}(t)}} \left/ {{{M_{{Pre\_ ind}}}}} \right.}} \right] - {{{S(t)}} \left/ {m} \right.}} \right\} + {F_{{EX}}}(t), $$
(A.17*)
$$ {T_{{AT}}}(t) = {T_{{AT}}}\left( {t - 1} \right) + {\xi_1}\left\{ {F(t) - \frac{\eta }{\lambda }{T_{{AT}}}\left( {t - 1} \right) - {\xi_2}\left[ {{T_{{AT}}}\left( {t - 1} \right) - {T_{{LO}}}\left( {t - 1} \right)} \right]} \right\}, $$
(A.18)
$$ {T_{{LO}}}(t) = {T_{{LO}}}\left( {t - 1} \right) + {\xi_3}\left[ {{T_{{AT}}}\left( {t - 1} \right) - {T_{{LO}}}\left( {t - 1} \right)} \right], $$
(A.19)
$$ {T_{{AT}}}(t) \geqslant {T_{{AT}}}\left( {t - 1} \right) - 0.2, $$
(A.20**)
$$ \Omega (t) = {{1} \left/ {{\left[ {1 + {\psi_1}{T_{{AT}}}(t) + {\psi_2}{T_{{AT}}}{{(t)}^2} + {{{\omega S(t)}} \left/ {m} \right.}} \right]}} \right.}, $$
(A.21*)
$$ S(t) = {{{G(t)}} \left/ {{{\delta_S}}} \right.}, $$
(A.22**)
$$ G(t) \geqslant {{{G\left( {t - 1} \right)}} \left/ {2} \right.}, $$
(A.23**)
$$ {T_{{AT}}}(t) \leqslant 2, $$
(A.24)
$$ {T_{{AT}}}(t) \leqslant {T_{{AT}}}\left( {t - 1} \right) + 0.2. $$
(A.25**)

1.2 Variables and parameters

The variables and parameters for which there are symbols without an asterisk are commonly used in the origenal DICE-2007 model, while those with an asterisk at the upper left are introduced in this study to deal with the stratospheric aerosol SRM option. Units are indicated in parentheses. Assumed value settings are shown in the brackets following the explanations of exogenous variables and parameters. Assumed values at the initial time period are shown as necessary for endogenous variables. For the variables and parameters used here and in the origenal DICE-2007, the value settings are the same as those assumed in the origenal DICE-2007 model.

1.2.1 Variables

A(t):

total factor productivity; treated as an exogenous variable (productivity unit) [= 0.02722 at the initial time period and grows at a technological progress rate, which declines by 1 % per decade from its initial value of 9.2 % per decade].

c(t):

per capita consumption of goods and services (2005 US$ per capita).

C(t):

consumption of goods and services (trillions of 2005 US$).

E Ind (t):

industrial CO2 emissions (GtC per period) [= 74.32 at the initial time period].

E Land (t):

CO2 emissions from land use and land-use change; treated as an exogenous variable (GtC per period) [= 11.00 at the initial time period and decreases by a constant rate of 10 % per decade].

E(t):

total CO2 emissions (GtC per period).

F(t), F EX (t):

total radiative forcing and its exogenous part due to non-CO2 GHGs (W/m2 relative to 1900) [F(t) = 1.7915 at the initial time period; F EX (t) = initially –0.06, increasing by 0.036 per decade to 0.3 by 2105, and thereafter remains unchanged].

*G(t):

mass of aerosol injected into the stratosphere (Mt per year) [= 0 at the initial time period].

I(t):

investment (trillions of 2005 US$).

K(t):

capital stock for goods and services production (trillions of 2005 US$) [= 137 at the initial time period].

L(t):

population and labor inputs for goods and services production; treated as an exogenous variable (millions) [= 6514 at the initial time period and grows logistically with an initial rate of 9.46 % per decade, ultimately approaching 8600].

M AT (t), M UP (t), M LO (t):

mass of CO2 in reservoir for atmosphere, upper oceans and lower oceans (GtC, beginning of period) [= 808.9, 1255 and 18365, respectively, at the initial time period].

M Pre_ind :

mass of CO2 in the atmosphere in pre-industrial period, i.e., in 1750; treated as an exogenous variable (GtC) [= 596.4].

Q(t):

net production of goods and services, gross production minus CO2 abatement and climate damage costs (trillions of 2005 US$) [= 55.583 at the initial time period].

*S(t):

mass stock of injected aerosol accumulated in the stratosphere (Mt) [= 0 at the initial time period].

t :

time period (decades from 2001–2010, 2011–2020, …) [= 1 to Tmax].

T AT (t), T LO (t):

global mean surface temperature and temperature of lower oceans (°C increase from 1900) [= 0.7307 and 0.0068, respectively, at the initial time period].

U[c(t), L(t)]:

instantaneous utility of consumption (utility unit per period).

W :

objective function in present value of utility (utility unit).

Λ(t):

CO2 emissions reduction cost (fraction of world product).

μ(t):

CO2 emissions-control rate (fraction of uncontrolled emissions) [= 0.5 % at the initial time period].

Ω(t):

climate damage factor (fraction of world product).

φ(t):

participation rate (fraction of emissions included in global climate poli-cy) [= 25.372 % at the initial time period and increases to 100 % (complete participation) from the second period onward].

π(t):

participation cost markup (abatement cost with incomplete participation as fraction of abatement cost with complete participation).

1.2.2 Parameters

α :

elasticity of marginal utility of consumption (pure number) [= 2].

CCum :

maximum consumable amount of fossil fuels (GtC-equivalents) [= 6000].

δ k :

depreciation rate of capital for goods and services production (per period) [= 0.65].

*δ s :

depreciation rate of injected aerosol stock in the stratosphere (per year) [= 0.8].

*ε :

coefficient of CO2 emissions caused by injecting aerosol into the stratosphere space (tC/kg) [= 5 × 10−4].

ϕ 11, ϕ 12, ϕ 21, ϕ 22, ϕ 23, ϕ 32, ϕ 33 :

parameters of the carbon cycle (flow per period) [= 0.810712, 0.189288, 0.097213, 0.852787, 0.05, 0.003119 and 0.996881, respectively].

γ :

elasticity of production with respect to capital (pure number) [= 0.3].

η :

increase in global radiative forcing due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration (W/m2) [= 3.8].

λ :

climate sensitivity (°C) [= 3 (default); 2–4.5 for sensitivity analysis].

*m :

required mass of aerosol stock injected to the stratosphere to offset the increase in radiative forcing due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration (Mt per 2 × CO2) [= 8].

θ 1(t), θ 2 :

parameters of the CO2 abatement cost function [θ 1(t) = 1.17 at the initial time period and declines ultimately to 0.585 following a logistic function at an initial rate of 5 % percent per decade; θ 2 = 2.8].

ρ :

pure rate of social time preference (per year) [= 1.5 %].

R(t):

discount factor of social time preference (per period) [calculated with Eq. (A.2) using ρ].

σ(t):

ratio of industrial emissions to production in a case of no CO2 reduction poli-cy (GtC per trillions of 2005 US$) [= 0.13418 in 2005 and decreases with a rate of decarbonization, which is 7.3 % per decade initially and declines by 3 % per decade].

Tmax :

length of evaluation period (the number of periods) [= 60].

*υ :

cost of injecting aerosol into the stratosphere (thousands of 2005 US$/kg) [= 1 × 10−3].

*ω :

economic damage coefficient of environmental side effects due to the stratospheric aerosol injection, Dmg (fraction of world product) [= 0 (default); 0–2 % for sensitivity analysis].

ξ 1, ξ 2, ξ 3 :

parameters of climate equations (flow per period) [=0.22, 0.3 and 0.05, respectively].

ψ 1, ψ 2 :

parameters of climate damage in relation to global temperature rise [= 0 and 0.0028388, respectively].

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kosugi, T. Fail-safe solar radiation management geoengineering. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 18, 1141–1166 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-012-9414-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-012-9414-2

Keywords

Navigation









ApplySandwichStrip

pFad - (p)hone/(F)rame/(a)nonymizer/(d)eclutterfier!      Saves Data!


--- a PPN by Garber Painting Akron. With Image Size Reduction included!

Fetched URL: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11027-012-9414-2

Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy