International Climate Agreements under the Threat of Solar Geoengineering

被引:3
作者
Mcevoy, David M. [1 ]
Mcginty, Matthew [2 ]
Cherry, Todd L. [3 ]
Kroll, Stephan [4 ]
机构
[1] Appalachian State Univ, Dept Econ, 3102 Peacock Hall, Boone, NC 28608 USA
[2] Univ Wisconsin Milwaukee, Dept Econ, Milwaukee, WI 53201 USA
[3] Univ Wyoming, Dept Econ, Laramie, WY 82071 USA
[4] Colorado State Univ, Dept Agr & Resource Econ, Ft Collins, CO 80523 USA
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
C7; D7; F5; H4; solar geoengineering; solar radiation management; international environmental agreements; self-enforcing agreements; global public goods; ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENTS; POLICY;
D O I
10.1086/728140
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
The possibility of overshooting global emissions targets has triggered a debate about the role of solar geoengineering (SGE)-using technologies to reflect solar radiation away from Earth-in managing climate change. One major concern is that SGE technologies are relatively cheap and could potentially be deployed by a single country (the "free driver"). We develop a model to analyze how opportunities to deploy SGE impact global abatement and the effectiveness of international environmental agreements (IEAs). We show that noncooperative abatement may increase or decrease under the threat of SGE, depending on how damaging the free driver's level of deployment is to others. When free-driver externalities are significant, other countries have additional incentives to abate-called anti-driver incentives-to reduce the free driver's deployment. We also show that compared to a world without SGE opportunities, stable IEAs can be large (small) if anti-driver incentives are relatively strong (weak).
引用
收藏
页码:853 / 886
页数:34
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Nash bargaining solutions for international climate agreements under different sets of bargaining weights
    S. Yu
    E. C. van Ierland
    H.-P. Weikard
    X. Zhu
    International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 2017, 17 : 709 - 729
  • [22] Permit trading and stability of international climate agreements
    Altamirano-Cabrera, Juan-Carlos
    Finus, Michael
    JOURNAL OF APPLIED ECONOMICS, 2006, 9 (01) : 19 - 47
  • [23] Solar geoengineering and carbon removal significantly lower economic climate damages
    Liu, Aobo
    Moore, John C.
    Cheng, Xiao
    Chen, Yating
    ONE EARTH, 2023, 6 (10): : 1375 - 1387
  • [24] Simulated long-term climate response to idealized solar geoengineering
    Cao, Long
    Duan, Lei
    Bala, Govindasamy
    Caldeira, Ken
    GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, 2016, 43 (05) : 2209 - 2217
  • [25] Renewable Energy and Energy Reductions or Solar Geoengineering for Climate Change Mitigation?
    Moriarty, Patrick
    Honnery, Damon
    ENERGIES, 2022, 15 (19)
  • [26] Simulated Effect of Carbon Cycle Feedback on Climate Response to Solar Geoengineering
    Cao, Long
    Jiang, Jiu
    GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, 2017, 44 (24) : 12484 - 12491
  • [27] The international politics of geoengineering: The feasibility of Plan B for tackling climate change
    Corry, Olaf
    SECURITY DIALOGUE, 2017, 48 (04) : 297 - 315
  • [28] Solar geoengineering, uncertainty, and the price of carbon
    Heutel, Garth
    Moreno-Cruz, Juan
    Shayegh, Soheil
    JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT, 2018, 87 : 24 - 41
  • [29] Whose climate intervention? Solar geoengineering, fractions of capital, and hegemonic strategy
    Surprise, Kevin
    Sapinski, J. P.
    CAPITAL AND CLASS, 2023, 47 (04) : 539 - 564
  • [30] Sticks and carrots for the design of international climate agreements with renegotiations
    Hans-Peter Weikard
    Rob Dellink
    Annals of Operations Research, 2014, 220 : 49 - 68