Abstract
If major emitters fail to mitigate global warming, they may have to resort to geoengineering techniques that deflect sunlight from planet Earth and remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. In this article, I develop a strategic theory of geoengineering. I emphasize two key features of geoengineering. First, whereas emissions reductions can be mandated now, geoengineering techniques are only available in the future. Second, major powers can unilaterally implement geoengineering projects that may hurt other countries. My game-theoretic analysis demonstrates that unilateral geoengineering presents a difficult governance problem if it produces negative externalities in foreign countries. Interestingly, countries may be tempted to reduce emissions now, so as to prevent a harmful geoengineering race in the future. The theoretical results can help scholars and policymakers understand the relationship between climate mitigation and geoengineering.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
This broad definition of geoengineering includes both solar radiation management and extraction of carbon from the atmosphere.
The fact that a model relies on simplifying assumptions does not mean that the model is not useful. After all, every model is based on simplifying assumptions. For example, although computational models of climate change are highly unrealistic, many people find them useful for understanding climate change.
For an important exception, see Millard-Ball (2012). I discuss this article in the next section.
Mathematically, the benefit function must be strictly concave while all cost functions must be strictly convex. Additionally, emissions and geoengineering must have opposite and interactive effects on the total cost.
References
Barrett, S. (2003). Environment and statecraft: The strategy of environmental treaty-making. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Barrett, S. (2008a). Climate treaties and the imperative of enforcement. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 24(2), 239–258.
Barrett, S. (2008b). The incredible economics of geoengineering. Environmental and Resource Economics, 39(1), 45–54.
Bates, R. H., Greif, A., Levi, M., Rosenthal, J.-L., & Weingast, B. R. (Eds.). (1998). Analytic narratives. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Blackstock, J. J., & Jane, C. S. L. (2010). The politics of geoengineering. Science, 327(5965), 527.
Bracmort, K., Richard, K. L., & Emily, C. B. (2011). Geoengineering: Governance and technology policy. Congression research service, January 10.
Brovkin, V., Petoukhov, V., Claussen, M., Bauer, E., Archer, D., & Jaeger, C. (2009). Geoengineering climate by stratospheric sulfur injections: Earth system vulnerability to technological failure. Climatic Change, 92(3–4), 243–259.
Crutzen, P. J. (2006). Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: A contribution to resolve a policy dilemma? Climatic Change, 77(3–4), 211–220.
Eisenberger, P. M., Cohen, R. W., Chichilnisky, G., Eisenberger, N. M., Chance, R. R., & Christopher, W. J. (2009). Global warming and carbon-negative technology: Prospects for a lower-cost route to a lower-risk atmosphere. Energy and Environment, 20(6), 973–984.
Govindasamy, B., & Caldeira, K. (2000). Geoengineering earth’s radiation balance to mitigate CO2-induced climate change. Geophysical Research Letters, 27(14), 2141–2144.
Millard-Ball, A. (2012). The Tuvalu syndrome: Can geoengineering solve climate’s collective action problem? Climatic Change, 110(3–4), 1047–1066.
Morton, R. B. (1999). Methods and models: A guide to the empirical analysis of formal models in political science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Naik, V., Wuebbles, D. J., DeLucia, E. H., & Foley, J. A. (2003). Influence of geoengineered climate on the terrestrial biosphere. Environmental Management, 32(3), 373–381.
Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Royal Society. (2009). Geoengineering the climate: Science, governance and uncertainty. RS policy document 10/09.
Schelling, T. C. (1996). The economic diplomacy of geoengineering. Climatic Change, 33(3): 303–307.
Schneider, S. H. (2004). Abrupt non-linear climate change, irreversibility and surprise. Global Environmental Change Part A 14(3), 245–258.
Stanhill, G., & Cohen, S. (2001). Global dimming: A review of the evidence for a widespread and significant reduction in global radiation with discussion of Its probable cause and possible agricultural consequences. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 107(4), 255–278.
Stern, N. (2006). The economics of climate change: The stern review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tilmes, S., Müller, R., & Salawitch, R. (2008). The sensitivity of polar ozone depletion to proposed geoengineering schemes. Science, 320(5880), 1201–1204.
Victor, D. G. (2008). On the regulation of geoengineering. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 24(2), 322–336.
Virgoe, J. (2009). International governance of a possible geoengineering intervention to combat climate change. Climatic Change, 95(1–2), 103–119.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix: Model extensions
Appendix: Model extensions
1.1 Discounting the future
Since the cost of geoengineering is incurred in the future, it seems plausible to assume that states could discount the costs and benefits of geoengineering. Given this, suppose each country i discounts future payoffs by a factor of \(\delta\in(0,1). \) With most climate damages occurring in the future, country i now maximizes
By the expected utility theorem, maximizing U i is equivalent to maximizing
Writing \(\tilde{B}=\frac{B}{\delta}\) and solving as in the main text, all results continue to hold. With \(\delta\in(0,1), \) the primary implication of discounting is that as δ decreases, both emissions E * i and geoengineering G * i increase.
1.2 Uncertainty
Suppose that the cost of geoengineering is subject to uncertainty. In particular, assume the respective costs of domestic and foreign geoengineering are G 2 i and \(x\cdot G_{j}^{2}\) with probability \(\rho\in(0,1). \) With the complementary probability 1−ρ, these costs are assumed not to exist. The governments are aware of the prior probability ρ, but the actual existence of the costs is assumed to be subject to uncertainty, as indicated in the geoengineering literature (Victor 2008; Virgoe 2009). Now, the government of country i maximizes
Again by the expected utility theorem, the maximization problem is identical to
Writing and \(\tilde{C}=\frac{C}{\rho}, \) the analysis in the main text can be replicated without modifications. The effect of increasing ρ on emissions E * i , E * j and geoengineering G * i , G * j is ambiguous and depends on the ratio of B to C.
1.3 Asymmetric damages within countries
Suppose that in each country i, two groups labeled by αi, βi exist. Suppose that the damages from geoengineering are asymmetric across the groups. For group αi, the cost of geoengineering is multiplied by a factor α > 0. For group βi, the multiplier is β > 0. Now the government of country i is assumed to maximize
Again by the expected utility theorem, this is equivalent to maximizing
Writing \(\tilde{B}=\frac{B}{\alpha+\beta}\) and \(\tilde{C}=\frac{B}{\alpha+\beta}, \) the analysis in the main text can be replicated. As α or β increases, the changes in emissions E * i , E * j and geoengineering G * i , G * j are ambiguous and depend on the ratio of B–C.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Urpelainen, J. Geoengineering and global warming: a strategic perspective. Int Environ Agreements 12, 375–389 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-012-9167-0
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-012-9167-0