Climatic Change

, Volume 139, Issue 3–4, pp 503–515 | Cite as

Climate change mitigation strategy under an uncertain Solar Radiation Management possibility

  • Tommi EkholmEmail author
  • Hannele Korhonen


Solar radiation management (SRM) could provide a fast and low-cost option to mitigate global warming, but can also incur unwanted or unexpected climatic side-effects. As these side-effects involve substantial uncertainties, the optimal role of SRM cannot be yet determined. Here, we present probabilistic emission scenarios that limit global mean temperature increase to 2 °C under uncertainty on possible future SRM deployment. Three uncertainties relating to SRM deployment are covered: the start time, intensity and possible termination. We find that the uncertain SRM option allows very little additional GHG emissions before the SRM termination risk can be excluded, and the result proved robust over different hypothetical probability assumptions for SRM deployment. An additional CO2 concentration constraint, e.g. to mitigate ocean acidification, necessitates CO2 reductions even with strong SRM; but in such case SRM renders non-CO2 reductions unnecessary. This illustrates how the framing of climatic targets and available mitigation measures affect strongly the optimal mitigation strategies. The ability of SRM to decrease emission reduction costs is diminished by the uncertainty in SRM deployment and the possible concentration constraint, and also depends heavily on the assumed emission reduction costs. By holding SRM deployment time uncertain, we also find that carrying out safeguard emission reductions and delaying SRM deployment by 10 to 20 years increases reduction costs only moderately.


Emission Reduction Climate Sensitivity Ocean Acidification Radiative Force Solar Radiation Management 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This research has been done in the project STARSHIP (Decision No. 140800 for VTT, No. 140867 for FMI) and under the Academy Research Fellow position of Korhonen (Decision No. 250348), funded by the Academy of Finland.

Supplementary material

10584_2016_1828_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (153 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 153 kb)


  1. Aaheim A, Romstad B, Wei T, Kristjánsson JE, Muri H, Niemeier U, Schmidt H (2015) An economic evaluation of solar radiation management. Sci Total Environ 532:61–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bahn O, Chesney M, Gheyssens J, Knutti R, Pana AC (2015) Is there room for geoengineering in the optimal climate policy mix? Environ Sci Policy 48:67–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ban-Weiss GA, Caldeira K (2010) Geoengineering as an optimization problem. Environ Res Lett 5:034009Google Scholar
  4. Barrett S (2014) Solar geoengineering’s brave new world: thoughts on the governance of an unprecedented technology. Revi Environ Econ Policy 8:249–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bickel EJ (2013) Climate engineering and climate tipping-point scenarios. Environ Syst Decis 33:152–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bickel JE, Agrawal S (2013) Reexamining the economics of aerosol geoengineering. Clim Chang 119:993–1006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bickel JE, Lane L (2010) Climate engineering. In: Lomborg B (ed) Smart solutions for climate change: comparing costs and benefits. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 9–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bodansky D (2013) The who, what, and wherefore of geoengineering governance. Clim Chang 121:539–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cao L, Caldeira K (2008) Atmospheric CO2 stabilization and ocean acidification. Geophys Res Lett 35, L19609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cooley SR, Doney SC (2009) Anticipating ocean acidification’s economic consequences for commercial fisheries. Environ Res Lett 4:024007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ekholm T (2014) Hedging the climate sensitivity risks of a temperature target. Clim Chang 127:153–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ekholm T, Lindroos TJ, Savolainen I (2013) Robustness of climate metrics under climate policy ambiguity. Environ Sci Policy 31:44–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Emmerling J, Tavoni M (2013) Geoengineering and abatement: a ‘flat’ relationship under uncertainty. FEEM Nota di Lavoro 31:2013Google Scholar
  14. Goes M, Tuana N, Keller K (2011) The economics (or lack thereof) of aerosol geoengineering. Clim Chang 109:719–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hoegh-Guldberg O, Bruno JF (2010) The impact of climate change on the world’s marine ecosystems. Science 328:1523–1528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kravitz B et al (2013) Climate model response from the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP). J Geophys Res: Atmos 118:8320–8332Google Scholar
  17. Moreno-Cruz JB, Keith DW (2013) Climate policy under uncertainty: a case for solar geoengineering. Clim Chang 121:431–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Moreno-Cruz JB, Ricke KL, Keith DW (2012) A simple model to account for regional inequalities in the effectiveness of solar radiation management. Clim Chang 110:649–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Narita D, Rehdanz K, Tol RJ (2012) Economic costs of ocean acidification: a look into the impacts on global shellfish production. Clim Chang 113:1049–1063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ricke KL, Morgan MG, Allen MR (2010) Regional climate response to solar-radiation management. Nat Geosci 3:537–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Robock A, Oman L, Stenchikov GL (2008) Regional climate responses to geoengineering with tropical and Arctic SO2 injections. J Geophys Res: Atmos 113, D16101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sillmann J, Lenton TM, Levermann A, Ott K, Hulme M, Benduhn F, Horton JB (2015) Climate emergencies do not justify engineering the climate. Nat Clim Chang 5:290–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Smith AE (2010) Climate engineering: alternative perspective. In: Lomborg B (ed) Smart solutions for climate change: comparing costs and benefits. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 62–73Google Scholar
  24. Smith SJ, Rasch PJ (2013) The long-term policy context for solar radiation management. Clim Chang 121:487–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tilmes S, Müller R, Salawitch R (2008) The sensitivity of polar ozone depletion to proposed geoengineering schemes. Science 320:1201–1204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tilmes S et al (2013) The hydrological impact of geoengineering in the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP). J Geophys Res: Atmos 118:11,036–11,058Google Scholar
  27. van Vuuren DP, Stehfest E (2013) If climate action becomes urgent: the importance of response times for various climate strategies. Clim Chang 121:473–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Vaughan NE, Lenton TM (2011) A review of climate geoengineering proposals. Clim Chang 109:745–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vaughan NE, Lenton TM (2012) Interactions between reducing CO2 emissions, CO2 removal and solar radiation management. Phil Trans R Soc A 370:4343–4364. doi: 10.1098/rsta.2012.0188
  30. Wigley TML (2006) A combined mitigation/geoengineering approach to climate stabilization. Science 314:452–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Williamson P, Turley C (2012) Ocean acidification in a geoengineering context. Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci 370:4317–4342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wright MJ, Teagle DAH, Feetham PM (2014) A quantitative evaluation of the public response to climate engineering. Nat Clim Chang 4:106–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.VTT Technical Research Centre of FinlandEspooFinland
  2. 2.Finnish Meteorological InstituteHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations