Climate change mitigation strategy under an uncertain Solar Radiation Management possibility
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.
- Ban-Weiss GA, Caldeira K (2010) Geoengineering as an optimization problem. Environ Res Lett 5:034009Google Scholar
- Emmerling J, Tavoni M (2013) Geoengineering and abatement: a ‘flat’ relationship under uncertainty. FEEM Nota di Lavoro 31:2013Google Scholar
- Kravitz B et al (2013) Climate model response from the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP). J Geophys Res: Atmos 118:8320–8332Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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