Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-2020-95
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-2020-95

  18 Dec 2020

18 Dec 2020

Review status: a revised version of this preprint was accepted for the journal ESD.

Trade-offs of Solar Geoengineering and Mitigation under Climate Targets

Mohammad M. Khabbazan1,2,3,4, Marius Stankoweit1, Elnaz Roshan1, Hauke Schmidt5, and Hermann Held1,4 Mohammad M. Khabbazan et al.
  • 1Research Unit Sustainability and Global Change, University of Hamburg, Grindelberg 5, 20144 Hamburg, Germany
  • 2Workgroup for Economic and Infrastructure Policy (WIP), The Technical University of Berlin, Strasse des 17. Juni 135, 10623 Berlin, Germany
  • 3Department of Energy, Transport, and Environment, DIW Berlin, Mohrenstrasse 58, 10117 Berlin, Germany
  • 4Center for Earth System Research and Sustainability, University of Hamburg, Bundesstr. 53, 20148 Hamburg, Germany
  • 5Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Bundesstr. 53, 20146 Hamburg, Germany

Abstract. So far scientific analyses have mainly focused on the pros and cons of solar geoengineering or solar radiation management (SRM) as a climate policy option in mere isolation. Here we put SRM into the context of mitigation by a strictly temperature-target based approach. As a main innovation, we present a scheme by which the applicability regime of temperature targets is extended from mitigation-only to SRM-mitigation analyses. Hereby we explicitly account for a risk-risk comparison of SRM and global warming, while minimizing economic costs for complying with the 2 °C temperature target. To do so, we suggest precipitation guardrails that are compatible with the 2 °C target. Our analysis shows that the value system enshrined in the 2 °C target would be almost prohibitive for SRM, while still about half to nearly two-third of mitigation costs could be saved, depending on the choice of extra room for precipitation. In addition, assuming a climate sensitivity of 3 °C or more, in case of a delayed enough policy, a modest admixture of SRM to the policy portfolio might provide debatable trade-offs compared to a mitigation-only future. In addition, in our analysis for climate sensitivities higher than 4 °C, SRM will be an unavoidable policy tool to comply with the temperature targets.

Mohammad M. Khabbazan et al.

 
Status: final response (author comments only)
Status: final response (author comments only)
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
[Login for authors/editors] [Subscribe to comment alert] Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement

Mohammad M. Khabbazan et al.

Mohammad M. Khabbazan et al.

Viewed

Total article views: 745 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
609 129 7 745 9 11
  • HTML: 609
  • PDF: 129
  • XML: 7
  • Total: 745
  • BibTeX: 9
  • EndNote: 11
Views and downloads (calculated since 18 Dec 2020)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 18 Dec 2020)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 627 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 625 with geography defined and 2 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 

Cited

Latest update: 18 Oct 2021
Download
Altmetrics