Di Jin; Hoagland, Porter; Buesseler, Ken O. (2020): The value of scientific research on the ocean's biological carbon pump. In Science of the Total Environment, p. 141357. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141357.

"Here, an analytical model of the economic effects of global carbon emissions—including scientific uncertainty about BCP sequestration—was developed to estimate the value of marine scientific research concerning sequestration."

LINK

"If Australia is to successfully cut its greenhouse gas emissions in line with a global goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C, it could require an economy wide carbon price of as high as $100 per tonne, according to a new analysis by carbon markets specialists Reputex."

LINK

Fabre, Adrien; Wagner, Gernot (2020): Availability of risky geoengineering can make an ambitious climate mitigation agreement more likely. In Humanit Soc Sci Commun 7 (1). DOI: 10.1057/s41599-020-0492-6.

"Some countries prefer high to low mitigation (H ≻ L). Some prefer low to high (L ≻ H). That fundamental disagreement is at the heart of the seeming intractability of negotiating a climate mitigation agreement. Modelling global climate negotiations as a weakest-link game brings this to the fore: Unless everyone prefers H to L, L wins. Enter geoengineering (G). Its risky and imperfect nature makes it arguably inferior to any country’s preferred mitigation outcome."

LINK

"In this Our Changing Climate environmental video essay, I join forces with @ClimateAdam to look at silver bullet geoengineering solutions to climate change. Specifically, we look at how silver bullet geoengineering ideas can be appealing in theory, but in practice they often have a lot of ethical, economic, and social drawbacks."

LINK