Fabre, Adrien; Wagner, Gernot (2019): Risky Geoengineering Option Can Make An Ambitious Climate Mitigation Agreement More Likely, NYU Wagner Research Paper Forthcoming, 12/9/2019.

"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. Enter geoengineering (G). Its risky and imperfect nature makes it arguably inferior to any country’s preferred mitigation outcome. However, absent a global high-mitigation agreement, countries facing disastrous climate damages might indeed wish to undertake it, effectively ranking H > G > L."

LINK

Hilaire, Jérôme; Minx, Jan C.; Callaghan, Max W.; Edmonds, Jae; Luderer, Gunnar; Nemet, Gregory F. et al. (2019): Negative emissions and international climate goals—learning from and about mitigation scenarios. In Climatic Change. DOI: 10.1007/s10584-019-02516-4.

"Most recent evidence stresses the importance of future socio-economic conditions in determining the flexibility of NET deployment and suggests opportunities for hedging technology risks by adopting portfolios of NETs. Importantly, our thematic review highlights that there is a much richer set of findings on NETs than commonly reflected upon both in scientific assessments and available reviews. "

LINK

Asayama, S.; Hulme, M. (2019): Engineering climate debt: temperature overshoot and peak-shaving as risky subprime mortgage lending. In: Climate Policy 33 (3), p. 1–10. DOI: 10.1080/14693062.2019.1623165.

"Whilst some view optimistically the strategic interdependence between SRM and CDR, we argue that this strategy comes with a risk of escalating ‘climate debt’. We explain our position using the logic of debt and the analogy of subprime mortgage lending. In overshoot and peak-shaving scenarios, the role of CDR and SRM is to compensate for delayed mitigation, placing the world in a double debt: ‘emissions debt’ and ‘temperature debt’."

LINK