H
2
What if geoengineering could lead to a more ambitious mitigation agreement?
As a rule, there’s little use in introducing game theory, if it doesn’t lead to some seemingly counterintuitive results. The 2×2 matrix here might show why climate mitigation action is hard, but that’s about it. It doesn’t point to any solutions to the dilemma. The 3×3 matrix, with G for solar geoengineering, does the same. It shows how G will dominate, nothing more. There’s no more guidance other than to say that everyone should just agree to cut CO2 considerably – pick H – and get on with it.
Failing to act on cutting CO2 emissions – picking L – is scary for the planet as a whole. Slithering into solar geoengineering might be scarier still. With that setup, and with a bit more work to understand what’s behind Table 1.2, there may well be a way out of this dilemma.
Focusing on H, L, and G alone has lots of limitations. That’s for sure. But sticking with that logic for a bit longer, let’s try to rank countries’ preferences once again. There are those ranking H ≻ L. (Read the squiggly “≻” simply as saying “preferred to.” No other magic there.) That implies large climate concern, at least larger than those not ranking H first. It might also imply that, for this particular player, cutting CO2 is relatively cheap, again at least relatively speaking. Either way, this player would clearly prefer H.
For those ranking H ≻ L, there are now three options for where G could go: first, second, or third. First implies that G dwarfs all else: G ≻ H ≻ L. That ranking would be bad, for at least two reasons. First, solar geoengineering would win, to the exclusion of any other climate policy; clearly a bad outcome. It also makes the game-theoretic model moot. No need for a 3×3 matrix, the outcome is clear: G wins, unless, for example, nations agree on a strict, enforceable moratorium (see Chapter 8).
G going third, H ≻ L ≻ G, is similarly boring. Now even the low-mitigation scenario is preferred to any solar geoengineering use. That’s clearly a possible preference ranking. The more fundamentalist elements of the German Green Party come to mind. They might prefer H to L and, thus, abhor anything that appears like a technofix to the much larger, structural problems of the current fossil-fuel economy. I call this position “boring” not because the position itself is. Far from it. It calls for a radical reorganization of society as we know it. But it does now mean G is sidelined in favor of an exclusive focus on cutting CO2 emissions.
A third possible ranking is H ≻ G ≻ L, one that ranks G second, possibly far behind H but still (reluctantly or not) above L. Even, or perhaps especially, ardent environmentalists might support this ranking in a fit of desperation, given how far unchecked climate change has proceeded.
As in any game-theoretic setting, a good deal now depends on what the other player does. There, too, are three possibilities. We already know that this player ranks L ≻ H. Once again, G can either go first, second, or third.
With G first, we already know what will happen. Ranking G ≻ L ≻ H yields the same outcome as the other player G ≻ H ≻ L. G dominates. Once again, the only way to prevent solar geoengineering in this scenario is to attempt to ban it: a global moratorium of sorts (see Chapter 8).
What, then, if G is ranked second, implying L ≻ G ≻ H for this player. This now quickly gets more complicated, though not prohibitively so. Table 1.3 shows the complete picture.
Table 1.3. Climate outcomes based on each player’s complete preferences. Availability of geoengineering (G) could lead to high mitigation agreement (H, in bold), despite one player preferring low mitigation (L) to H.35
| 1 \ 2 | H ≻ L ≻ G | H ≻ G ≻ L | L ≻ G ≻ H | L ≻ H ≻ G | G ≻ L ≻ H | G ≻ H ≻ L |
| H ≻ L ≻ G | H | H | L | L | G | G |
| H ≻ G ≻ L | H | H | G | H | G | G |
| L ≻ G ≻ H | L | G | L | L | G | G |
| L ≻ H ≻ G | L | H | L | L | G | G |
| G ≻ L ≻ H | G | G | G | G | G | G |
| G ≻ H ≻ L | G | G | G | G |
|
