Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
Please note that all times are shown in the time zone of the conference. The current conference time is: 24th Aug 2026, 01:51:59am WEST
External resources will be made available 30 min before a session starts. You may have to reload the page to access the resources.
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | |
|
Climate Change, Risk and Resilience Location: B004 Session Chair: Anthony Ojonimi Onoja, EfD Researchers, Domestic Associate | |
    | |
Managing Termination Shock Risk of Solar Geoengineering in a Warming World 1: Beijing Institute of Technology, China, People's Republic of; 2: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis Solar Geoengineering (SRM) temporarily offsets global warming but introduces a critical concern: the termination shock risk triggered by the sudden failure of SRM deployment. This study investigates the value of proactive adjustments of carbon abatement and SRM deployment in managing termination risk. We introduce termination shock as a stochastic regime-switching process into integrated assessment models that combine geophysical and economic dynamics. Then we propose a transformation technique that reformulates the stochastic model into a deterministic structure amenable to optimal control theory, overcoming the numerical challenges of dimensionality and non-stationarity. We find that, before the shock, a “myopic” decision-maker (DM) who ignores the shock, relies heavily on SRM and allows carbon emissions to rise steadily from 40 GtCO2/yr in 2020 to 78 GtCO2/yr by 2100. However, a forward-looking “smart” DM deploys only about half as much SRM and strengthens abatement to reverse the upward trend in emissions. After the shock, both DMs abandon SRM and sharply cut emissions below the “abatement-only” pathway. Although “smart” strategy incurs higher abatement costs and higher warming levels before the shock, it substantially reduces the post-shock temperature surge and secures GDP recovery to the “abatement-only” level—an unattainable recovery for “myopic” strategy. By 2100, it further narrows the GDP uncertainty range from 665–807 trillion USD (“myopic”) to 754–799 trillion USD. Sensitivity analyses show that the structure of “smart” strategy is robust across probabilities and damage specifications. Our findings contribute to management decisions in a potential future where SRM complements existing efforts to mitigate climate risks. | |