One way to address the gap in understanding how geoengineering technologies might shape future climate decisions is to explore the incentives and behaviors of key stakeholders. Geoengineering—such as solar radiation management or carbon removal—could offer solutions to climate change but also risks like moral hazard or geopolitical conflict. Currently, there’s little research on how simply having these options might alter climate policies, negotiations, or corporate strategies.

Understanding Stakeholder Behavior

The idea involves modeling how decision-makers—governments, corporations, NGOs—might act if geoengineering becomes viable. For example:

• Governments might delay emissions cuts if they see geoengineering as a backup plan, or fear unilateral deployment by other nations.
• Companies investing in the technology could push for early adoption, while fossil fuel firms might use it to resist decarbonization.

Game theory and historical analogies (e.g., nuclear deterrence) could help predict these dynamics. Interactive simulations might let policymakers test scenarios, like the impact of one country deploying solar radiation management without global consensus.

Bridging Research and Policy

Unlike existing programs focused on technical feasibility (e.g., Harvard’s research) or ethics (e.g., Oxford’s work), this approach would emphasize behavioral incentives. A simpler version could start with:

1. A literature review of geoengineering governance and decision-making models.
2. Basic game-theory frameworks to map out scenarios, like two nations negotiating deployment.
3. A prototype simulation tool for policymakers to explore trade-offs.

Insights could inform climate negotiations or corporate strategies, while avoiding advocacy to reduce controversy.

By focusing on how options influence actions, this could fill a critical gap in climate policy planning.