We analyze how geoengineering, associated with a high risk of collateral damages, affects the governance architecture of climate agreements. We clarify under which conditions signatories to a climate agreement can avoid that non-signatories deploy risky geoengineering. We correct and qualify the results of Millard-Ball (2012): not only must collateral damages be above but also below a threshold such that the threat to deploy geoengineering can stabilize a climate agreement on reducing greenhouse gases.
We analyze how geoengineering, associated with a high risk of collateral damages, affects the governance architecture of climate agreements. We clarify under which conditions signatories to a climate agreement can avoid that non-signatories deploy risky geoengineering. We correct and qualify the results of Millard-Ball (2012): not only must collateral damages be above but also below a threshold such that the threat to deploy geoengineering can stabilize a climate agreement on reducing greenhouse gases.