Climatic Change

, Volume 119, Issue 3–4, pp 993–1006 | Cite as

Reexamining the economics of aerosol geoengineering

  • J. Eric BickelEmail author
  • Shubham Agrawal


In this paper, we extend the work of Goes, Tuana, and Keller (Climatic Change 2011; GTK) by reexamining the economic benefit, of aerosol geoengineering. GTK found that a complete substitution of geoengineering for CO2 abatement fails a cost-benefit test over a wide range of scenarios regarding (i) the probability that such a program would be aborted and (ii) the economic damages caused by geoengineering itself. In this paper, we reframe the conditions under which GTK assumed geoengineering would/could be used. In so doing, we demonstrate that geoengineering may pass a cost-benefit test over a wide range of scenarios originally considered by GTK.


Emission Reduction Climate Sensitivity Abatement Cost Emission Control Economic Damage 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors thank the Center for International Energy and Environmental Policy at the University of Texas for partially supporting this work. The authors also thank the Assistant Deputy Editor and three anonymous referees for their comments and suggestions regarding an earlier draft of this paper.

Supplementary material

10584_2012_619_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (57 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 57 kb)


  1. Bickel JE, Lane L (2010) Climate engineering. In: Lomborg B (ed) Smart solutions to climate change: Comparing costs and benefits. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 9–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Goes M, Tuana N, Keller K (2011) The economics (or lack thereof) of aerosol geoengineering, Climatic ChangeGoogle Scholar
  3. Gollier C (2009) Should we discount the far-distant future at its lowest possible rate?, Economics: The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal 3(2009-25) doi: 10.5018/economics-ejournal.ja.2009-5025,
  4. Gollier C, Weitzman ML (2010) How should the distant future be discounted when discount rates are uncertain? Econ Lett 107:350–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kriegler E (2005) Imprecise probability analysis for integrated assessment of climate change. University of Potsdam, PotsdamGoogle Scholar
  6. Lempert RJ, Schlesinger ME, Bankes SC et al (2000) The impacts of climate variability on near-term policy choices and the value of information. Clim Chang 45:129–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lenton TM, Held H, Kriegler E et al (2008) Tipping elements in the earth's climate system. PNAS 105(6):1786–1793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Matthews HD, Caldeira K (2007) Transient climate-carbon simulations of planetary geoengineering. PNAS 104(24):9949–9954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. McInerney D, Keller K (2008) Economically optimal risk reduction strategies in the face of uncertain climate thresholds. Clim Chang 91:5–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Newell RG, Pizer WA (2004) Uncertain discounte rates in climate policy analysis. Energy Policy 32:519–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Nordhaus WD (2008) A question of balance. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  12. Weitzman ML (1998) Why the far-distant future should be discounted at its lowest possible rate. J Environ Econ Manag 36:201–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Wigley TML (2006) A combined mitigation/geoengineering approach to climate stabilization. Science 314:452–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate Program in Operations ResearchThe University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA
  2. 2.Graduate Program in Energy and Earth ResourcesThe University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA
  3. 3.Center for International Energy and Environmental PolicyAustinUSA
  4. 4.1 University Station, C2200AustinUSA

Personalised recommendations