Reexamining the economics of aerosol geoengineering
- First Online:
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.
- Goes M, Tuana N, Keller K (2011) The economics (or lack thereof) of aerosol geoengineering, Climatic ChangeGoogle Scholar
- 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, http://dx.doi.org/5010.5018/economics-ejournal.ja.2009-5025
- Kriegler E (2005) Imprecise probability analysis for integrated assessment of climate change. University of Potsdam, PotsdamGoogle Scholar
- Nordhaus WD (2008) A question of balance. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar