Friends - You may be interested in the following paper:
Reexamining the economics of aerosol geoengineering J. Eric Bickel and Shubham Agrawal Climatic Change http://www.springerlink.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&id=doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0619-x<https://wmail.austin.utexas.edu/owa/redir.aspx?C=UoawXr8kuUiWKDXtYDMihS7-ztfOh88I4XUoMr6K6WbPaVU6V2NfQE9YoSK5CZWUUuAs52rPwpI.&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.springer.com%2falert%2furltracking.do%3fid%3dLdb60daMae09bcSb02fb61> Abstract 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. My best, Eric Bickel University of Texas at Austin -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/UsM4jCTAaCwJ. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
