Reexamining the economics of aerosol geoengineering CLIMATIC CHANGE 2012, DOI: 10.1007/s10584-012-0619-x J. Eric Bickel and Shubham Agrawal http://www.springerlink.com/content/01g462v6j310w461/ [online free access]
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. .... 4 Conclusion As stated at the outset, this paper has made no attempt to argue for the deployment of geoengineering. Instead, we have demonstrated that framing the use of geoengineering is critical to determining its cost-benefit. All of our changes to GTK's analysis have resulted in a much larger region in which GEO may pass a cost-benefit test, because of the way GEO was positioned: Society can either (i) implement an optimally designed abatement policy (beginning with 25 % reductions 4 years from now) that will proceed uninterrupted for the next several hundred years, or (ii) implement geoengineering that completely substitutes for emissions reductions and if things go badly (50 years from now), society must suffer the consequences and is not permitted to choose emissions reductions later. Given this choice, it is not surprising that the range in which GEO would be economic is quite small. Differing and we believe more reasonable framings of geoengineering use result in nearly the opposite conclusion: GEO may pass a cost-benefit test over a wide range of scenarios regarding (i) the probability it would be abandoned, and (ii) the economic damage caused by its use. This conclusion, however, is not invariant to changes in the underlying assumptions or model structure upon which it is based. For example, future research may determine that GEO damages increase non-linearly with usage intensity or are more damaging than GTK assumed. Jesse L. Reynolds, M.S. PhD Candidate European and International Public Law Tilburg Sustainability Center Tilburg University, The Netherlands email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl http://www.tilburguniversity.edu/webwijs/show/?uid=j.l.reynolds http://twitter.com/geoengpolicy -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. 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.
