The Incredible Economics of Geoengineering

Barrett, Scott

doi:10.1007/s10640-007-9174-8

Cited by 294 publications

(214 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

207

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The SRM option has contrasted implications: under mild side-effects, the transition is further delayed by ten years (after 2075), whereas the transition never occurs under weak side-effects. In agreement with Barrett (2008), our results indicate thus that there is no incentive to curb GHG emissions if SRM is available and its sideeffects are benign. Fig.…”

Section: Optimal Policy MIX 31 Selected Scenarios For Srm Side-effectssupporting

confidence: 87%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Is there room for geoengineering in the optimal climate policy mix?

Bahn

Chesney

Gheyssens³

et al. 2015

Environmental Science & Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigate geoengineering as a possible substitute for adaptation and mitigation measures to address climate change. With the help of an integrated assessment model, we distinguish between the effects of solar radiation management on atmospheric temperature levels and its side-effects on ecosystems. To address the uncertainty regarding the magnitude of side-effects, we rely on a distributional analysis. Our results indicate that mitigation is the preferred strategy, with adaptation acting as an effective complement. As geoengineering brings significant side-effects on the environment, it is used in only a few of the analyzed scenarios. We then discuss additional concerns with geoengineering, and analyze their impacts on policy choices. In particular, we account for the possibility to make wrong assumptions about side-effects.

show abstract

Section: Optimal Policy MIX 31 Selected Scenarios For Srm Side-effectssupporting

confidence: 87%

“…Its premise is the ability to keep temperature levels artificially low, instead of reducing GHG emissions. In case of abrupt climate changes, with rare but catastrophic impacts, SRM could act as a quick and effective temperature 'backstop' (Barrett, 2008), while adaptation and mitigation measures could have only limited effectiveness.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is there room for geoengineering in the optimal climate policy mix?

Bahn

Chesney

Gheyssens³

et al. 2015

Environmental Science & Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some early assessments of climate engineering conclude that a future generation with access to such technologies would be able to handle the damages associated with stock pollutants at a surprisingly low direct variable cost (Klepper and Rickels 2012;Barrett 2008). However, these technologies are not understood to be "magic bullets".…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Intergenerational Transfer of Solar Radiation Management Capabilities and Atmospheric Carbon Stocks

Goeschl

Heyen

Moreno‐Cruz

2013

Environ Resource Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Abstract Solar radiation management (SRM) technologies are considered one of the likeliest forms of geoengineering. If developed, a future generation could deploy them to limit the damages caused by the atmospheric carbon stock inherited from the current generation, despite their negative side effects. Should the current generation develop these geoengineering capabilities for a future generation? And how would a decision to develop SRM impact on the current generation's abatement efforts? Natural scientists, ethicists, and other scholars argue that future generations could be more sanguine about the side effects of SRM deployment than the current generation. In this paper, we add economic rigor to this important debate on the intergenerational transfer of technological capabilities and pollution stocks. We identify three conjectures that constitute potentially rational courses of action for current society, including a ban on the development of SRM. However, the same premises that underpin these conjectures also allow for a novel possibility: If the development of SRM capabilities is sufficiently cheap, the current generation may for reasons of intergenerational strategy decide not just to develop SRM technologies, but also to abate more than in the absence of SRM. Terms of use: Documents in

show abstract

“…Furthermore, the legal aspect of iron fertilization of oceans is so problematic that the experts believe that it is not a feasible way of climate engineering (Abate and Greenlee 2009). The legal issues involved in geoengineering readily give rise to all sorts of complex ethical, even philosophical, considerations: the question is not only how we decide on the use of particular forms of climate engineering, but who decides (Burns and Strauss 2013, p. 2;Barrett 2008)? The complexities involved in the process of decision making, far from being purely technical matters in designing a governance arrangement (Humphreys 2011), have immense social implications at the global level.…”

Section: The Case Against Geoengineeringmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Provided that there is enough information about the costs and benefits of each opportunity, a simple costbenefit analysis (CBA) would determine which one is more desirable. The CBA method has also been used to determine the economic viability of geoengineering at least as early as 2000 (Barrett 2008), and is still common in the debate about the economic viability of geoengineering (Bickel and Agrawal 2013). Below we discuss at some length why we believe CBA is not the appropriate method to investigate the economic viability of climate engineering.…”

Section: Is Cdr Economically Viable?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Geoengineering: neither economical, nor ethical—a risk–reward nexus analysis of carbon dioxide removal

Faran

Olsson

2018

Int Environ Agreements

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article addresses a central debate in combatting climate change: whether we should focus on reducing CO 2 emissions or on removing the emitted CO 2 from the atmosphere. We favor the former by arguing against the economic viability of the carbon dioxide removal (CDR) branch of geoengineering. This is of course not a question of either or, but we argue that the perception of CDR as a viable option reduces the willingness to reduce CO 2 emissions. Using the recently developed approach of risk-reward nexus (RRN) in the economics of innovation, we question the economic viability of CDR. The main argument is simple: if one uses the new framework of RRN in evaluating the innovations involved in the CDR branch of geoengineering, not only does one include more areas of risk but also one has to consider a broader base for distributing the rewards. Consequently, from RRN's point of view, it would be less likely to find investing in CDR economically viable for the investor firms. Although the core argument of the paper concerns the economics of CDR, in a final section the paper tries to show that the economic argument has also ethical implications against relying on CDR.

show abstract

The Incredible Economics of Geoengineering

Abstract: Geoengineering, Climate change, Governance, Free riding,

Cited by 294 publications

References 23 publications

Is there room for geoengineering in the optimal climate policy mix?

Is there room for geoengineering in the optimal climate policy mix?

The Intergenerational Transfer of Solar Radiation Management Capabilities and Atmospheric Carbon Stocks

Geoengineering: neither economical, nor ethical—a risk–reward nexus analysis of carbon dioxide removal

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About