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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access
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.