Geoengineering as an alternative to mitigation: specification and dynamic implications
Geoengineering, i.e. the use of artificial techniques aiming at cooling the planet, is increasingly considered as a realistic alternative to emission mitigation. Several methods are promising for their capacity to quickly halt global warming at a moderate cost. Such cheap technologies might be very beneficial to countries profoundly affected by global warming. In this paper, I propose a dynamic model in which geoengineering is introduced as an alternative to mitigation. Contrary to abatement, geoengineering is fast and cheap, but requires a large initial investment in research and development. Within this framework, I confirm the fear which is common among geoengineering opponents: abatement is reduced if geoengineering is expected to be available in the future. The long-run implications of the model are also alarming as geoengineering will not be undertaken progressively. The sudden implementation of geoengineering, together with the sharp jump in temperature induced, may disturb climate equilibrium and fragile ecosystems. Furthermore, the availability of geoengineering will exacerbate intergenerational issues: while current generations will anticipate the use of geoengineering by increasing their emissions, future generations will have to reduce their emissions, to bear the cost of sustaining geoengineering for centuries and to suffer from its negative side-effects.
|Date of creation:||25 Oct 2011|
|Note:||View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00635487|
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/|
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- repec:eee:reecon:v:71:y:2017:i:2:p:212-224 is not listed on IDEAS
- Juan Moreno-Cruz & David Keith, 2013. "Climate policy under uncertainty: a case for solar geoengineering," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 121(3), pages 431-444, December.
- Kousky, Carolyn & Rostapshova, Olga & Toman, Michael & Zeckhauser, Richard, 2009.
"Responding to Threats of Climate Change Mega-Catastrophes,"
dp-09-45, Resources For the Future.
- Kousky, Carolyn & Rostapshova, Olga & Toman, Michael & Zeckhauser, Richard, 2010. "Responding to Threats of Climate Change Mega-Catastrophes," Working Paper Series rwp10-008, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
- Kousky, Carolyn & Rostapshova, Olga & Toman, Michael & Zeckhauser, Richard, 2009. "Responding to threats of climate change mega-catastrophes," Policy Research Working Paper Series 5127, The World Bank.
- Zeckhauser, Richard Jay & Kousky, Carolyn & Rostapshova, Olga V & Toman, Michael, 2010. "Responding to Threats of Climate Change Mega-Catastrophes," Scholarly Articles 4454155, Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
- Adam Millard-Ball, 2012. "The Tuvalu Syndrome," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 110(3), pages 1047-1066, February.
- Marlos Goes & Nancy Tuana & Klaus Keller, 2011. "The economics (or lack thereof) of aerosol geoengineering," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 109(3), pages 719-744, December.
- Scott Barrett, 2008. "The Incredible Economics of Geoengineering," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 39(1), pages 45-54, January. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)