Many Proponents of geoengineering argue that the strategies being research to combat climate change are highly cost-effective. Scott Barrett, Professor of Environmental Economics and International Political Economics at John Hopkins University, points out that the incentives for countries to research geoengineering techniques are much greater than incentives to reduce carbon emissions. In order to effectively cut carbon emissions by the needed 60-80% globally, nearly every country needs to implement costly policy measure that would change industrial and other practices. The push to reduce carbon emissions has been highly ineffective thus far; not every country is on board with emissions reduction and no country that is has succeeded in significantly reducing emissions. Geoengineering practices, on the other hand, can be much cheaper and require much less global participation. The Panel on Policy Implication of Greenhouse Warming predict that releasing sulfur aerosols into the stratosphere, a solar radiation management (SRM) technique, would cost pennies per ton of CO2 mitigated, amounting to only $8 billion dollars a year. Also, the potential savings from the improved health of people due to the scattering of UV radiation could exceed the cost of geoengineering in the U.S. alone. Even if the cost of aerosol release is more expensive than projected, its benefits for every country contributing to the project collectively will easily outweigh the cost of implementation. Once a country is involved, they will always have an incentive to continually contribute to the projects maintenance. Due to the inherent threat of cancelling a project, the rapid, dangerous warming of the planet, a country could not afford to stop participating. Not every country has to collaborate in geoengineering projects either. Barrett argues that one countries solar radiation management techniques can offset not only their own but all others CO2 emissions (1). Not everybody agrees with Barrett's optimistic cost analysis of SRM techniques. George Monbiot, author of multiple books, a column in the Guardian and an involved human rights activist beleives that geoengineering practices are far from having a positive cost-benefit ratio. Cheap options are often effective but severely dangerous and expensive options are often safe but useless. Some options variate from these norms but no combination is ever a safe, effective and cost efficient one. Sucking CO2 of the air using artificial trees is safe and effective but fantastically expensive. Painting the rooftops of buildings white to absorb less heat is safe but useless and expensive. Injecting sulfate aerosols in the air is cheap and potentially effective, as stated by Barrett, but is extremely dangerous to implement. The negative effects caused by high sulfur emissions have historically led to costly problems globally. In the 1970's and 80's, a large area of Africa experienced great famines that cost a lot to mitigate. The famines were linked to sulfur production in the Norther Hemisphere and their ghastly effects were reduced when sulfur emissions were reduced. The potential detrimental effects of geoengineering projects are so numerous and potentially extremely expensive, that investing money in research would be a frivolous use of cash (2).
Sources:
(1) Bennett, Scott (2007, June 14). The incredible economics of geoengineering. Environ Resource Econ (2008) 39:45–54