Thank you for the thought-provoking article. Many things to ponder. I don’t know enough about your proposed solutions to have an opinion on them, other to agree they should be explored further.
I think the odds are significantly higher than your posited 50% that someone(s) will deploy solar radiation management in the next 10 years. I think it’s a virtual certainty. The costs of not doing so will prove too high, and it’s well within the technical capabilities of most nation-states with a modern air force, or even certain private organizations (I highly recommend reading Neal Stephenson’s Termination Shock if you haven’t already). Will this lead to moral hazard? Potentially, but I further think that the near-term consequences of continued inaction will be so dire, and the trajectory of future damage so clear, that voters will educate themselves in a hurry and demand regulation and support.
I have been hearing that geoengineering is very bad for agriculture—that global agriculture really needs the sunlight, as it is sunlight rather than water or available nitrogen that is more often than not the limiting factor. But I have not seen a good benefit-cost calculation on reducing sunlight vs. accelerating decarbonization vs. carbon sinks. However, right now, creating options should be priority #1... Brad DeLong
Robert, what’s your evaluation of President Biden’s debate performance?
Thank you for the thought-provoking article. Many things to ponder. I don’t know enough about your proposed solutions to have an opinion on them, other to agree they should be explored further.
Less glamorous than geoengineering, but pricing carbon - remains key. Here’s a bit of a whistle stop tour of the issues: https://open.substack.com/pub/thinicemacroeconomics/p/subsidizing-or-taxing-pollution?r=1oa8fn&utm_medium=ios
I think the odds are significantly higher than your posited 50% that someone(s) will deploy solar radiation management in the next 10 years. I think it’s a virtual certainty. The costs of not doing so will prove too high, and it’s well within the technical capabilities of most nation-states with a modern air force, or even certain private organizations (I highly recommend reading Neal Stephenson’s Termination Shock if you haven’t already). Will this lead to moral hazard? Potentially, but I further think that the near-term consequences of continued inaction will be so dire, and the trajectory of future damage so clear, that voters will educate themselves in a hurry and demand regulation and support.
I have been hearing that geoengineering is very bad for agriculture—that global agriculture really needs the sunlight, as it is sunlight rather than water or available nitrogen that is more often than not the limiting factor. But I have not seen a good benefit-cost calculation on reducing sunlight vs. accelerating decarbonization vs. carbon sinks. However, right now, creating options should be priority #1... Brad DeLong