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

Summary, in English

This article addresses a central debate in combatting climate change: whether we should focus on reducing CO₂ emissions or on removing the emitted CO₂ 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 CO₂ 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.

• Author: Turaj S. Faran; Lennart Olsson
• Department/s: LUCSUS (Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies)
• Publishing year: 2018-02
• Language: English
• Pages: 63-77
• Publication/Series: International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics
• Volume: 18
• Issue: 1
• Links: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10784-017-9383-8
• Document type: Journal article
• Publisher: Springer
• Topic: Climate Research
• Keywords: Carbon dioxide removal; Economics of geoengineering; Hegelian ethics; Justice and economics; Risk-reward nexus
• Status: Published
• ISBN/ISSN/Other: ISSN: 1567-9764