Does Aerosol Geoengineering the Earth's Climate Pass a Cost-Benefit Test?

Anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are changing the Earth's climate with potentially dangerous consequences. Ratified international agreements call for a reduction of CO2 emissions to avoid dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Recent studies have, however, proposed an alternative strategy: to geoengineer Earth's climate by injecting aerosol precursors into the stratosphere. It is often claimed that aerosol geoengineering would provide net economic benefits because geoengineering requires far lower near-term investments compared to deep cuts in CO2 emissions. However, aerosol geoengineering projects can also cause nontrivial economic costs. This is because aerosol geoengineering hinges on successfully counterbalancing the forcing effects of CO2 emissions (which decay over centuries) with the forcing effects of aerosol emissions (which decay within years). A failure to maintain this delicate balance can lead to abrupt climatic changes, with potentially substantial economic damages. Deferring cuts in CO2 emissions in favor of aerosol geoengineering is hence a deeply uncertain gamble, as it requires so far unknown institutions to reliably control aerosol forcings over centuries. Here we use a simple economic model to evaluate potential costs and benefits of aerosol geoengineering for a wide range of the deeply uncertain parameters. We show that aerosol geoengineering projects may cause economic damages that can far exceed the benefits and may hence fail a cost-benefit test.