Poster's note: one paper in a seemingly-increasing trend to apply formal economic analysis to a variety of hypothetical geoengineering situations. I personally find this emerging sub-discipline a very helpful contribution to the debate.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0095069617300232 Journal of Environmental Economics and Management <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00950696> Available online 13 September 2018 In Press, Accepted Manuscript <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/aip/00950696>What are Accepted Manuscript articles? <https://service.elsevier.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/22799/supporthub/sciencedirect/> Optimal geoengineering experiments☆ <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0095069617300232#aep-article-footnote-id10> Author links open overlay panelLassiAhlvika <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0095069617300232#!>Antti Ihob <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0095069617300232#!> Show more https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2018.08.008Get rights and content <https://s100.copyright.com/AppDispatchServlet?publisherName=ELS&contentID=S0095069617300232&orderBeanReset=true> Highlights • We study geoengineering measures with uncertain effects that can be learned by experimentation. • The prospect of learning may increase or decrease the optimal level of investment. • We apply the analysis for artificial oxygenation of the Baltic Sea deeps. • A small field test is profitable despite the negative expected welfare effects. Abstract We characterize optimal investment in pollution control measures with uncertain effects that can be learned by experimentation. The anticipation of learning through experimentation introduces two effects. The Inquisitive Effect appears because the planner wants to invest in geoengineering to gather socially valuable information on its effects. This effect encourages investments in geoengineering and may justify field tests even where the expected benefits fall short of the costs. The Flexibility Effect stems from the planner optimally preparing for the post-learning stage, where the field test is either ramped up or scaled down, depending on the outcome of the experiment. This effect can encourage or discourage investments in geoengineering. We demonstrate this set-up through an economic analysis of an artificial oxygenation scheme designed to mitigate eutrophication in the Baltic Sea and find that while the expected marginal benefit falls short of costs, a field test representing some 10 percent of full deployment would be optimal. Recommended articlesCiting articles (0) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
