ľ¹Ï¸£ÀûÓ°ÊÓ

Fight global warming by all means? From energy transition to geoengineering

Emission reduction is clearly a cornerstone of climate policy. In June 2019, the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists (EAERE), formulated a recommendation urging for a carbon price: 

A price on carbon offers the most cost-effective lever to reduce carbon emissions at the scale and speed that is necessary. [...] Action should be taken to ensure that the price on carbon gradually increases until the goals of the Paris Agreement are met.
No doubt, a carbon price (set through a tax or a cap-and-trade system) can help making less polluting techniques more attractive. But is it really the most cost-effective, efficient policy available? Or is this result an artifact of questionable assumptions such as frictionless technology change and perfect markets? Based on new results from an agent-based climate-economy model (the DSK model developed at Sant'Anna, Pisa), I will argue that carbon tax (especially when gradually increasing) may be unsuitable to trigger decarbonisation at sufficient speed, especially if such a transition consists of interdependent steps. It might thus be more efficient to complement, or even replace, the carbon tax with other measures such as subsidies for green energy or downright bans of polluting techniques. 

But while there is still some hope that humanity will manage the energy transition just in time to (more or less) reach the Paris agreement, we cannot afford not to look at more dirty fixes - including solar geoengineering. But many open questions surround this option, including its ability (or lack of ability) to prevent some of the most dangerous aspects of climate change, such as tipping points. earth system modelling work to do for the next 5 years at IMAU!