Score contribution per author:
α: calibrated so average coauthorship-adjusted count equals average raw count
We conduct a sensitivity analysis to describe conditions under which liquid fuel producers would fund the development of a climate backstop. We estimate (1) the cost to develop competitively priced direct CO 2 air capture technology, a possible climate backstop and (2) the effect of this technology on the value of liquid fuel reserves by country and fuel. Under most assumptions, development costs exceed individual benefits. A particularly robust result is that carbon prices generate large benefits for conventional oil producers—making a climate backstop unappealing for them. Unilateral investment does become more likely under: stringent carbon policy, social discount rates, improved technical outcomes, and high price elasticity of demand for liquid fuels. Early stage investment is inexpensive and could provide a hedge against such developments, particularly for fuels on the margin, such as tar sands and gas-to-liquids. Since only a few entities benefit, free riding is not an important disincentive to investment, although uncertainty about who benefits probably is. doi: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol33-No1-3