Economic aspects of atmospheric CO2 removal and radiation management: Atmospheric CO2 removal (CDR) measures have a low leverage. A relatively large amount of CO2 must be removed to have a measurable effect on temperature. Radiation management (RM) measures have high leverage, meaning that, for example, only a relatively small amount of sulfur needs to be spread in the stratosphere to have a measurable effect on temperature. However, unlike CDR measures, this is a symptomatic approach to climate change mitigation because it is used to offset warming caused by increased, atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Looking at operational cost estimates is not sufficient to evaluate the economics of each method. The various CDR methods differ in the duration of their CO2 storage, and methods with short-term CO2 storage have a lower value than CDR methods with permanent CO2 storage. Depending on the positive side effects that nature-based CDR methods offer, the question is whether to prioritize CO2 storage when designing the measures. In the case of engineered CDR methods, it makes sense to develop these technologies in a decentralized manner via market-based approaches. The potentially high-impact RM represents a new option in the climate policy portfolio and, at first glance, promises insurance against the risks of climate change as well as the possibility of unilaterally limiting climate change. Considering the numerous side effects and uncertainties, however, it stands to reason that any prudent approach to climate risk management should consider RM as a complement to (rather than a substitute for) emissions controls.