LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Ackerman, Frank; DeCanio, Stephen J.; Howarth, Richard B.; Sheeran, Kristen (2009)
Publisher: eScholarship, University of California
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: Global and Planetary Change, Earth Sciences, Meteorology/Climatology, Atmospheric Science
The integrated assessment models (IAMs) that economists use to analyze the expected costs and benefits of climate policies frequently suggest that the “optimal” policy is to go slowly and to do relatively little in the near term to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We trace this finding to the contestable assumptions and limitations of IAMs. For example, they typically discount future impacts from climate change at relatively high rates. This practice may be appropriate for short-term financial decisions but its extension to intergenerational environmental issues rests on several empirically and philosophically controversial hypotheses. IAMs also assign monetary values to the benefits of climate mitigation on the basis of incomplete information and sometimes speculative judgments concerning the monetary worth of human lives and ecosystems, while downplaying scientific uncertainty about the extent of expected damages. In addition, IAMs may exaggerate mitigation costs by failing to reflect the socially determined, path-dependent nature of technical change and ignoring the potential savings from reduced energy utilization and other opportunities for innovation. A better approach to climate policy, drawing on recent research on the economics of uncertainty, would reframe the problem as buying insurance against catastrophic, low-probability events. Policy decisions should be based on a judgment concerning the maximum tolerable increase in temperature and/or carbon dioxide levels given the state of scientific understanding. The appropriate role for economists would then be to determine the least-cost global strategy to achieve that target. While this remains a demanding and complex problem, it is far more tractable and epistemically defensible than the cost-benefit comparisons attempted by most IAMs.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Ackerman F, Finlayson IJ (2006) The economics of inaction on climate change: a sensitivity analysis. Clim Policy 6:509-526
    • Ackerman F, Heinzerling L (2004) Priceless: on knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. The New Press, New York
    • Amano A (1997) On some integrated assessment modeling debates. Paper presented at IPCC AsiaPacific Workshop on Integrated Assessment Models, United Nations University, Tokyo, March 10-12
    • Bella G (2006) A blueprint for optimal intertemporal consumption under environmental constraints: the modified green golden rule. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=936879
    • Bosello F, Roson R, Tol RSJ (2006) Economy-wide estimates of the implications of climate change: human health. Ecol Econ 58:579-591
    • Broome J (1994) Discounting the future. Phil Pub Aff 23:128-156
    • Buffett B, Archer D (2004) Global inventory of methane clathrate: sensitivity to changes in the deep ocean. Earth Planet Sci Lett 227:185-199
    • Campbell JY (2003) Consumption-based asset pricing. In: Constantinides GM, Harris M, Stultz R (eds) Handbook of the economics of finance. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 804-887
    • Carraro C, Gerlagh R, van der Zwaan B (2003) Endogenous technical change in environmental macroeconomics. Resour Energy Econ 25:1-10
    • Chichilnisky G (2000) An axiomatic approach to choice under uncertainty with catastrophic risks. Resour Energy Econ 22:221-231
    • Chichilnisky G, Heal G, Beltratti A (1995) The green golden rule. Econ Lett 49:175-179
    • Cline WR (1992) The economics of global warming. Institute for International Economics, Washington, DC
    • Cochrane JH (2005) Asset pricing, revised edn. Princeton University Press, Princeton
    • Committee on Abrupt Climate Change, National Research Council (2002) Abrupt climate change: inevitable surprises. National Academies, Washington, DC
    • Committee on Analysis of Global Change Assessments, National Research Council (2007) Analysis of global change assessments: lessons learned. National Academies, Washington, DC
    • Dasgupta P (2008) Discounting climate change. J Risk Uncertainty 37:141-169
    • Dasgupta PS, Heal GM (1979) Economic theory and exhaustible resources. Cambridge, Cambridge Univ Press
    • Dasgupta P, Mäler KG, Barrett S (1999) Intergenerational equity, social discount rates, and global warming. In: Portney PR, Weyant JP (eds) Discounting and intergenerational equity. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, pp 51-78
    • DeCanio SJ (2003) Economic analysis, environmental policy, and intergenerational justice in the Reagan administration: the case of the Montreal protocol. Int Environ Agreements 3:299-321
    • DeCanio SJ, Niemann P (2006) Equity effects of alternative assignments of global environmental rights. Ecol Econ 56:546-559
    • DeCanio SJ, Dibble C, Amir-Atefi K (2000) The importance of organizational structure for the adoption of innovations. Manage Sci 46:1285-1299
    • DeCanio SJ, Dibble C, Amir-Atefi K (2001) Organizational structure and the behavior of firms: implications for integrated assessment. Clim Change 48:487-514
    • Diamond PA, Hausman JA (1994) Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number? J Econ Perspect 8:45-64
    • Dietz S, Hope C, Stern N, Zenghelis D (2007) Reflections on the Stern review (1): a robust case for strong action to reduce the risks of climate change. World Econ 8:121-168
    • Edenhofer O, Lessmann K, Kemfert C, Grubb M, Köhler J (2006) Induced technological change: exploring its implications for the economics of atmospheric stabilization: synthesis report from the innovation modeling comparison project. The Energy Journal, Endogenous Technological Change and the Economics of Atmospheric Stabilisation Special Issue 27:57-107
    • Elliott RN, Langer T, Nadel (2006) Reducing oil use through energy efficiency: opportunities beyond light cars and trucks. American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, Washington, DC
    • Finman H, Laitner JA (2001) Industry, energy efficiency, and productivity improvements in proceedings of the 2001 ACEEE summer study on energy efficiency in industry. American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, Washington, DC
    • Frederick S, Loewenstein G, O'Donoghue T (2002) Time discounting and time preference. J Econ Lit XL:351-401
    • Gerlagh R (2007) Measuring the value of induced technological change. Energy Policy 35:5287-5297
    • Gillingham K, Newell RG, Pizer WA (2007) Modeling endogenous technological change for climate policy analysis. Resources for the Future, Washington DC
    • Gjerde J, Grepperud S, Kverndokk S (1999) Optimal climate policy under the possibility of a catastrophe. Resour Energy Econ 21:289-317
    • Goodstein E (2007) Economics and the environment, 5th edn. Wiley, New York, pp 409-411
    • Goulder LH, Schneider SH (1999) Induced technological change and the attractiveness of CO2 abatement policies. Resour Energy Econ 21:211-253
    • Hall DC, Behl RJ (2006) Integrating economic analysis and the science of climate instability. Ecol Econ 57:442-465
    • Hanemann WM (1994) Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. J Econ Perspect 8:19-43
    • Hoegh-Guldberg O, Mumby PJ, Hooten AJ, Steneck RS, Greenfield P, Gomez E, Harvell CD, Sale PF, Edwards AJ, Caldeira K, Knowlton CM, Eakin R, Iglesias-Prieto R, Muthiga N, Bradbury RH, Dubi A, Hatziolos ME (2007) Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification. Science 318:1737-1742
    • Hoel M, Sterner T (2007) Discounting and relative prices. Clim Change 84:265-280
    • Howarth RB (1996) Climate change and overlapping generations. Contemp Econ Policy 14:100-111
    • Howarth RB (1998) An overlapping generations model of climate-economy interactions. Scand J Econ 100:575-591
    • Howarth RB (2003) Discounting and uncertainty in climate change policy analysis. Land Econ 79:369-381
    • Howarth RB (2009) Discounting, uncertainty, and revealed time preference. Land Econ 85:24-40
    • Howarth RB, Norgaard RB (1992) Environmental valuation under sustainable development. Am Econ Rev 82:473-477
    • Howarth RB, Norgaard RB (2007) CO2 emissions: getting bang for the buck. Science 318:1865-1866
    • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1996) In: Bruce JP, Lee H, Haites EF (eds) Climate change 1995: economic and social dimensions of climate change, contribution of working group III to the second assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK
    • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001) In: Metz B, Davidson O, Swart R, Pan J (eds) Climate change 2001: contribution of working group III to the third assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK
    • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007a) Summary for policymakers. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis, contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK and New York
    • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007b) In: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE (eds) Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability, contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 273-314
    • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007c) Summary for policymakers. In: Metz B, Davidson OR, Bosch PR, Dave R, Meyer LA (eds) Contribution of Working group III to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 9-12
    • Interlaboratory Working Group on Energy-Efficient and Clean-Energy Technologies (2000) Scenarios for a clean energy future. Oak Ridge Natl Lab and Lawrence Berkeley Natl Lab, Oak Ridge, TN and Berkeley, CA. Available at: http://www.ornl.gov/sci/eere/cef/
    • International Association for Energy Economics (IAEE) (2006) Endogenous technological change and the economics of atmospheric stabilisation special issue. Energy J 27:1-276
    • Kahneman D, Tversky A (eds) (2000). Choices, values, and frames. Russell Sage Foundation, New York
    • Kelly DL, Kolstad CD (1999) Integrated assessment models for climate change control. In: Folmer H, Tietenberg T (eds) International yearbook of environmental and resource economics 1999/2000: a survey of current issues. Edward Elgar, pp 171-197
    • Kennedy M, Mrofka D, von der Borch C (2008) Snowball Earth termination by destabilization of equatorial permafrost methane clathrate. Nature 453:642-645
    • Krause F, DeCanio SJ, Hoerner A, Baer P (2002) Cutting carbon emissions at a profit (part I): opportunities for the United States. Contemp Econ Pol 20:339-365
    • Krause F, DeCanio SJ, Hoerner A, Baer P (2003) Cutting carbon emissions at a profit (part II): impacts on US competitiveness and jobs. Contemp Econ Pol 21:90-105
    • Laitner JA, DeCanio SJ, Peters I (2000) Incorporating behavioural, social, and organizational phenomena in the assessment of climate change mitigation options. In: Jochem E, Sathaye J, Bouille D (eds) Society, behaviour, and climate change mitigation. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp 1-64
    • Laitner JA, Hanson DA, Mintzer I, Leonard JA (2006) Adapting for uncertainty: a scenario analysis of US technology energy futures. Energy Stud Rev 14:120-135
    • Lenton TM, Held H, Kriegler E, Hall JW, Lucht W, Rahmstorf S, Schellnhuber J (2008) Tipping elements in the earth's climate system. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:1786-1793
    • Lovins AB (2005) More profit with less carbon. Sci Am Sept:74-82
    • Ludwig D, Brock WA, Carpenter SR (2005) Uncertainty in discount models and environmental accounting. Eco Soc 10:13
    • Manne AS (2004) Perspective Paper 1.2. In: Lomborg B (ed) Global crises, global solutions. Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, pp 49-55
    • Manne AS, Richels RG (1992) Buying greenhouse insurance: the economic costs of CO2 emissions limits. MIT, Cambridge
    • McKinsey Global Institute (2007) Curbing global energy demand growth: the energy productivity opportunity, pp 1-24. Available at: http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/publications/Curbing_Global_ Energy/index.asp
    • Mehra R (2003) The equity premium: why is it a puzzle? Financ Anal J:54-69
    • Mehra R, Prescott EC (1985) The equity premium: a puzzle. J Monet Econ 15:145-161
    • Mehra R, Prescott EC (2003) The equity premium in retrospect. In: Constantinides GM, Harris M, Stultz R (eds) Handbook of the economics of finance. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 889-938
    • Mendelsohn R (2004) Perspective paper 1.1. In: Lomborg B (ed) Global crises, global solutions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 44-48
    • Mendelsohn R, Morrison W, Schlesinger ME, Andronova NG (2000) Country-specific market impacts of climate change. Clim Change 45:553-569
    • Newell RG, Pizer WA (2003) Discounting the distant future: how much do uncertain rates increase valuations? J Environ Econ Manage 46:52-71
    • Nordhaus WD (2007a) A review of the stern review on the economics of climate change. J Econ Lit XLV:686-702
    • Nordhaus WD (2007b) The challenge of global warming: economic models and environmental policy. Available at http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/dice_mss_072407_all.pdf
    • Nordhaus WD, Boyer J (2000) Warming the world: economic models of global warming. MIT, Cambridge
    • Paltsev S, Reilly JM, Jacoby HD, Gurgel AC, Metcalf GE, Sokolov AP, Holak JF (2007) Assessment of US cap-and-trade proposals. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=994225
    • Pesaran H, Pettenuzzo D, Timmermann A (2007) Learning, structural instability, and present value calculations. Econ Rev 26(2-4):253-288
    • Portney PR (1994) The contingent valuation debate: why economists should care. J Econ Perspect 8:3-17
    • Ramsey FP (1928) A mathematical theory of saving. Econ J 38:543-559
    • Reilly J, Paltsev S, Felzer B, Wang X, Kicklighter D, Melillo J, Prinn R, Sarofim M, Sokolov A, Wang C (2007) Global economic effects of changes in crops, pasture, and forests due to changing climate, carbon dioxide, and ozone. Energy Policy 35:5370-5383
    • Roe GH, Baker MB (2007) Why is climate sensitivity so unpredictable? Science 318:629-632
    • Sandsmark M, Vennemo H (2007) A portfolio approach to climate investments: CAPM and endogenous risk. Environ Resour Econ 4:681-695
    • Schellnhuber HJ, Cramer W, Nakicenovic N, Wigley T, Yohe G (eds) (2006) Avoiding dangerous climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
    • Schlenker W, Hanemann WM, Fisher AC (2006) The impact of global warming on U.S. agriculture: an econometric analysis of optimal growing conditions. Rev Econ Stat 88:113-125
    • Shipley AM, Elliott RN (2006) Ripe for the picking: have we exhausted the low hanging fruit in the industrial sector? American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, Washington, DC, Report No. IE061. Available at: http://www.resourcesaver.org/file/toolmanager/ CustomO16C45F69267.pdf
    • Solow RM (1970) Growth theory: an exposition. Oxford University Press, New York
    • Stern N (2006) Stern review on the economics of climate change. Her Majesty's Treasury, London
    • Tol RSJ (1994) The damage costs of climate change-a note on tangibles and intangibles, applied to DICE. Energy Policy 22:436-438
    • Tol RSJ (2002a) Estimates of the damage costs of climate change: part I. Benchmark estimates. Environ Resour Econ 21:47-73
    • Tol RSJ (2002b) Estimates of the damage costs of climate change: part II. Dynamic estimates. Environ Resour Econ 21:135-160, p 157
    • Toth FL (2003) Integrated assessment of climate protection strategies-guest editorial. Clim Change 56:1-5
    • Toth FL, Mwandosya M (Co-ordinating Lead Authors), Carraro C, Christensen J, Edmonds J, Flannery B, Gay-Garcia C, Lee H, Meyer-Abich KM, Nikitina E, Rahman A, Richels R, Reqiu Y, Villavicencio A, Wake Y, Weyant J (Lead Authors), Byrne J, Lempert R, Meyer I, Underdal A (Contributing Authors), Pershing J, Shechter M (Review Editors) (2001) Decision-making frameworks, chapter 10 of climate change 2001: mitigation, contribution of working group III to the third assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
    • Toth FL, Bruckner T, Füssel HM, Leimbach M, Petschel-Held G (2003) Integrated assessment of long-term climate policies: part 1-model presentation. Clim Change 56:37-56
    • US National Assessment (2001) Climate change impacts on the united states: the potential consequences of climate variability and change. Report for the US Global Change Research Program. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK
    • Weitzman ML (2007a) A review of the Stern review on the economics of climate change. J Econ Lit XLV:703-724
    • Weitzman ML (2007b) Subjective expectations and asset-return puzzles. Am Econ Rev 97:1102-1130
    • Weitzman ML (2009) On modeling and interpreting the economics of catastrophic climate change. Rev Econ Stat 91:1-19
    • Worrell E, Laitner JA, Ruth M, Finman H (2003) Productivity benefits of industrial energy efficiency measures. Energy J 21:1081-1098
  • No related research data.
  • Discovered through pilot similarity algorithms. Send us your feedback.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article