SOME RESEARCH CHALLENGES IN THE ECONOMICS OF CLIMATE CHANGE

2016 ◽  
Vol 07 (02) ◽  
pp. 1650002 ◽  
Author(s):  
MARSHALL BURKE ◽  
MELANIE CRAXTON ◽  
CHARLES D. KOLSTAD ◽  
CHIKARA ONDA
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Integrated Assessment ◽  
Social Cost ◽  
Emissions Reduction ◽  
Social Cost Of Carbon ◽  
Relevant Research ◽  
Climate Policies ◽  
The Social ◽  
The World ◽  
Research Questions

The paper reviews progress in understanding the economics of climate change with an emphasis on identifying promising advances that are both significant and nonmarginal, as well as areas in which there are key gaps in our knowledge. We highlight several important areas in which important policy-relevant research questions remain: improving estimates of climate damage used for determining the social cost of carbon, refining integrated assessment models, and designing better climate policies. As the world moves to understand and implement country emissions reduction pledges in the context of the UNFCCC, understanding the economics of the problem will become even more important. The hope is that the paper is not only informative for existing economists already working in climate change economics, but that it also serves as an inspiration for economists in other areas, or even those in other disciplines, on ways in which to contribute to solving the problem at hand.

scholarly journals The Social Cost of Carbon, Greenhouse Gas Policies, and Politicized Benefit/Cost Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-76
Author(s):  
Benjamin Zycher
Keyword(s):  
Cost Analysis ◽  
Social Cost ◽  
Climate Impacts ◽  
Cost Calculation ◽  
Substantial Part ◽  
Social Cost Of Carbon ◽  
Benefit Cost Analysis ◽  
Climate Policies ◽  
The Social ◽  
Benefit Cost

Benefit/cost analysis can be a powerful tool for examination of proposed (or alternative) public policies, but, unsurprisingly, decisionmakers’ policy preferences can drive the analysis, rather than the reverse. That is the reality with respect to the Obama Administration computation of the social cost of carbon, a crucial parameter underlying the quantitative analysis of its proposed climate policies, now being reversed in substantial part by the Trump Administration. The Obama analysis of the social cost of carbon suffered from four central problems: the use of global benefits in the benefit/cost calculation, the failure to apply a 7% discount rate as required by Office of Management and Budget guidelines, the conflation of climate and GDP effects of climate policies, and the inclusion of non-climate effects of climate policies as co-benefits, as a tool with which to overcome the trivial temperature and other climate impacts of those policies. Moreover, the Obama analysis included in its “market failure” analysis the fuel price parameter that market forces are likely to incorporate fully. This Article suggests that policymakers and other interested parties would be wise to concentrate on the analytic minutia underlying policy proposals because policy analysis cannot be separated from politics.

scholarly journals EMPIRICALLY CONSTRAINED CLIMATE SENSITIVITY AND THE SOCIAL COST OF CARBON

2017 ◽  
Vol 08 (02) ◽  
pp. 1750006 ◽  
Author(s):  
KEVIN DAYARATNA ◽  
ROSS McKITRICK ◽  
DAVID KREUTZER
Keyword(s):  
Climate Sensitivity ◽  
Integrated Assessment ◽  
Social Cost ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Temperature Response ◽  
Social Cost Of Carbon ◽  
Ocean Heat Uptake ◽  
Monte Carlo Experiments ◽  
The Social ◽  
Dice Model

Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) require parameterization of both economic and climatic processes. The latter includes Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS), or the temperature response to doubling CO2 levels, and Ocean Heat Uptake (OHU) efficiency. ECS distributions in IAMs have been drawn from climate model runs that lack an empirical basis, and in Monte Carlo experiments may not be constrained to consistent OHU values. Empirical ECS estimates are now available, but have not yet been applied in IAMs. We incorporate a new estimate of the ECS distribution conditioned on observed OHU efficiency into two widely used IAMs. The resulting Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) estimates are much lower than those from models based on simulated ECS parameters. In the DICE model, the average SCC falls by approximately 40–50% depending on the discount rate, while in the FUND model the average SCC falls by over 80%. The span of estimates across discount rates also shrinks substantially.

scholarly journals Estimates of the social cost of carbon have not changed over time

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Tol
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Stationary Distribution ◽  
Social Cost ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Kernel Density ◽  
Social Cost Of Carbon ◽  
Almost Everywhere ◽  
The Social ◽  
Carbon Prices ◽  
Over Time

Abstract Some claim that as knowledge about climate change accumulates, the social cost of carbon increases. A meta-analysis of published estimates shows that this is not the case. Correcting for inflation and emission year and controlling for the discount rate, kernel density decomposition reveals a stationary distribution. Actual carbon prices are almost everywhere below the estimated social cost of carbon.

scholarly journals Fat Tails and the Social Cost of Carbon

2014 ◽  
Vol 104 (5) ◽  
pp. 544-546 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin L. Weitzman
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Relative Risk ◽  
Risk Aversion ◽  
Strong Influence ◽  
Social Cost ◽  
Relative Risk Aversion ◽  
Fat Tails ◽  
Social Cost Of Carbon ◽  
The Social ◽  
Climate Damages

At high enough greenhouse gas concentrations, climate change might conceivably cause catastrophic damages with small but non-negligible probabilities. If the bad tail of climate damages is sufficiently fat, and if the coefficient of relative risk aversion is greater than one, the catastrophe-reducing insurance aspect of mitigation investments could in theory have a strong influence on raising the social cost of carbon. In this paper I exposit the influence of fat tails on climate change economics in a simple stark formulation focused on the social cost of carbon. I then attempt to place the basic underlying issues within a balanced perspective.

scholarly journals Climate-economy feedbacks, temperature variability, and the social cost of carbon

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jarmo Kikstra ◽  
Paul Waidelich ◽  
James Rising ◽  
Dmitry Yumashev ◽  
Chris Hope ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Social Cost ◽  
Climate Change Impacts ◽  
Climate Impacts ◽  
Temperature Variability ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
Social Cost Of Carbon ◽  
Intergovernmental Panel ◽  
Country Level ◽  
The Social

<p>A key statistic describing climate change impacts is the “social cost of carbon” (SCC), the total market and non-market costs to society incurred by releasing a ton of CO<sub>2</sub>. Estimates of the SCC have risen in recent years, with improved understanding of the risk of climate change to various sectors, including agriculture [1], mortality [2], and economic growth [3].</p><p>The total risks of climate impacts also depend on the representation of human-climate feedbacks such as the effect of climate impacts on GDP growth and extremes (rather than a focus only on means), but this relationship has not been extensively studied [4-7]. In this paper, we update the widely used PAGE IAM to investigate how SCC distributions change with the inclusion of climate-economy feedbacks and temperature variability. The PAGE model has recently been improved with representations of permafrost thawing and surface albedo feedback, CMIP6 scenarios, and empirical market damage estimates [8]. We study how changes from PAGE09 to PAGE-ICE affected the SCC, increasing it up to 75%, with a SCC distribution with a mean around $300 for the central SSP2-4.5 scenario. Then we model the effects of different levels of the persistence of damages, for which the persistence parameter is shown to have enormous effects. Adding stochastic interannual regional temperature variations based on an analysis of observational temperature data [9] can increase the hazard rate of economic catastrophes changes the form of the distribution of SCC values. Both the effects of temperature variability and climate-economy feedbacks are region-dependent. Our results highlight the importance of feedbacks and extremes for the understanding of the expected value, distribution, and heterogeneity of climate impacts.</p><p> </p><p>[1] Moore, F. C., Baldos, U., Hertel, T., & Diaz, D. (2017). New science of climate change impacts on agriculture implies higher social cost of carbon. Nature communications, 8(1), 1607.</p><p>[2] Carleton, et al. (2018). Valuing the global mortality consequences of climate change accounting for adaptation costs and benefits.</p><p>[3] Ricke, K., Drouet, L., Caldeira, K., & Tavoni, M. (2018). Country-level social cost of carbon. Nature Climate Change, 8(10), 895.</p><p>[4] Burke, M., et al. (2016). Opportunities for advances in climate change economics. Science, 352(6283), 292–293. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad9634</p><p>[5] National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. (2017). Valuing climate damages: updating estimation of the social cost of carbon dioxide. National Academies Press.</p><p>[6] Stiglitz, J. E., et al.. (2017). Report of the high-level commission on carbon prices.</p><p>[7] Field, C. B., Barros, V., Stocker, T. F., & Dahe, Q. (2012). Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation: Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Vol. 9781107025). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139177245.009</p><p>[8] Yumashev, D., et al. (2019). Climate policy implications of nonlinear decline of Arctic land permafrost and other cryosphere elements. Nature Communications, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09863-x</p><p>[9] Brierley, C. M., Koch, A., Ilyas, M., Wennyk, N., & Kikstra, J. S. (2019, March 12). Half the world's population already experiences years 1.5°C warmer than preindustrial. https://doi.org/10.31223/osf.io/sbc3f</p>

scholarly journals THE AGGREGATION DILEMMA IN CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY EVALUATION

2018 ◽  
Vol 09 (03) ◽  
pp. 1850008 ◽  
Author(s):  
INGMAR SCHUMACHER
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Integrated Assessment ◽  
Social Cost ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Carbon Price ◽  
Integrated Assessment Model ◽  
Assessment Model ◽  
Social Cost Of Carbon ◽  
Integrated Assessment Models

We show that a policy maker who ignores regional data and instead relies on aggregated integrated assessment models is likely underestimating the carbon price and thus the required climate policy. Based on a simple theoretical model, we give conditions under which the Aggregation Dilemma is expected to play a role in climate change cost-benefit analysis. We then study the importance of the Aggregation Dilemma with the integrated assessment model RICE [Nordhaus and Boyer, (2000) Warning the World: Economic Models of Global Warming. MA: MIT Press]. Aggregating all regions of the RICE-99 model into one region yields a 40% lower social cost of carbon than the RICE model itself predicts. Based on extrapolating the results, a country-level integrated assessment model would give a more than eight times higher social cost of carbon compared to a fully aggregated model. We suggest that these tentative results require researchers to rethink the aggregation level used in integrated assessment models and to develop models at much lower levels of aggregation than currently available.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document