An Even Sterner Review: Introducing Relative Prices into the Discounting Debate

Review of Environmental Economics and Policy (Impact Factor: 2.15). 01/2008; 2(1):61-76.
Source: RePEc

ABSTRACT The existing literature on climate change offers little guidance on why one specification or another of a "damages function" has been selected. Ideally, one wants a functional form that captures reality adequately, yet is analytically sufficiently tractable to yield useful results. This paper gives two plausible risk aversion axioms that a reduced form utility function of temperature change and the capacity to produce consumption might reasonably be required to satisfy. These axioms indicate that the standard-practice multiplicative specification of disutility damages from global warming, as well as its additive analogue, are special cases of this paper's theoretically derived utility function. Empirically, the paper gives some numerical examples demonstrating the surprisingly strong implications for economic policy of the distinction between additive and multiplicative disutility damages.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Coastal and other area resources such as tidal wetlands, seagrasses, coral reefs, wetlands, and other ecosystems are often harmed by environmental damage that might be inflicted by human actions, or could occur from natural hazards such as hurricanes. Society may wish to restore resources to offset the harm, or receive compensation if this is not possible, but faces difficult choices among potential compensation projects. The optimal amount of restoration efforts can be determined by non-market valuation methods, service-to-service, or resource-to-resource approaches such as habitat equivalency analysis (HEA). HEA scales injured resources and lost services on a one-to-one trade-off basis. Here, we present the main differences between the HEA approach and other non-market valuation approaches. Particular focus is on the role of the social discount rate, which appears in the HEA equation and underlies calculations of the present value of future damages. We argue that while HEA involves elements of economic analysis, the assumption of a one-to-one trade-off between lost and restored services sometimes does not hold, and then other non-market economic valuation approaches may help in restoration scaling or in damage determination.
    AMBIO A Journal of the Human Environment 09/2013; 42(5/September):628-43. · 2.30 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Climate policy recommendations differ widely because of disagreements over what discount rates to use. Disagreement reduces the impact of economic models and signals a need for improved methodology. The problem is related to the choice of intergenerational welfare functions. A first questionnaire finds that the standard welfare function (SWF) fails to capture people's dislike of overshooting and fluctuating consumption paths. A second questionnaire reveals that when very-long-term sustainability of well-being is threatened, people's implicit discount rates resemble the low estimates used by the Stern Review. An alternative welfare function (AWF) reflecting consumption growth can potentially capture the preference structure revealed in both questionnaires. This makes the AWF an interesting candidate when searching for policies for sustainable development under uncertainty. Importantly, the questionnaires demonstrate that people are able to choose among policies by inspecting time graphs of policy consequences. Thus, it is possible to circumvent the complexities and disagreements introduced by welfare functions and discounting.
    Ecological Economics 01/2014; 102:158–166. · 2.86 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Climate change policies must trade off uncertainties about future warming, about the social and ecological impacts of warming, and about the cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We show that laxer carbon targets produce broader distributions for climate damages, skewed towards severe outcomes. However, if potential low-carbon technologies fill overlapping niches, then more stringent carbon targets produce broader distributions for the cost of reducing emissions, skewed towards high-cost outcomes. We use the technology-rich GCAM integrated assessment model to assess the robustness of 450 and 500 ppm carbon targets to each uncertain factor. The 500 ppm target provides net benefits across a broad range of futures. The 450 ppm target provides net benefits only when impacts are greater than conventionally assumed, when multiple technological breakthroughs lower the cost of abatement, or when evaluated with a low discount rate. Policy evaluations are more sensitive to uncertainty about abatement technology and impacts than to uncertainty about warming.
    Environmental Research Letters 08/2013; 8(3):034019. · 3.58 Impact Factor

Full-text (3 Sources)

Available from
May 21, 2014