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

Review of Environmental Economics and Policy (Impact Factor: 2.15). 04/2008; 2(1):61-76. DOI: 10.1093/reep/rem024
Source: RePEc


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.

Download full-text


Available from: Thomas Sterner,
  • Source
    • "For this type of climate change damage a negative discount rate that reflects this increasing scarcity is more logical, as originally proposed by Fisher and Krutilla (1975). Sterner and Persson (2008) and Gollier (2010) offer additional arguments for using a lower ecological than economic discount rate. Gollier argues that the difference is determined by the distance between the ecological and the economic growth rates. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: An expanding branch of research has estimated the potential costs of climate change, which are often expressed as the “Social Cost of Carbon” (SCC) or the costs of an additional ton of CO2 emissions. Estimates of the SCC can be used by policy makers to evaluate climate change policies and greenhouse gas emission reduction projects by means of cost–benefit analyses (CBAs). Such analyses are complicated by the wide range of SCC values that have been reported in the literature, and the large uncertainties involved in estimating the potential economic impacts and related costs of climate change. This study presents a critical review of the reported SCC estimates by examining some neglected consequences of climate change, uncertain and extreme scenarios of climate change, the discounting of future climate change effects, the treatment of individual risk aversion, and assumptions about social welfare. In view of the many uncertainties and omissions in conventional cost–benefit analyses of climate impacts and the SCC, alternative approaches to decision-making should be considered for climate policy.
    Ecological Economics 06/2015; 114. DOI:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.015 · 2.72 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Examples of adaptive coping include migration and changing crop technology. General equilibrium effects include relative price changes and substitution responses (Sterner & Persson, 2008). Transformative adaptation, a complete revamp of a social–ecological system in order to become adaptive, would be incorporated in this model as either adaptive coping or protective adaptation. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In order to increase adaptive capacity and empower people to cope with their changing environment, it is imperative to develop decision-support tools that help people understand and respond to challenges and opportunities. Some such tools have emerged in response to social and economic shifts in light of anticipated climatic change. Climate change will play out at the local level, and adaptive behaviours will be influenced by local resources and knowledge. Community-based insights are essential building blocks for effective planning. However, in order to mainstream and scale up adaptation, it is useful to have mechanisms for evaluating the benefits and costs of candidate adaptation strategies. This article reviews relevant literature and presents an argument in favour of using various modelling tools directed at these considerations. The authors also provide evidence for the balancing of qualitative and quantitative elements in assessments of programme proposals considered for financing through mechanisms that have the potential to scale up effective adaptation, such as the Adaptation Fund under the Kyoto Protocol. The article concludes that it is important that researchers and practitioners maintain flexibility in their analyses, so that they are themselves adaptable, to allow communities to best manage the emerging challenges of climate change and the long-standing challenges of development.
    Climate and Development 11/2014; 6(4). DOI:10.1080/17565529.2014.912196 · 1.21 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Different from Q1 and Q2, paths are said to represent " well-being per person — reflecting private consumption, public services, and services provided by nature. " The importance of the latter for integrated assessment models is demonstrated by (Hoel and Sterner, 2007) and (Sterner and Persson, 2008). The purpose of the second questionnaire is to see how these types of overshoots influence implicit discount rates. "
    [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 06/2014; 102:158–166. DOI:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.04.003 · 2.72 Impact Factor
Show more