Climatic Change

, Volume 108, Issue 3, pp 519–541 | Cite as

High impact, low probability? An empirical analysis of risk in the economics of climate change

  • Simon Dietz


To what extent does economic analysis of climate change depend on low-probability, high-impact events? This question has received a great deal of attention lately, with the contention increasingly made that climate damage could be so large that societal willingness to pay to avoid extreme outcomes should overwhelm other seemingly important assumptions, notably on time preference. This paper provides an empirical examination of some key theoretical points, using a probabilistic integrated assessment model. New, fat-tailed distributions are inputted for key parameters representing climate sensitivity and economic costs. It is found that welfare estimates do strongly depend on tail risks, but for a set of plausible assumptions time preference can still matter.


Marginal Utility Climate Sensitivity Damage Function Integrate Assessment Model Welfare Cost 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ackerman F, Stanton EA et al (2009) Fat tails, exponents, and extreme uncertainty: simulating catastrophe in DICE. Stockholm Environment Institute Working Paper WP-US-0901Google Scholar
  2. Anthoff D, Tol RSJ (2009) The impact of climate change on the balanced-growth-equivalent: an application of FUND. Environ Resour Econ 43(3):351–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aumann RJ, Kurz M (1977) Power and taxes. Econometrica 199:1137–1161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Costello CJ, Neubert MG et al (2010) Bounded uncertainty and climate change economics. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107(18):8108–8110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dasgupta P (2007) Commentary: the Stern Review’s economics of climate change. Natl Inst Econ Rev 199:4–7Google Scholar
  6. Foncel J, Treich N (2005) Fear of ruin. J Risk Uncertain 31(3):289–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Heal G (2008) Climate economics: a meta-review and some suggestions for future research. Rev Environ Econ Policy 3(1):4–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Henry C, Henry M (2002) Formalization and applications of the precautionary principle. Discussion Paper 2002009. Louvain, Belgium, Université Catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et SocialesGoogle Scholar
  9. Hope C (2006a) The marginal impact of CO2 from PAGE2002: an integrated assessment model incorporating the IPCC’s five reasons for concern. Integr Assess 6(1):19–56Google Scholar
  10. Hope C (2006b) The social cost of carbon: what does it actually depend on? Climate Policy 6(5):566–572Google Scholar
  11. Hope C (2008) Discount rates, equity weights and the social cost of carbon. Energy Econ 30(3):1011–1019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. IPCC (2007) 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 University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Mastrandrea MD, Schneider SH (2004) Probabilistic integrated assessment of “dangerous” climate change. Science 304:571–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Meehl GA, Stocker TF et al (2007) Global climate projections. 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 University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Nakicenovic N, Swart R (eds) (2000) Special report on emissions scenarios: a special report of working group III of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  16. Nordhaus WD (2008) A question of balance: weighing the options on global warming policies. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  17. Nordhaus WD (2009) An analysis of the dismal theorem. Cowles foundation discussion paper no 1686, Yale UniversityGoogle Scholar
  18. Nordhaus WD, Boyer J (2000) Warming the world: economic models of global warming. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  19. Peck SC, Teisberg TJ (1992) CETA: a model for carbon emissions trajectory assessment. Energy J 13(1):55–77Google Scholar
  20. Roughgarden T, Schneider SH (1999) Climate change policy: quantifying uncertainties for damages and optimal carbon taxes. Energy Policy 27:415–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sokolov AP, Stone PH et al (2009) Probabilistic forecast for 21st century climate based on uncertainties in emissions (without policy) and climate parameters. J Climate. doi: 10.1175/2009JCLI2863.1 Google Scholar
  22. Stainforth DA, Aina T et al (2005) Uncertainty in predictions of the climate response to rising levels of greenhouse gases. Nature 433(7024):403–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stern N (2007) The economics of climate change: the stern review. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. Stern N (2008) The economics of climate change: Richard T. Ely lecture. Am Econ Rev, Pap Proc 98(2):1–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tol RSJ (1999) Safe policies in an uncertain climate: an application of FUND. Glob Environ Change 9:221–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tol RSJ (2003) Is the uncertainty about climate change too large for expected cost-benefit analysis. Clim Change 56:265–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tol RSJ (2005) The marginal damage costs of carbon dioxide emissions: an assessment of the uncertainties. Energy Policy 33(16):2064–2074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Viscusi WK, Aldy JE (2003) The value of a statistical life: a critical review of market estimates throughout the world. J Risk Uncertain 27(1):5–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. van Vuuren DP, Lowe J et al. (2009). How well do IAMs model climate change? IARU Scientific Congress “Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges and Decisions”, Copenhagen, 10–12 MarchGoogle Scholar
  30. Warren R, Hope C et al (2006) Spotlighting impacts functions in integrated assessment: research report prepared for the Stern Review on the economics of climate change. Working Paper 91, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change ResearchGoogle Scholar
  31. Warren R, Mastrandrea M et al (2009) Variation in the climatic response to SRES emissions scenarios in integrated assessment models. Mimeo. Norwich, Tyndall Centre, University of East AngliaGoogle Scholar
  32. Weitzman ML (2007) A review of the stern review on the economics of climate change. J Econ Lit 45(3):703–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Weitzman ML (2009) On modeling and interpreting the economics of catastrophic climate change. Rev Econ Stat 91(1):1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Weitzman ML (2010) What is the “damages function” for global warming and what difference might it make? Clim Change Econ 1(1):57–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yohe GW (2003) More trouble for cost-benefit analysis. Clim Change 56(3):235–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, and Department of Geography and EnvironmentLondon School of Economics and Political Science (LSE)LondonUK

Personalised recommendations