Climatic Change

, Volume 110, Issue 3–4, pp 575–595 | Cite as

The bias of integrated assessment models that ignore climate catastrophes

  • Noah Kaufman


Climate scientists currently predict there is a small but real possibility that climate change will lead to civilization threatening catastrophic events. Martin Weitzman has used this evidence along with his controversial “Dismal Theorem” to argue that integrated assessment models of climate change cannot be used to determine an optimal price for carbon dioxide. In this paper, I provide additional support for Weitzman’s conclusions by running numerical simulations to estimate risk premiums toward climate catastrophes. Compared to the assumptions found in most integrated assessment models, I incorporate into the model a more realistic range of uncertainty for both climate catastrophes and societal risk aversion. The resulting range of risk premiums indicates that the conclusions drawn from integrated assessment models that do not incorporate the potential for climate catastrophes are too imprecise to support any particular policy recommendation. The analysis of this paper is more straightforward and less technical than Weitzman’s, and therefore the conclusions should be accessible to a wider audience.


Risk Aversion Risk Premium Representative Agent Relative Risk Aversion Integrate Assessment Model 
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.


  1. Ackerman F, DeCanio S, Howarth R, Sheeran, K (2009) Limitations of integrated assessment models. Clim Change 95(3–4).Google Scholar
  2. Anthoff D, Tol R, Yohe G (2009) Risk aversion, time preference, and the social cost of carbon. Environ Res Lett 4, April–June 2009.Google Scholar
  3. Baer P, Risbey J (2009) Uncertainty and assessment of the issues posed by urgent climate change: an editorial comment. Climc Change 92:31–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bansal R, Yaron A (2004) Risks for the long run: a potential resolution of asset pricing puzzles. J Finance 59(4).Google Scholar
  5. Bantwal V, Kunreuther H (2000) A cat bond premium puzzle? J Psychol Financ Market 1(1):76–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barsky R, Juster F, Kimball M, Shapiro M (1997) Preference parameters and behavioral heterogeneity: an experimental approach in the health and retirement study. Q J Econ 112(2):537–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dasgupta P (2007) Commentary: the Stern review’s economics of climate change. Natl Inst Econ Rev 2007(199):4Google Scholar
  8. Environmental Protection Agency: Economic Analyses (July 30, 2009). (available online at:
  9. Epstein L, Zin S (1989) Substitution, risk aversion, and the temporal behavior of consumption and asset returns: a theoretical framework. Econometrica 57(4):937–969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fussel HM (2009) An updated assessment of the risks from climate change based on research published since the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Clim Change 97:469–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ha-Duong M, Treich N (2004) Risk aversion, intergenerational equity and climate change. Environ Resourc Econ 28:195–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Halek M, Eisenhauer J (2001) Demography of risk aversion. J Risk Insur 68(1).Google Scholar
  13. Hansen J (July 24, 2009) G-8 Failure Reflects U.S. Failure on Climate Change. The Huffington Post (available online at:
  14. Heal G (2009) The economics of climate change: a post-stern perspective. Clim Change 96:275–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heal G, Kristrom B (2002) Uncertainty and climate change. Environ Resour Econ 22:3–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government (2010) Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis (Under Executive Order 12866). February 2010.Google Scholar
  17. Janacek K (2004) What is a realistic aversion to risk for real-world individual investors? Working paper, Carnegie Mellon University (available online at:
  18. Kaltenbrunner G, Lochstoer L (2008) Long-run risk through consumption smoothing. EFA 2007 Ljubljana Meetings Paper (available online at SSRN:
  19. Kaplow L (2005) The value of a statistical life and the coefficient of relative risk aversion. J Risk Uncertainty 31(1).Google Scholar
  20. Kaufmann (1997) Assessing the DICE model: uncertainty associated with the emission and retention of greenhouse gases. Climc Change 35:435–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. King R, Plosser C, Rebelo S (1990) Production, growth and business cycles: technical appendix. Comput Econ 20:87–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Koopmans T (1960) Stationary ordinal utility and impatience. Econometrica 28(2):287–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kreps D, Porteus E (1978) Temporal resolution of uncertainty and dynamic choice theory. Econometrica 46(1):185–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mehra R, Prescott E (1985) The equity puzzle. J Monetary Econ 15:146–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nordhaus W (2008) A question of balance: weighing the options on global warming policies (Book). Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  26. Nordhaus W (2009) An analysis of the dismal theorem. Cowles Foundation Discussion Paper, No. 1686, Yale University.Google Scholar
  27. Normandin M, St. Amour P (1998) Substitution, risk aversion, taste shocks and equity premia. J Appl Econometrics 13(3):265–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ogaki M (2001) Decreasing relative risk aversion and tests of risk sharing. Econometrica 69(2).Google Scholar
  29. Palsson A (1996) Does the degree of relative risk aversion vary with household characteristics? J Econ Psychol 17(6).Google Scholar
  30. Plambeck E, Hope C (1995) PAGE1995: An updated valuation of the impacts of global warming. Energy Policy 24(9):783–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Quiggin J (2008) Uncertainty and climate change policy. Econ Anal Pol 38(2).Google Scholar
  32. Ramsey FP (1928) A mathematical theory of saving. Econ J 38(152):543–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Risbey J, Kandlikar M, Patwardhan A (1996) Assessing integrated assessments. Climc Change 34:369–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Roughgarden T, Schneider S (1999) Climate change policy: quantifying uncertainties for damages and optimal carbon taxes. Energy Policy 27:415–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tol R (2005) The marginal damage cost of carbon dioxide emissions: an assessment of the uncertainties. Energy Policy 33:2064–2074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Weitzman M (2009a) On modeling and interpreting the economics of catastrophic climate change. Rev Econ Stat 91(1):1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Weitzman M (2009b) Reactions to the Nordhaus Critique. (available online at:
  38. Yohe G (2009) Toward an integrated framework derived from a risk-management approach to climate change: an editorial comment. Clim Change 95:325–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of Texas at AustinAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations