Climatic Change

, Volume 117, Issue 3, pp 531–543 | Cite as

Critical issues for the calculation of the social cost of CO2: why the estimates from PAGE09 are higher than those from PAGE2002

Article

Abstract

PAGE09 is an updated version of the PAGE2002 integrated assessment model (Hope 2011a). The default PAGE09 model gives a mean estimate of the social cost of CO2 (SCCO2) of $106 per tonne of CO2, compared to $81 from the PAGE2002 model used in the Stern review (Stern 2007). The increase is the net result of several improvements that have been incorporated into the PAGE09 model in response to the critical debate around the Stern review: the adoption of the A1B socio-economic scenario, rather than A2 whose population assumptions are now thought to be implausible; the use of ranges for the two components of the discount rate, rather than the single values used in the Stern review; a distribution for the climate sensitivity that is consistent with the latest estimates from IPCC 2007a; less adaptation than in PAGE2002, particularly in the economic sector, which was criticised for possibly being over-optimistic; and a more theoretically-justified basis of valuation that gives results appropriate to a representative agent from the focus region, the EU. The effect of each of these adjustments is quantified and explained.

Supplementary material

10584_2012_633_MOESM1_ESM.docx (33 kb)
ESM 1(DOCX 30.4 KB)
10584_2012_633_MOESM2_ESM.docx (33 kb)
ESM 2(DOCX 30.7 KB)
10584_2012_633_MOESM3_ESM.docx (29 kb)
ESM 3(DOCX 26.7 KB)
10584_2012_633_MOESM4_ESM.docx (29 kb)
ESM 4(DOCX 25.9 KB)
10584_2012_633_MOESM5_ESM.docx (28 kb)
ESM 5(DOCX 25.5 KB)
10584_2012_633_MOESM6_ESM.docx (116 kb)
ESM 6(DOCX 116 kb)

References

  1. Ackerman F, Stanton EA (2011) Climate risks and carbon prices: Revising the social cost of carbon, Economics Discussion Papers, No. 2011-40, http://hdl.handle.net/10419/49935
  2. Ackerman F, Stanton EA, Hope C, Alberth S (2009) Did the Stern review underestimate US and global climate damages? Energy Policy 37(7):2717–2721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ADB (2009) The economics of climate change in Southeast Asia: A regional review. Asian Development Bank, PhilippinesGoogle Scholar
  4. Andrews DG, Allen MR (2008) Diagnosis of climate models in terms of transient climate response and feedback response time. Atmos Sci Lett 9:7–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anthoff D, Nicholls RJ, Tol RSJ, Vafeidis AT (2006) Global and regional exposure to large rises in sea-level: A sensitivity analysis. Working Paper 96, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Norwich, UKGoogle Scholar
  6. Anthoff D, Hepburn C, Tol RSJ (2009) Equity weighting and the marginal damage costs of climate change. Ecol Econ 68(3):836–849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dietz S, Hope C, Stern N, Zenghelis D (2007) Reflections on the Stern review (1), a robust case for strong action to reduce the risks of climate change. World Econ 8(1):121–168Google Scholar
  8. Eliasch J (2008) Climate change: Financing global forests. Office of Climate Change, UKGoogle Scholar
  9. Evans DJ (2005) The elasticity of marginal utility of consumption: estimates for 20 OECD countries. Fisc Stud 26:197–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hansen JE (2007) Scientific reticence and sea level rise. Environ Res Lett 2:024002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Hope C (2006b) The social cost of carbon: what does it actually depend on? Clim Pol 6(5):566–572Google Scholar
  13. Hope C (2008) Discount rates, equity weights and the social cost of carbon. Energy Econ 30(3):1011–1019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hope C (2011a) The PAGE09 integrated assessment model: A technical description, Judge Business School Working paper 4/2011, http://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/research/working_papers/2011/wp1104.pdf, also attached as supplementary material to this paper
  15. Hope C (2011b) The social cost of CO2 from the PAGE09 model, Judge Business School Working paper 5/2011, submitted to the economics e-journal, http://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/research/working_papers/2011/wp1105.pdf
  16. IPCC (2007a) Climate change 2007, the physical science basis, summary for policymakers. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC Secretariat SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  17. IPCC (2007b) Climate change 2007, impacts, adaptation and vulnerability, summary for policymakers. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC Secretariat SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  18. Lenton TM, Held H, Kriegler E, Hall JW, Lucht W, Rahmstorf S, Schellnhuber HJ (2008) Tipping elements in the Earth’s climate system. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105(6):1786–1793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nakicenovic N, Swart R (2000) Special report on emissions scenarios (SRES). Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. Nicholls RJ, Tol RSJ, Vafeidis AT (2008) Global estimates of the impact of a collapse of the west antarctic ice sheet: an application of fund. Clim Chang 91(1–2):171–191. doi:10.1007/s10584-008-9424-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nordhaus WD (1994) Expert opinion on climate change. Am Sci 82:45–51Google Scholar
  22. Nordhaus WD (2007) A review of the Stern review on the economics of climate change. J Econ Lit 45(3):686–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pearce D (2003) Conceptual framework for analysing the distributive impacts of environmental policies, workshop on the distribution of benefits and costs of environmental policies: analysis, evidence and policy, OECD Environment Directorate, March 4th–5th, 2003, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/28/63/38435759.pdf
  24. Stern N (2007) The economics of climate change: The Stern review. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Tol RSJ (2002) New estimates of the damage costs of climate change, part II: dynamic estimates. Environ Resour Econ 21:135–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tol RSJ, Yohe GW (2006) A review of the Stern review. World Econ 7(4):233–250Google Scholar
  27. Treasury HM (2003) Appraisal and evaluation in central government, the green book. HMSO, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. US Department of Commerce (2011) Gross domestic product: Implicit price deflator. http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/GDPDEF.txt
  29. Weitzman ML (2009) On modelling and interpreting the economics of catastrophic climate change. Rev Econ Stat 91(1):1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations