Advertisement

Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 72, Issue 1, pp 51–75 | Cite as

Regional Climate Change Policy Under Positive Feedbacks and Strategic Interactions

  • William Brock
  • Anastasios XepapadeasEmail author
Article

Abstract

The surface albedo feedback, along with heat and moisture transport from the Equator to the Poles, is associated with polar amplification which is a well-established scientific fact. The present paper extends (Brock and Xepapadeas in Eur Econ Rev 94:263–282, 2017) to a non-cooperative framework with polar amplification, where regions decide emissions by maximizing own welfare. This can be regarded as a case of regional non-cooperation regarding climate change. Open loop and feedback solutions are derived and compared, in terms of temperature paths and welfare, with the cooperative solution. Carbon taxes which could bridge the gap between cooperative and non-cooperative emissions path are also derived. Finally, the framework is extended to a Ramsey set-up in which it is shown how the regional climate model can be coupled with standard optimal growth models. Numerical simulations confirm the theoretical results and provide insights about the size and the direction of deviations between the cooperative and the non-cooperative solutions.

Keywords

Arctic amplification Spatial heat and moisture transport Optimal policy Emission taxes Open loop Feedback Nash equilibrium 

JEL Classification

Q54 Q58 

References

  1. Alexeev VA, Jackson CH (2012) Polar amplification: is atmospheric heat transport important? Clim Dyn.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-012-1601-z Google Scholar
  2. Alexeev VA, Langen PL, Bates JR (2005) Polar amplification of surface warming on an aquaplanet in ‘ghost forcing’ experiments without sea ice feedbacks. Clim Dyn.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-005-0018-3 Google Scholar
  3. Başar T, Olsder GJ (1995) Dynamic noncooperative game theory. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Bekryaev R, Polyakov I, Alexeev V (2010) Role of polar amplification in long-term surface air temperature variations and modern arctic warming. J Clim 23:3888–3906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brock W, Engström G, Xepapadeas A (2014a) Energy balance climate models, damage reservoirs, and the time profile of climate change policy. In: Bernard L, Semmler W (eds) The Oxford handbook of the macroeconomics of global warming, chapter 3. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Brock W, Engström G, Xepapadeas A (2014b) Spatial climate-economic models in the design of optimal climate: policies across locations. Eur Econ Rev 69:78–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brock W, Hansen LP (2017) Wrestling with uncertainty in climate economic models. Mimeo. http://larspeterhansen.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/brockhansen-1.pdf
  8. Brock W, Xepapadeas A (2017a) Climate change policy under polar amplification. Eur Econ Rev 94:263–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brock W, Xepapadeas A (2017b) Spatial heat transport, polar amplification and climate change policy. In: Chichilnisky G, Rezai A (eds) Handbook of climate change. Oxford University Press, Oxford (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  10. Cai Y, Brock W, Xepapadeas A (2017) Climate change economics and heat transport across the globe: spatial-DSICE. Paper presented at the ASSA annual meeting in Chicago, 6–8 Jan 2017. http://purl.umn.edu/251833
  11. Castruccio S, McInerney DJ, Stein ML, Crouch F, Jacob RL, Moyer E (2014) Statistical emulation of climate model projections based on precomputed GCM Runs. J Clim 27:1829–1844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dietz S, Stern N (2015) Endogenous growth, convexity of damage and climate risk: how Nordhaus’ framework supports deep cuts in carbon emissions. Econ J 125(583):547–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dockner EJ, Long NV (1993) International pollution control: cooperative versus noncooperative strategies. J Environ Econ Manag 24:13–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fountain H (2017) Alaska’s permafrost is thawing New York Times, 23 Aug 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/23/climate/alaska-permafrost-thawing.html
  15. Francis J (2017) Why are Arctic linkages to extreme weather still up in the air? Bull Am Meteorol Soc.  https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0006.1 Google Scholar
  16. Francis J, Skific N (2015) Evidence linking rapid Arctic warming to mid-latitude weather patterns. Philos Trans R Soc A.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2014.0170 Google Scholar
  17. Francis J, Vavrus S (2014) Evidence for a wavier jet stream in response to rapid Arctic warming. Environ Res Lett 10:1–12Google Scholar
  18. Gasparrini A, Guo Y, Hashizume M, Lavigne E, Zanobetti A, Schwartz J, Tobias A, Tong S, Rocklöv J, Forsberg B, Leone M, De Sario M, Bell ML, Leon Guo Y-L, Wu C-F, Kan H, Yi S-M, de Sousa ZM, Stagliorio Coelho PH, Nascimento Saldiva Y, Kim HH, Armstrong B (2015) Mortality risk attributable to high and low ambient temperature: a multicountry observational study. The Lancet 386:369–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hassler J, Krusell P, Smith AA (2016) Environmental macroeconomics. In: Taylor JB, Uhlig H (eds) Handbook of macroeconomics, Chapter 24, vol 2B. Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Hsiang S, Kopp R, Jina A, Rising J, Delgado M, Mohan S, Rasmussen DJ, Muir-Wood R, Wilson P, Oppenheimer M, Larsen K, Houser T (2017) Estimating economic damage from climate change in the United States. Science 356:1362–1369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. IPCC (2013) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM (eds) Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Knutti R (2013) The relationship between global emissions and global temperature rise. https://unfccc.int/files/science/workstreams/the_2013-2015_review/application/pdf/7_knutti.reto.3sed2.pdf
  23. Langen PL, Alexeev VA (2007) Polar amplification as a preferred response in an idealized aquaplanet GCM. Clim Dyn 29:305–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Leduc M, Matthews HD, de Elía R (2016) Regional estimates of the transient climate response to cumulative \(\text{ CO }_{2}\) emissions. Nat Clim Change 6:474–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lenton T, Held H, Kriegler E, Hall J, Lucht W, Rahmstorf S, Schellnhuber HJ (2008) Tipping elements in the Earth’s climate system. PNAS 105(6):1786–1793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. MacDougall AH (2016) The transient response to cumulative \(\text{ CO }_{2}\) emissions: a review. Curr Clim Change Rep 2:39–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. MacDougal AH, Friedlingstein P (2015) The origin and limits of the near proportionality between climate warming and cumulative CO\(_2\) emissions. J Clim 28:4217–4230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. MacDougall AH, Swart NC, Knutti R (2017) The uncertainty in the transient climate response to cumulative CO\( _{2}\) emissions arising from the uncertainty in physical climate parameters. Am Meteorol Soc.  https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0205.1 Google Scholar
  29. Matthews HD, Gillett NP, Stott PA, Zickfield K (2009) The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions. Nature 459:829–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Matthews HD, Solomon S, Pierrehumbert R (2012) Cumulative carbon as a policy framework for achieving climate stabilization. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci 370(1974):4365–4379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nerem R, Beckley B, Fasullo J, Hamlington B, Masters D, Mitchum GT (2018) Climate-change-driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era. PNAS.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1717312115 Google Scholar
  32. Nordhaus W, Sztorc P (2013) DICE 2013-R: introduction and user’s manual. Technical report, Yale UniversityGoogle Scholar
  33. North GR (1975a) Analytical solution to a simple climate model with diffusive heat transport. J Atmos Sci 32:1301–1307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. North GR (1975b) Theory of energy-balance climate models. J Atmos Sci 32:2033–2043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. North GR, Cahalan RF, Coakely JA (1981) Energy balance climate models. Rev Geophys Space Phys 19(1):91–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pierrehumbert RT (2014) Short-lived climate pollution. Annu Rev Earth Planet Sci 42:341–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rowat C (2007) Non-linear strategies in a linear quadratic differential game. J Econ Dyn Control 31:3179–3202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schuur EAG, McGuire AD, Schädel C, Grosse G, Harden JW, Hayes DJ, Hugelius G, Koven CD, Kuhry P, Lawrence DM, Natali SM, Olefeldt D, Romanovsky VE, Schaefer K, Turetsky MR, Treat CC, Vonk JE (2015) Climate change and the permafrost carbon feedback. Nature 520:171–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tokarska KB, Gillett NP, Weaver AJ, Arora VK, Eby M (2016) The climate response to five trillion tonnes of carbon. Nat Clim Change 6:851–855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. van der Ploeg F, Rezai A (2016) Cumulative emissions, unburnable fossil fuel, and the optimal carbon tax. Technol Forecast Soc Change 116:216–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Whiteman G, Hope C, Wadhams P (2013) Climate science: vast costs of Arctic change. Nature 499:401–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wu W, North GR (2007) Thermal decay modes of a 2-D energy balance climate model. Tellus A 59(5):618–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Economics DepartmentUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA
  2. 2.University of MissouriColumbiaUSA
  3. 3.Department of International and European Economic StudiesAthens University of Economics and BusinessAthensGreece
  4. 4.Department of EconomicsUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations