Advertisement

Climate Policy Must Favour Mitigation Over Adaptation

  • Ingmar SchumacherEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

In climate change policy, adaptation tends to be viewed as being as important as mitigation. In this article we present a simple yet general argument for which mitigation must be preferred to adaptation at the global level. The argument rests on the observation that mitigation is a public good while adaptation is a private one. We show that the more one teases out the public good nature of mitigation, the lower will be the incentives to invest in the private good adaptation while it increases a policy maker’s incentives to invest in the public good mitigation. Conclusively, private adaptation yields a significant loss to global welfare. We then discuss what this implies for the current state of the art literature and what should be the lesson for future research.

Keywords

Mitigation Adaptation Aggregation Public good Private good 

JEL Classification

Q58 Q54 

Notes

References

  1. Agrawala S, Bosello F, Carraro C, De Cian E, Lanzi E et al (2011) Adapting to climate change: costs, benefits, and modelling approaches. Int Rev Environ Resour Econ 5(3):245–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrett S (2008) Dikes vs. windmills: climate treatise and adaptation. Johns Hopkins University, School of Advanced International Studies, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  3. Bosello F, Carraro C, De Cian E (2010) Climate policy and the optimal balance between mitigation, adaptation and unavoided damage. Clim Change Econ 1(2):71–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bosello F, Carraro C, De Cian E (2013) Adaptation can help mitigation: an integrated approach to post-2012 climate policy. Environ Develop Econ 18(3):270–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bréchet T, Hritonenko N, Yatsenko Y (2013) Adaptation and mitigation in long-term climate policy. Environ Resour Econ 55(2):217–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brechet T, Hritonenko N, Yatsenko Y et al (2014) Domestic environmental policy and international cooperation for global commons. Technical Report, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE)Google Scholar
  7. Brock WA, Taylor MS (2003) The kindergarten rule of sustainable growth. Technical Report, National Bureau of Economic ResearchGoogle Scholar
  8. Buob S, Stephan G (2011) To mitigate or to adapt: How to confront global climate change. Eur J Political Econ 27(1):1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chamberlin J (1974) Provision of collective goods as a function of group size. Am Political Sci Rev 68(02):707–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Bruin KC, Dellink RB, Tol RSJ (2009) AD-DICE: an implementation of adaptation in the DICE model. Clim Change 95(1–2):63–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Zeeuw A, Zemel A (2012) Regime shifts and uncertainty in pollution control. J Econ Dyn Control 36(7):939–950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ebert U, Welsch H (2011) Optimal response functions in global pollution problems can be upward-sloping: accounting for adaptation. Environ Econ Policy Stud 13(2):129–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ebert U, Welsch H (2012) Adaptation and mitigation in global pollution problems: economic impacts of productivity, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. Environ Resour Econ 52(1):49–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Farnham M, Kennedy P (2014) Adapting to climate change: equilibrium welfare implications for large and small economies. Environ Resour Econ 61:1–19Google Scholar
  15. Harstad B, Lancia F, Russo A (2019) Compliance technology and self-enforcing agreements. J Eur Econ Assoc 17(1):1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hope C (2006) The marginal impact of CO2 from PAGE2002: an integrated assessment model incorporating the IPCC\(\backslash\)’s five reasons for concern. Integr Assess J 6(1):19–56Google Scholar
  17. Ingham A, Ma J, Ulph AM (2013) Can adaptation and mitigation be complements? Clim Change 120(1–2):39–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. IPCC (2014) Climate change 2014: synthesis report. In: Core Writing Team, Pachauri RK, Meyer LA (eds) Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the Fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, IPCC, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  19. Kane S, Shogren JF (2000) Linking adaptation and mitigation in climate change policy. Clim Change 45(1):75–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Konrad KA, Thum M (2013) The role of economic policy in climate change adaptation. CESifo Econ Stud 60:32–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lecocq F, Shalizi Z (2007) Balancing expenditures on mitigation of and adaptation to climate change: an exploration of issues relevant to developing countries. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, vol 4299Google Scholar
  22. Mendelsohn R (2000) Efficient adaptation to climate change. Clim Change 45(3–4):583–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moser SC, Ekstrom JA (2010) A framework to diagnose barriers to climate change adaptation. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107(51):22026–22031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nordhaus WD (1993) Optimal greenhouse-gas reductions and tax policy in the “DICE” model. Am Econ Rev 83(2):313–317Google Scholar
  25. Olson MJ (1965) The logic of collective action: public goods and the theory of groups. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Parry ML (2007) Climate Change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: contribution of Working Group II to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, vol 4. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  27. Patt AG, van Vuuren DP, Frans B, Asbjørn A, Hof Andries F, Morna I, Reinhard M (2010) Adaptation in integrated assessment modeling: where do we stand? Clim Change 99(3–4):383–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rezai A, Van der Ploeg F (2016) Intergenerational inequality aversion, growth, and the role of damages: occams rule for the global carbon tax. J Assoc Environ Resour Econ 3(2):493–522Google Scholar
  29. Samuelson PA (1954) The pure theory of public expenditure. Rev Econ Stat 36:387–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schumacher I (2018) The aggregation Dilemma in climate change policy evaluation. Clim Change Econ 9(03):1850008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tsur Y, Withagen C (2013) Preparing for catastrophic climate change. J Econ 110(3):225–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tsur Y, Zemel A (2016) Policy tradeoffs under risk of abrupt climate change. J Econ Behav Organ 132:46–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. van der Ploeg F, de Zeeuw A (2013) Climate policy and catastrophic change: be prepared and avert risk. Technical Report. European University at St. Petersburg, Department of EconomicsGoogle Scholar
  34. Yohe G, Strzepek K (2007) Adaptation and mitigation as complementary tools for reducing the risk of climate impacts. Mitig Adapt Strateg Global Change 12(5):727–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zemel A (2015) Adaptation, mitigation and risk: an analytic approach. J Econ Dyn Control 51:133–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IPAG Business SchoolParisFrance
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsEcole PolytechniqueParisFrance

Personalised recommendations