Revisiting the social cost of carbon after INDC implementation in Malaysia: 2050

  • Md. Sujahangir Kabir SarkarEmail author
  • Abul Quasem Al-Amin
  • Walter Leal Filho
Research Article


This article projects the social cost of carbon (SCC) and other related consequences of climate change by using Malaysia’s intended nationally determined contribution (INDC) and climate vision 2040 (CV2040) by 2050. It compares the projections derived from the Dynamic Integrated Model of the Climate and Economy (DICME) based on the respective INDC and CV2040 scenario. The results reveal that industrial emissions would incur a substantial increase every 5 years under the scenario CV2040, while Malaysia would experience lower industrial emissions in the coming years under the scenario INDC. Emission intensity in Malaysia will be 0.61 and 0.59 tons/capita in 2030 for scenario CV2040 and scenario INDC respectively. Malaysia would face climate damage of MYR456 billion and MYR 49 billion by 2050 under CV2040 and INDC scenario respectively. However, climate damage could be much lower if the INDC regime were adopted, as this scenario would decrease climatic impacts over time. The estimated SSC per ton of CO2 varies between MYR74 and MYR97 for scenario CV2040 and MYR44 and MYR62 for scenario INDC in 2030 and 2050 respectively. Considering different aspects, including industrial emissions, damage cost, and social cost of carbon, INDC is the best policy compared to CV2040. Thus, Malaysia could achieve its emissions reduction target by implementing INDC by 2050.


Social cost of carbon Carbon emission INDC Climate vision Scenario Malaysia 



This work is partially supported by project UNITEN: BOLD grants of 10289176/B/9/2017/18 at the Institute of Energy Policy and Research (IEPRe), Universiti Tenaga Nasional (UNITEN), Malaysia. The authors would like to thank UNITEN for their financial support.


  1. Agreement P (2015) United Nations framework convention on climate change. Paris, France. Available at Accessed 16 Nov 2017
  2. Barrett S (1994) Self-enforcing international environmental agreements. Oxf Econ Pap 46:878–894. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Begum RA, Abdullah SMS, Sarkar MSK (2017) Time series patterns and relationship of energy consumption and CO 2 emissions in Malaysia. Asian J Water Environ Pollut 14(2):41–49. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bovenberg AL, Goulder LH (2002) Environmental taxation and regulation. In Handbook of public economics 3:1471–1545. ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  5. CarbonBrief (2017). The social cost of carbon. 14 February 2017, The CarbonBrief. Available at
  6. Carraro C, Siniscalco D (1993) Strategies for the international protection of the environment. J Public Econ 52:309–328. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cline, WR. (1992). The economics of global warming. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics, USAGoogle Scholar
  8. DOS (2010). Input-output table of Malaysia 2005: Ministry of Finance, Department of Statistics, MalaysiaGoogle Scholar
  9. DOS (2013a) Malaysia economic statistics (MES)-time series. Malaysia: Department of Statistics, MalaysiaGoogle Scholar
  10. DOS (2013b). Economic report, various issues. Ministry of Finance:Malaysia Department of Statistics, MalaysiaGoogle Scholar
  11. EPA (2014). Climate change indicators in the United states: global greenhouse gas emissions. Available at Accessed 7 Oct 2015
  12. EPA (2017) The social cost of carbon: estimating the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. United States Environmental Protection Agency, USA. Available at Accessed 26 Apr 2018
  13. Fankhauser, S. (1995). Valuing climate change? The economics of the greenhouse. London: EarthScan,
  14. Gao P, Chen W (2002) Carbon tax and carbon emission. Journal-Tsinghua University 42(10):1335–1338Google Scholar
  15. Gayer, T (2017). The social costs of carbon. Brookings, Tuesday, February 28, 2017. Available at EPA,
  16. Greenstone M, Kopitsy E, Wolvertony A (2013) Developing a social cost of carbon for US regulatory analysis: a methodology and interpretation. Rev Environ Econ Policy 7(1):23–46. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. IAWG U (2010). Technical support document: social cost of carbon for regulatory impact analysis under executive order 12866. Interagency working group on social cost of carbon, United States Government, Washington, DC. Available at
  18. IPCC (2001). IPCC TAR WG1climate change 2001: the scientific basis, contribution of working group I to the third assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. London: Cambridge UniversityGoogle Scholar
  19. IPCC (2007). Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Fourth assessment report of the IPCC. United Kingdom: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  20. IPCC (2014a). Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. IPCC (2014b). Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Jia J, Gong Z, Chen C, Jian H, Xie D (2018) Urban carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) accounting based on the GPC framework: a case of the underdeveloped city of Nanchang, China. Int J Clim Change Strategies Manage 10(5):812–832. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Johnson LT, Hope C (2012) The social cost of carbon in US regulatory impact analyses: an introduction and critique. J Environ Stud Sci 2(3):205–221. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kaplow L (2012) Optimal control of externalities in the presence of income taxation. Int Econ Rev 53(2):487–509. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Karl TR, Trenberth KE (2003) Modern global climate change. science 302(5651):1719–1723. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Liski, M and Murto P. (2006). Backstop technology adoption. Helsinki Center of Economic Research, Finland. Available at
  27. Maddison DJ (2003) The amenity value of the climate: the household production function approach. Resour Energy Econ 25(2):155–175. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Markandya A, Paglialunga E, Costantini V, Sforna G (2017) Global and regional economic damages from climate change. Environ Sci.
  29. McMichael AJ, Woodruff RE, Hales S (2006) Climate change and human health: present and future risks. Lancet 367(9513):859–869. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Metcalf, G. (2017). Implementing a carbon tax. Resources for the Future, May, pp.17–18,
  31. MMD (2009). Climate change scenarios for Malaysia Scientific Report 2001–2099: Numerical Weather Prediction Development Section Technical Development Division, Malaysian Meteorological Department Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation Kuala Lumpur,
  32. NAHRIM (2006) Final report: study of the impact of climate change on the hydrologic regime and water resources of peninsular Malaysia. Malaysia. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nordhaus WD (1991) To slow or not to slow: the economics of the greenhouse effect. Econ J 101(444):920–937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nordhaus WD (2006) Geography and macroeconomics: new data and new findings. Proc Natl Acad Sci 103(10):3510–3517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nordhaus, WD. (2008). A question of balance: economic modeling of global warming. New Haven, CT: Yale University PressGoogle Scholar
  36. Nordhaus WD (2014) Estimates of the social cost of carbon: concepts and results from the DICE-2013R model and alternative approaches. J Assoc Environ Resour Econ 1(1/2):273–312Google Scholar
  37. Nordhaus WD (2017) Revisiting the social cost of carbon. PNAS 114(7):1518–1523. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nordhaus, WD and Boyer JG. (2000). Warming the world: economic models of global warming, the MIT press, Cambridge, Massachusetts - London, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  39. Nordhaus WD, Yang Z (1996) RICE: a regional dynamic general Equilib rium model of optimal climate-change policy. Am Econ Rev 86(4):741–765Google Scholar
  40. NRC (National Research Council) (2016). Assessment of approaches to updating the social cost of carbon: phase 1 Report on a Near-Term Update (Natl Acad Press, Washington, DC),
  41. Olivier, JGJ, Janssens-Maenhout G, Muntean M and Peters JAHW. (2014). Trends in global CO2 emissions: 2014 report, PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, and European Commission’s Joint Research Centre, The Hague, PBL publication number: 1490, ISBN: 978-94-91506-87-1 Google Scholar
  42. Pigou A (1932) The economics of welfare. RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  43. Pizer W, Adler M, Aldy J, Anthoff D, Cropper M, Gillingham K et al (2014) Using and improving the social cost of carbon. Science 346(6214):1189–1190. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Popp D (2002) Induced innovation and energy prices. Am Econ Rev 92(1):160–180. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rasiah R, Ahmed A, Al-Amin AQ, Chenayah S (2017) Climate change mitigation: comparative assessment of Malaysian and ASEAN scenarios. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24(3):2632–2642. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rasiah R, Al-Amin AQ, Ahmed A, Leal Filho W, Calvo E (2016) Climate mitigation roadmap: assessing low carbon scenarios for Malaysia. J Clean Prod 133:272–283. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rasiah R, Al-Amin AQ, Chowdhurry AH, Ahmed F, Zhang C (2018) Climate change mitigation projections for ASEAN. J Asia Pac Econ:1–18Google Scholar
  48. Rehdanz K, Maddison DJ (2005) Climate and happiness. Ecological Eco nomics 52(1):111–125. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ricke, K, Drouet, L, Caldeira, K and Tavoni, M. (2018). Country-level social cost of carbon. Nature Climate Change, p.1,
  50. Sarkar MSK, Begum RA, Sadeka S, Pereira JJ (2018) Current trends and policies of energy consumption and CO2 emission from the largest Asian economies. International J. of Global Warming 14(4):417–439.
  51. Soderholm P, Sundqvist T (2007) Empirical challenges in the use of learning curves for assessing the economic prospects of renewable energy technologies. Renew Energy 32(15):2559–2578. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Spackman, M. (2015) Social time discounting: Institutional and analytical perspectives (No. 192). GRI Working Paper. Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, UK,
  53. Stern, NH. (2007). The economics of climate change: the Stern review. Cambridge University press, UKGoogle Scholar
  54. Tol RSJ (1995) The damage costs of climate change toward more comprehensive calculations. Environ Resour Econ 5(4):353–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tol RSJ (2002) Estimates of the damage costs of climate change - part 1: benchmark estimates. Environ Resour Econ 21(1):47–73. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tol RSJ (2008) The social cost of carbon: trends, outliers, and catastrophes. Economics 2(25):1–22Google Scholar
  57. Tol, RSJ. (2011). The social cost of carbon. Working paper no. 377, Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin, IrelandGoogle Scholar
  58. UNFCCC (2015). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. INDCs as submitted by parties. Available on (accessed 02.05.2018).,
  59. Unit EP (2010). Tenth Malaysia Plan 2011–2015. Putrajaya: Prime Minister DepartmentGoogle Scholar
  60. Yu CF, van Sark WGJHM, Alsema EA (2011) Unraveling the photovoltaic technology learning curve by incorporation of input price changes and scale effects RID C-5009-2009. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 15(1):324–337. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Energy Policy and Research (IEPRe)Universiti Tenaga Nasional (UNITEN)KajangMalaysia
  2. 2.Department of Geography and Environmental ManagementUniversity of WaterlooOttawaCanada
  3. 3.Azman Hashim International Business SchoolUniversiti Teknologi MalaysiaKuala LumpurMalaysia
  4. 4.School of Science and the EnvironmentManchester Metropolitan UniversityManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations