Limitations of integrated assessment models of climate change

Abstract

The integrated assessment models (IAMs) that economists use to analyze the expected costs and benefits of climate policies frequently suggest that the “optimal” policy is to go slowly and to do relatively little in the near term to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We trace this finding to the contestable assumptions and limitations of IAMs. For example, they typically discount future impacts from climate change at relatively high rates. This practice may be appropriate for short-term financial decisions but its extension to intergenerational environmental issues rests on several empirically and philosophically controversial hypotheses. IAMs also assign monetary values to the benefits of climate mitigation on the basis of incomplete information and sometimes speculative judgments concerning the monetary worth of human lives and ecosystems, while downplaying scientific uncertainty about the extent of expected damages. In addition, IAMs may exaggerate mitigation costs by failing to reflect the socially determined, path-dependent nature of technical change and ignoring the potential savings from reduced energy utilization and other opportunities for innovation. A better approach to climate policy, drawing on recent research on the economics of uncertainty, would reframe the problem as buying insurance against catastrophic, low-probability events. Policy decisions should be based on a judgment concerning the maximum tolerable increase in temperature and/or carbon dioxide levels given the state of scientific understanding. The appropriate role for economists would then be to determine the least-cost global strategy to achieve that target. While this remains a demanding and complex problem, it is far more tractable and epistemically defensible than the cost-benefit comparisons attempted by most IAMs.

References

  1. Ackerman F, Finlayson IJ (2006) The economics of inaction on climate change: a sensitivity analysis. Clim Policy 6:509–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ackerman F, Heinzerling L (2004) Priceless: on knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. The New Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  3. Amano A (1997) On some integrated assessment modeling debates. Paper presented at IPCC Asia-Pacific Workshop on Integrated Assessment Models, United Nations University, Tokyo, March 10–12

  4. Bella G (2006) A blueprint for optimal intertemporal consumption under environmental constraints: the modified green golden rule. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=936879

  5. Bosello F, Roson R, Tol RSJ (2006) Economy-wide estimates of the implications of climate change: human health. Ecol Econ 58:579–591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Broome J (1994) Discounting the future. Phil Pub Aff 23:128–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Buffett B, Archer D (2004) Global inventory of methane clathrate: sensitivity to changes in the deep ocean. Earth Planet Sci Lett 227:185–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Campbell JY (2003) Consumption-based asset pricing. In: Constantinides GM, Harris M, Stultz R (eds) Handbook of the economics of finance. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 804–887

    Google Scholar 

  9. Carraro C, Gerlagh R, van der Zwaan B (2003) Endogenous technical change in environmental macroeconomics. Resour Energy Econ 25:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chichilnisky G (2000) An axiomatic approach to choice under uncertainty with catastrophic risks. Resour Energy Econ 22:221–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chichilnisky G, Heal G, Beltratti A (1995) The green golden rule. Econ Lett 49:175–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cline WR (1992) The economics of global warming. Institute for International Economics, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  13. Cochrane JH (2005) Asset pricing, revised edn. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  14. Committee on Abrupt Climate Change, National Research Council (2002) Abrupt climate change: inevitable surprises. National Academies, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  15. Committee on Analysis of Global Change Assessments, National Research Council (2007) Analysis of global change assessments: lessons learned. National Academies, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  16. Dasgupta P (2008) Discounting climate change. J Risk Uncertainty 37:141–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Dasgupta PS, Heal GM (1979) Economic theory and exhaustible resources. Cambridge, Cambridge Univ Press

    Google Scholar 

  18. Dasgupta P, Mäler KG, Barrett S (1999) Intergenerational equity, social discount rates, and global warming. In: Portney PR, Weyant JP (eds) Discounting and intergenerational equity. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, pp 51–78

    Google Scholar 

  19. DeCanio SJ (2003) Economic analysis, environmental policy, and intergenerational justice in the Reagan administration: the case of the Montreal protocol. Int Environ Agreements 3:299–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. DeCanio SJ, Niemann P (2006) Equity effects of alternative assignments of global environmental rights. Ecol Econ 56:546–559

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. DeCanio SJ, Dibble C, Amir-Atefi K (2000) The importance of organizational structure for the adoption of innovations. Manage Sci 46:1285–1299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. DeCanio SJ, Dibble C, Amir-Atefi K (2001) Organizational structure and the behavior of firms: implications for integrated assessment. Clim Change 48:487–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Diamond PA, Hausman JA (1994) Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number? J Econ Perspect 8:45–64

    Google Scholar 

  24. 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 8:121–168

    Google Scholar 

  25. Edenhofer O, Lessmann K, Kemfert C, Grubb M, Köhler J (2006) Induced technological change: exploring its implications for the economics of atmospheric stabilization: synthesis report from the innovation modeling comparison project. The Energy Journal, Endogenous Technological Change and the Economics of Atmospheric Stabilisation Special Issue 27:57–107

    Google Scholar 

  26. Elliott RN, Langer T, Nadel (2006) Reducing oil use through energy efficiency: opportunities beyond light cars and trucks. American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  27. Finman H, Laitner JA (2001) Industry, energy efficiency, and productivity improvements in proceedings of the 2001 ACEEE summer study on energy efficiency in industry. American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  28. Frederick S, Loewenstein G, O’Donoghue T (2002) Time discounting and time preference. J Econ Lit XL:351–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Gerlagh R (2007) Measuring the value of induced technological change. Energy Policy 35:5287–5297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Gillingham K, Newell RG, Pizer WA (2007) Modeling endogenous technological change for climate policy analysis. Resources for the Future, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  31. Gjerde J, Grepperud S, Kverndokk S (1999) Optimal climate policy under the possibility of a catastrophe. Resour Energy Econ 21:289–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Goodstein E (2007) Economics and the environment, 5th edn. Wiley, New York, pp 409–411

    Google Scholar 

  33. Goulder LH, Schneider SH (1999) Induced technological change and the attractiveness of CO2 abatement policies. Resour Energy Econ 21:211–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hall DC, Behl RJ (2006) Integrating economic analysis and the science of climate instability. Ecol Econ 57:442–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hanemann WM (1994) Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. J Econ Perspect 8:19–43

    Google Scholar 

  36. Hoegh-Guldberg O, Mumby PJ, Hooten AJ, Steneck RS, Greenfield P, Gomez E, Harvell CD, Sale PF, Edwards AJ, Caldeira K, Knowlton CM, Eakin R, Iglesias-Prieto R, Muthiga N, Bradbury RH, Dubi A, Hatziolos ME (2007) Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification. Science 318:1737–1742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Hoel M, Sterner T (2007) Discounting and relative prices. Clim Change 84:265–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Howarth RB (1996) Climate change and overlapping generations. Contemp Econ Policy 14:100–111

    Google Scholar 

  39. Howarth RB (1998) An overlapping generations model of climate-economy interactions. Scand J Econ 100:575–591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Howarth RB (2003) Discounting and uncertainty in climate change policy analysis. Land Econ 79:369–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Howarth RB (2009) Discounting, uncertainty, and revealed time preference. Land Econ 85:24–40

    Google Scholar 

  42. Howarth RB, Norgaard RB (1992) Environmental valuation under sustainable development. Am Econ Rev 82:473–477

    Google Scholar 

  43. Howarth RB, Norgaard RB (2007) CO2 emissions: getting bang for the buck. Science 318:1865–1866

    Google Scholar 

  44. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1996) In: Bruce JP, Lee H, Haites EF (eds) Climate change 1995: economic and social dimensions of climate change, contribution of working group III to the second assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  45. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001) In: Metz B, Davidson O, Swart R, Pan J (eds) Climate change 2001: contribution of working group III to the third assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  46. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007a) Summary for policymakers. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis, contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK and New York

    Google Scholar 

  47. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007b) In: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE (eds) Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability, contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 273–314

    Google Scholar 

  48. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007c) Summary for policymakers. In: Metz B, Davidson OR, Bosch PR, Dave R, Meyer LA (eds) Contribution of Working group III to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 9–12

    Google Scholar 

  49. Interlaboratory Working Group on Energy-Efficient and Clean-Energy Technologies (2000) Scenarios for a clean energy future. Oak Ridge Natl Lab and Lawrence Berkeley Natl Lab, Oak Ridge, TN and Berkeley, CA. Available at: http://www.ornl.gov/sci/eere/cef/

    Google Scholar 

  50. International Association for Energy Economics (IAEE) (2006) Endogenous technological change and the economics of atmospheric stabilisation special issue. Energy J 27:1–276

    Google Scholar 

  51. Kahneman D, Tversky A (eds) (2000). Choices, values, and frames. Russell Sage Foundation, New York

    Google Scholar 

  52. Kelly DL, Kolstad CD (1999) Integrated assessment models for climate change control. In: Folmer H, Tietenberg T (eds) International yearbook of environmental and resource economics 1999/2000: a survey of current issues. Edward Elgar, pp 171–197

  53. Kennedy M, Mrofka D, von der Borch C (2008) Snowball Earth termination by destabilization of equatorial permafrost methane clathrate. Nature 453:642–645

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Krause F, DeCanio SJ, Hoerner A, Baer P (2002) Cutting carbon emissions at a profit (part I): opportunities for the United States. Contemp Econ Pol 20:339–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Krause F, DeCanio SJ, Hoerner A, Baer P (2003) Cutting carbon emissions at a profit (part II): impacts on US competitiveness and jobs. Contemp Econ Pol 21:90–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Laitner JA, DeCanio SJ, Peters I (2000) Incorporating behavioural, social, and organizational phenomena in the assessment of climate change mitigation options. In: Jochem E, Sathaye J, Bouille D (eds) Society, behaviour, and climate change mitigation. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp 1–64

    Google Scholar 

  57. Laitner JA, Hanson DA, Mintzer I, Leonard JA (2006) Adapting for uncertainty: a scenario analysis of US technology energy futures. Energy Stud Rev 14:120–135

    Google Scholar 

  58. Lenton TM, Held H, Kriegler E, Hall JW, Lucht W, Rahmstorf S, Schellnhuber J (2008) Tipping elements in the earth’s climate system. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:1786–1793

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Lovins AB (2005) More profit with less carbon. Sci Am Sept:74–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Ludwig D, Brock WA, Carpenter SR (2005) Uncertainty in discount models and environmental accounting. Eco Soc 10:13

    Google Scholar 

  61. Manne AS (2004) Perspective Paper 1.2. In: Lomborg B (ed) Global crises, global solutions. Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, pp 49–55

    Google Scholar 

  62. Manne AS, Richels RG (1992) Buying greenhouse insurance: the economic costs of CO2 emissions limits. MIT, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  63. McKinsey Global Institute (2007) Curbing global energy demand growth: the energy productivity opportunity, pp 1–24. Available at: http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/publications/Curbing_Global_Energy/index.asp

  64. Mehra R (2003) The equity premium: why is it a puzzle? Financ Anal J:54–69

    Google Scholar 

  65. Mehra R, Prescott EC (1985) The equity premium: a puzzle. J Monet Econ 15:145–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Mehra R, Prescott EC (2003) The equity premium in retrospect. In: Constantinides GM, Harris M, Stultz R (eds) Handbook of the economics of finance. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 889–938

    Google Scholar 

  67. Mendelsohn R (2004) Perspective paper 1.1. In: Lomborg B (ed) Global crises, global solutions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 44–48

    Google Scholar 

  68. Mendelsohn R, Morrison W, Schlesinger ME, Andronova NG (2000) Country-specific market impacts of climate change. Clim Change 45:553–569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Newell RG, Pizer WA (2003) Discounting the distant future: how much do uncertain rates increase valuations? J Environ Econ Manage 46:52–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Nordhaus WD (2007a) A review of the stern review on the economics of climate change. J Econ Lit XLV:686–702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Nordhaus WD (2007b) The challenge of global warming: economic models and environmental policy. Available at http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/dice_mss_072407_all.pdf

  72. Nordhaus WD, Boyer J (2000) Warming the world: economic models of global warming. MIT, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  73. Paltsev S, Reilly JM, Jacoby HD, Gurgel AC, Metcalf GE, Sokolov AP, Holak JF (2007) Assessment of US cap-and-trade proposals. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=994225

  74. Pesaran H, Pettenuzzo D, Timmermann A (2007) Learning, structural instability, and present value calculations. Econ Rev 26(2–4):253–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Portney PR (1994) The contingent valuation debate: why economists should care. J Econ Perspect 8:3–17

    Google Scholar 

  76. Ramsey FP (1928) A mathematical theory of saving. Econ J 38:543–559

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Reilly J, Paltsev S, Felzer B, Wang X, Kicklighter D, Melillo J, Prinn R, Sarofim M, Sokolov A, Wang C (2007) Global economic effects of changes in crops, pasture, and forests due to changing climate, carbon dioxide, and ozone. Energy Policy 35:5370–5383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Roe GH, Baker MB (2007) Why is climate sensitivity so unpredictable? Science 318:629–632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Sandsmark M, Vennemo H (2007) A portfolio approach to climate investments: CAPM and endogenous risk. Environ Resour Econ 4:681–695

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Schellnhuber HJ, Cramer W, Nakicenovic N, Wigley T, Yohe G (eds) (2006) Avoiding dangerous climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  81. Schlenker W, Hanemann WM, Fisher AC (2006) The impact of global warming on U.S. agriculture: an econometric analysis of optimal growing conditions. Rev Econ Stat 88:113–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Shipley AM, Elliott RN (2006) Ripe for the picking: have we exhausted the low hanging fruit in the industrial sector? American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, Washington, DC, Report No. IE061. Available at: http://www.resourcesaver.org/file/toolmanager/CustomO16C45F69267.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  83. Solow RM (1970) Growth theory: an exposition. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  84. Stern N (2006) Stern review on the economics of climate change. Her Majesty’s Treasury, London

    Google Scholar 

  85. Tol RSJ (1994) The damage costs of climate change—a note on tangibles and intangibles, applied to DICE. Energy Policy 22:436–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Tol RSJ (2002a) Estimates of the damage costs of climate change: part I. Benchmark estimates. Environ Resour Econ 21:47–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Tol RSJ (2002b) Estimates of the damage costs of climate change: part II. Dynamic estimates. Environ Resour Econ 21:135–160, p 157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Toth FL (2003) Integrated assessment of climate protection strategies—guest editorial. Clim Change 56:1–5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Toth FL, Mwandosya M (Co-ordinating Lead Authors), Carraro C, Christensen J, Edmonds J, Flannery B, Gay-Garcia C, Lee H, Meyer-Abich KM, Nikitina E, Rahman A, Richels R, Reqiu Y, Villavicencio A, Wake Y, Weyant J (Lead Authors), Byrne J, Lempert R, Meyer I, Underdal A (Contributing Authors), Pershing J, Shechter M (Review Editors) (2001) Decision-making frameworks, chapter 10 of climate change 2001: mitigation, contribution of working group III to the third assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  90. Toth FL, Bruckner T, Füssel HM, Leimbach M, Petschel-Held G (2003) Integrated assessment of long-term climate policies: part 1—model presentation. Clim Change 56:37–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. US National Assessment (2001) Climate change impacts on the united states: the potential consequences of climate variability and change. Report for the US Global Change Research Program. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK

    Google Scholar 

  92. Weitzman ML (2007a) A review of the Stern review on the economics of climate change. J Econ Lit XLV:703–724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Weitzman ML (2007b) Subjective expectations and asset-return puzzles. Am Econ Rev 97:1102–1130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Weitzman ML (2009) On modeling and interpreting the economics of catastrophic climate change. Rev Econ Stat 91:1–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Worrell E, Laitner JA, Ruth M, Finman H (2003) Productivity benefits of industrial energy efficiency measures. Energy J 21:1081–1098

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen J. DeCanio.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ackerman, F., DeCanio, S.J., Howarth, R.B. et al. Limitations of integrated assessment models of climate change. Climatic Change 95, 297–315 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-009-9570-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Discount Rate
  • Climate Policy
  • Contingent Valuation
  • Social Welfare Function
  • Integrate Assessment Model