Advertisement

Climatic Change

, Volume 122, Issue 4, pp 665–679 | Cite as

Modeling adaptation as a flow and stock decision with mitigation

  • Tyler FelgenhauerEmail author
  • Mort Webster
Article

Abstract

An effective policy response to climate change will include, among other things, investments in lowering greenhouse gas emissions (mitigation), as well as short-term temporary (flow) and long-lived capital-intensive (stock) adaptation to climate change. A critical near-term question is how investments in reducing climate damages should be allocated across these elements of a climate policy portfolio, especially in the face of uncertainty in both future climate damages and also the effectiveness of yet-untested adaptation efforts. We build on recent efforts in DICE-based integrated assessment modeling approaches that include two types of adaptation—short-lived flow spending and long-lived depreciable adaptation stock investments—along with mitigation, and we identify and explore the uncertainties that impact the relative proportions of policies within a response portfolio. We demonstrate that the relative ratio of flow adaptation, stock adaptation, and mitigation depend critically on interactions among: 1) the relative effectiveness in the baseline of stock versus flow adaptation, 2) the degree of substitutability between stock and flow adaptation types, and 3) whether there exist physical limits on the amount of damages that can be reduced by flow-type adaptation investments. The results indicate where more empirical research on adaptation could focus to best inform near-term policy decisions, and provide a first step towards considering near-term policies that are flexible in the face of uncertainty.

Keywords

Climate Policy Total Adaptation Climate Damage Adaptation Service Flow Adaptation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Tim Johnson, Richard Andrews, Doug Crawford-Brown, Jonathan Wiener, Gary Yohe, Shardul Agrawala, Rob Dellink, and Kelly de Bruin, in addition to three anonymous reviewers, for comments on earlier versions of this paper. Tyler Felgenhauer gratefully acknowledges financial research support from the Joseph L. Fisher Doctoral Dissertation Fellowship from Resources for the Future, as well as the Royster Society of Fellows at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Disclaimer

This research was conducted while Tyler Felgenhauer was a doctoral student in the Department of Public Policy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Any opinions expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Supplementary material

10584_2013_1016_MOESM1_ESM.docx (174 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 174 kb)

References

  1. Adger WN, Lorenzoni I, O’Brien K (eds) (2009) Adapting to climate change: thresholds, values, governance. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Agrawala S, Bosello F, Carraro C, Bruin KD, Cian ED, Dellink R, Lanzi E (2010) Plan or React? Analysis of adaptation costs and benefits using integrated assessment models. OECD Environmental Working Papers. No. 23 (10 August), Organization for Economic Cooperation and DevelopmentGoogle Scholar
  3. Agrawala S, Bosello F, Carraro C, Bruin KD, Cian ED, Dellink R, Lanzi E (2011) Plan or react? analysis of adaptation costs and benefits using integrated assessment models. Clim Chang Econ 2(3):175–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bosello F (2008) Adaptation, mitigation, and “green” R&D to combat global climate change: insights from an empirical integrated assessment exercise. Research Paper 0048/Working Paper 20 (October), Centro Euro-Mediterraneo per i Cambiamenti Climatici (CMCC), Climate Impacts and Policy Division, Milan, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  5. Bosello F, Carraro C, Cian ED (2009) An analysis of adaptation as a response to climate change. Copenhagen Consensus on Climate, Copenhagen Consensus Center, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  6. Bosello F, Carraro C, Cian ED (2010) Climate policy and the optimal balance between mitigation, adaptation, and unvoided damage. Working Papers, Department of Economics, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice. no. 10 (February), Dipartimento Scienze Economiche (DSE), Venice, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  7. Cline WR (2006) Meeting the challenge of global warming. In: Lomborg B (ed) How to spend $50 billion to make the world a better place. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. de Bruin KC (2011) Distinguishing between proactive (stock) and reactive (flow) adaptation. CERE Working Paper. 2011:8 (August), Centre for Environmental and Resource Economics (CERE)Google Scholar
  9. de Bruin KC, Dellink RB (2011) How harmful are restrictions on adapting to climate change? Glob Environ Chang 21:34–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. de Bruin KC, Dellink RB, Tol RSJ (2009) AD-DICE: an implementation of adaptation in the DICE mode. Clim Chang 95:63–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dow K, Berkhout F, Preston BL, Klein RJT, Midgley G, Shaw MR (2013) Limits to adaptation. Nat Clim Chang 3:305–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dumas P, Ha-Duong M (2008) Optimal growth with adaptation to climate change. 16th Annual Conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists (EAERE). Gothenburg, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  13. Felgenhauer T, de Bruin KC (2009) The optimal paths of climate change mitigation and adaptation under certainty and uncertainty. Int J Glob Warming 1(1/2/3):66–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Felgenhauer T, Webster M (2013) Multiple adaptation types with mitigation: a framework for policy analysis. Glob Environ Chang 23:1556–1565 Google Scholar
  15. Hall JW, Brown S, Nicholls RJ, Pidgeon NF, Watson RT (2012) Proportionate adaptation. Nat Clim Chang 2:833–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hope C (2006) The marginal impact of CO2 from PAGE2002: an integrated assessment model incorporating the IPCC’s five reasons for concern. Integr Assess J 6(1):19–56Google Scholar
  17. Hope C, Anderson J, Wenman P (1993) Policy analysis of the greenhouse effect: an application of the PAGE model. Energy Pol 15:327–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ingham A, Ma J, Ulph A (2007) Climate change, mitigation, and adaptation with uncertainty and learning. Energy Pol 35:5354–5369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lecocq F, Shalizi Z (2008) Balancing expenditures on mitigation of an adaptation to climate change: an exploration of issues relevant to developing countries. 16th Annual Conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists (EAERE). Gothenburg, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  20. Nordhaus WD (1994) Managing the global commons: the economics of climate change. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Nordhaus WD (2007) The challenge of global warming: economic models and environmental policy. Yale University, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  22. Nordhaus WD (2008) A question of balance: weighing the options on global warming policies. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  23. Nordhaus WD, Boyer J (2000) Warming the world: economic models of global warming. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. Nordhaus WD, Yang Z (1996) A regional dynamic general-equilibrium model of alternative climate-change strategies. Am Econ Rev 86(4):741–765Google Scholar
  25. Popp D (2004) ENTICE: endogenous technological change in the DICE model of global warming. J Environ Econ Manag 48:742–768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Yohe G, Kirshen P, Knee K (2011) On the economics of coastal adaptation solutions in an uncertain world. Clim Chang 106:71–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht (outside the USA) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Energy and Climate Assessment Team, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and DevelopmentResearch Triangle ParkUSA
  2. 2.Engineering Systems DivisionMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations