Modeling adaptation as a flow and stock decision with mitigation
- 1.8k Downloads
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.
KeywordsClimate Policy Total Adaptation Climate Damage Adaptation Service Flow Adaptation
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.
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.
- Adger WN, Lorenzoni I, O’Brien K (eds) (2009) Adapting to climate change: thresholds, values, governance. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Felgenhauer T, Webster M (2013) Multiple adaptation types with mitigation: a framework for policy analysis. Glob Environ Chang 23:1556–1565 Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Nordhaus WD (1994) Managing the global commons: the economics of climate change. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Nordhaus WD (2007) The challenge of global warming: economic models and environmental policy. Yale University, New HavenGoogle Scholar
- Nordhaus WD (2008) A question of balance: weighing the options on global warming policies. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
- Nordhaus WD, Boyer J (2000) Warming the world: economic models of global warming. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Nordhaus WD, Yang Z (1996) A regional dynamic general-equilibrium model of alternative climate-change strategies. Am Econ Rev 86(4):741–765Google Scholar