This paper addresses the problem of meeting a predetermined temperature target cost-effectively under uncertainty and gradual learning on climate sensitivity. The firstorder optimality conditions to a stochastic cost-minimization problem with a temperature constraint are first provided, portraying how marginal costs evolve with an optimal hedging strategy. Then, numerical stochastic scenarios with cost curves fitted to recent climate changemitigation scenarios are presented, illustrating both the range of possible future pathways and the effect of uncertainty to the solution. Last, the effect of several different sets of assumptions on the optimal hedging strategy are analyzed. The results highlight that the hedging of climate sensitivity risk calls for deeper early reductions, although the possibility of different assumptions prevents providing accurate policy guidance.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
If the state x τ,s is simplified to represent only temperature, T(x τ,s )=T l i m i t −x τ,s .
Note that T(x τ,s ) is linear by definition.
Note that I s (t,τ) < 0, because I s is temperature impulse response function for an increase in emission reductions.
The GWP’s used for CH4 and N2O are 21 and 310 (Schimel et al. 1996).
The variance in baseline emissions in Fig. 1 is notable, and capturing this variation is not possible with single curves. However, the optimal solution of the cost-minimization problem depends on the marginal costs required to reach a given emission level. The level of baseline emissions affects the total costs, but not the optimal emission level or emission price.
A convex curve translates a distribution of marginal cost with mean c onto a distribution of emissions with a mean value that is higher than the emissions corresponding to the marginal cost c.
The term “prices” refers to the shadow value of CO2. In the case with capital lifetime, the shadow value can differ from the marginal cost with which emissions are reduced. For gases other than CO2, the GWP-weighted shadow value can differ from that of CO2, see e.g. Ekholm et al. (2013) for further discussion.
The scenarios in Fig. 5 use low-cost curves, emissions as CO2-eq and assume no inertia.
Ackerman F, Stanton EA (2012) Climate risks and carbon prices: Revising the social cost of carbon. Economics: The Open-Access. Open-Assessment E-Journal 6(2012-10)
Ackerman F, DeCanio SJ, Howarth RB, Sheeran K (2009) Limitations of integrated assessment models of climate change. Clim Chang 95(3-4):297–315
Ackerman F, Stanton EA, Bueno R (2010) Fat tails, exponents, extreme uncertainty: Simulating catastrophe in DICE. Ecol Econ 69(8):1657–1665
Azar C, Sterner T (1996) Discounting and distributional considerations in the context of global warming. Ecol Econ 19(2):169–184
Calvin K, Edmonds J, Bond-Lamberty B, Clarke L, Kim SH, Kyle P, Smith SJ, Thomson A, Wise M (2009) 2.6:Limiting climate change to 450 ppm CO 2 equivalent in the 21st century. Energy Econ 31(S2):S107–S120
Calvin K, Clarke L, Krey V, Blanford G, Jiang K, Kainuma M, Kriegler E, Luderer G, Shukla P (2012) The role of asia in mitigating climate change: Results from the asia modeling exercise. Energy Econ 34(S3):S251–S260
Ekholm T, Soimakallio S, Moltmann S, Höhne N, Syri S, Savolainen I (2010) Effort sharing in ambitious, global climate change mitigation scenarios. Energy Policy 38(4):1797–1810
Ekholm T, Lindroos TJ, Savolainen I (2013) Robustness of climate metrics under climate policy ambiguity. Environ Sci Policy 31:44–52
Flato G, et al. (2013) Evaluation of climatemodels. In: Climate Change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, chapter 9
Fuss S, Johansson DJA, Szolgayova J, Obersteiner M (2009) Impact of climate policy uncertainty on the adoption of electricity generating technologies. Energy Policy 37(2):733–743
Gurney A, Ahammad H, Ford M (2009) The economics of greenhouse gas mitigation: Insights from illustrative global abatement scenarios modelling. Energy Econ 31(S2):S174 – S186
Hammitt JK, Lempert RJ, Schlesinger ME (1992) A sequential-decision strategy for abating climate change. Nature 357:315–318
Johansson DJA, Persson UM, Azar C (2008) Uncertainty and learning: Implications for the trade-off between short-lived and long-lived greenhouse gases. Clim Chang 88(3-4):293–308
Knutti R, Hegerl G (2008) The equilibrium sensitivity of the earth’s temperature to radiation changes. Nat Geosci 1:735–743
Kolstad CD (1996) Learning and stock effects in environmental regulation: The case of greenhouse gas emissions. J Environ Econ Manag 31(1):1–18
Krey V, Riahi K (2009) Implications of delayed participation and technology failure for the feasibility, costs, and likelihood of staying below temperature targets-greenhouse gas mitigation scenarios for the 21st century. Energy Econ 31(S2):S94–S106
Leach A (2007) The climate change learning curve. J Econ Dyn Control 31(5):1728–1752
Loulou R, Labriet M (2008) ETSAP-TIAM: The TIMES integrated assessment model Part I: Model structure. CMS 5(1-2):7–40
Loulou R, Labriet M, Kanudia A (2009) Deterministic and stochastic analysis of alternative climate targets under differentiated cooperation regimes. Energy Econ 31(S2):S131–S143
Manne A, Stephan G (1999) Climate-change policies and international rate-of-return differentials. Energy Policy 27(6):309–316
Manne AS, Richels RG (1991) Buying greenhouse insurance. Energy Policy 19(6):543–552
Nordhaus WD (1991) To slow or not to slow: The economics of the greenhouse effect. The Econ J 101(407):920–937
Ruszczynski A, Shapiro A (2003) Stochastic programming models. In: Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science 10: Stochastic Programming. North Holland, Amsterdam, chapter 1
Schimel D et al (1996) Radiative forcing of climate change. In: Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, chapter 2
Syri S, Lehtilä A, Ekholm T, Savolainen I, Holttinen H, Peltola E (2008) Global energy and emissions scenarios for effective climate change mitigation-deterministic and stochastic scenarios with the tiam model. Int J of Greenh Gas Control 2(2):274–285
Tol RSJ (2003) Is the uncertainty about climate change too large for expected cost-benefit analysis? Clim Chang 56(3):265–289
Tol RSJ (2009) The economic effects of climate change. J Econ Perspect 23(2):29–51
van Vuuren DP, Stehfest E, den Elzen MG, van Vliet J, Isaac M (2010) Exploring image model scenarios that keep greenhouse gas radiative forcing below 3 W/m 2 in 2100. Energy Econ 32(5):1105–1120
Webster M, Jakobovits L, Norton J (2008) Learning about climate change and implications for near-term policy. Clim Chang 89(1-2):67–85
Weitzman ML (1974) Prices vs. quantities. Rev Econ Stud 41(4):477–491
Weitzman ML (2001) Gamma discounting. Am Econ Rev 91(1):1–19
Weitzman ML (2009) On modeling and interpreting the economics of catastrophic climate change. Rev Econ Stat 91(1):260–271
The research has been done in the project STARSHIP, funded by the Academy of Finland (Decision No. 140800).
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
About this article
Cite this article
Ekholm, T. Hedging the climate sensitivity risks of a temperature target. Climatic Change 127, 153–167 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1243-8
- Emission Reduction
- Climate Sensitivity
- Abatement Cost
- Temperature Constraint
- Cost Curve