Moving targets—cost-effective climate policy under scientific uncertainty
The IPCC’s fifth assessment report of Working Group III has just come out. It pays special attention to the 2 °C temperature target and tells us that the window of opportunity to prevent such climate change is rapidly closing. Yet, the report also presents a portfolio of stabilization targets, reflecting a fundamental ambiguity: there is no unique “dangerous” climate threshold. Here, we describe a framework for the evaluation of optimal climate policy given an uncertain formal climate threshold. We find that uncertainty leads to moving targets: even when the available information does not change, future regulators will tend to relax current climate plans.
We develop a reduced form integrated assessment model to assess the quantitative significance of our findings. We calibrate preferences such that in 2000 a stabilization target of 450 ppmv maintains the optimal balance between climate risks and abatement costs. The naïve equilibrium ultimately reaches a peak of 570 ppmv, missing the 2000 stabilizations targets by a wide margin. Our results offer an explanation for the inertia in mitigation efforts over the past decades: policies often delay the majority of abatement efforts. Yet, believing that subsequent regulators will uphold the planned future efforts is self-defeating.
KeywordsClimate Policy Carbon Price Integrate Assessment Model Cumulative Emission Stabilization Target
RG wrote the code for the GAMS model and STATA figures. RG and TM both contributed to the final text.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
- Barrett S, Dannenberg A (2012) Climate negotiations under scientific uncertainty. PNAS 109:17327–17376Google Scholar
- Edenhofer, Pichs‐Madruga OR, Sokona Y et al (2014) Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change (summary for policy makers). Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Gerlagh R, Liski M (2013) Carbon prices for the next thousand years, CESifo working paper 3855Google Scholar
- Gerlagh R, Liski M (2014) Carbon prices for the next hundred years, CESifo working paper 4671Google Scholar
- Iverson T (2013) Optimal carbon taxes with non-constant time preference, MPRA paper 49588Google Scholar
- IPCC (1995) Working group III in climate change 1994: Radiative forcing of climate change and an evaluation of the IPCC IS92 emissions scenarios. In: Houghton, J. T. et al. (eds). Cambridge Univ. Press, 233–304Google Scholar
- Karp L, Newbery D (1993) Chapter 19—Intertemporal Consistency Issues in Depletable Resources, In: Kneese AV, Sweeney JL (eds) Handbook of Natural Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, Volume 3, 881–931Google Scholar
- Michielsen T (2013) Environmental catastrophes under time-inconsistent preferences. CentER Discussion Paper Series No. 2013–013Google Scholar
- Nordhaus WD (1993) Optimal greenhouse-gas reductions and tax policy in the “DICE” model. Am Econ Rev 83(2):313–317Google Scholar
- Nordhaus WD (2008) A question of balance: weighing the options on global warming policies. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar