Philosophy & Technology

, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 117–137 | Cite as

Modeling Climate Policies: A Critical Look at Integrated Assessment Models

Research Article


Climate change presents us with a problem of intergenerational justice. While any costs associated with climate change mitigation measures will have to be borne by the world’s present generation, the main beneficiaries of mitigation measures will be future generations. This raises the question to what extent present generations have a responsibility to shoulder these costs. One influential approach for addressing this question is to appeal to neo-classical economic cost–benefit analyses and so-called economy-climate “integrated assessment models” to determine what course of action a principle of intergenerational welfare maximization would require of us. I critically examine a range of problems for this approach. First, integrated assessment models face a problem of underdetermination and induction: They are very sensitive to a number of highly conjectural assumptions about economic responses to a temperature and climate regime, for which we have no empirical evidence. Second, they involve several simplifying assumptions which cannot be justified empirically. And third, some of the assumptions underlying the construction of economic models are intrinsically normative assumptions that reflect value judgments of the modeler. I conclude that, while integrated assessment models may play a useful role as “toy models,” their use as tools for policy optimization is highly problematic.


Climate change Economics Models Cost–benefit analysis Future discounting 



The research for this paper has been supported by the Alexander-von-Humboldt Foundation.


  1. Ackerman, F., DeCanio, S., Howarth, R., & Sheeran, K. (2009). Limitations of integrated assessment models of climate change. Climatic Change, 95(3), 297–315. doi: 10.1007/s10584-009-9570-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Broome, John. (1993). Counting the cost of global warming. The White Horse Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  3. Dasgupta, P. (2007). Commentary: The Stern Review’s economics of climate change. National Institute Economic Review, 199(1), 4–7.Google Scholar
  4. DeCanio, Stephen J. (2003). Economic models of climate change: A critique. Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills, UK.Google Scholar
  5. Dietz, Simon. (2012). “The treatment of risk and uncertainty in the US Social cost of carbon for regulatory impact analysis.” Economics: The open-access, open-assessment E-Journal. doi: 10.5018/economics-ejournal.ja.2012-18.
  6. 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 Economics, 8(1).Google Scholar
  7. Gardiner, S. M. (2011). A perfect moral storm: The ethical tragedy of climate change. USA: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gardiner, S. M., Caney, S., Jamieson, D., & Shue, H. (Eds.). (2010). Climate ethics: Essential readings. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Gilboa, I., & Schmeidler, D. (1989). Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 18(2), 141–153. doi: 10.1016/0304-4068(89)90018-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hope, C. (2006). The marginal impact of CO2 from PAGE2002: An integrated assessment model incorporating the IPCC’s five reasons for concern. The Integrated Assessment Journal, 6(1), 19–56.Google Scholar
  11. Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon. (2010). “Appendix 15A. Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. Final Rule Technical Support Document (TSD): Energy Efficiency Program for Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Small Electric Motors. U.S. Department of Energy. Washington, DC, U.S. Department of Energy.”
  12. Jamieson, Dale. 1992 [reprinted in Gardiner et al 2010].“Ethics, public policy, and global warming,” Science, Technology, Human Values 17.2. 139–153.Google Scholar
  13. Joyce, J. M. (2010). A defense of imprecise credences in inference and decision making. Philosophical Perspectives, 24(1), 281–323. doi: 10.1111/j.1520-8583.2010.00194.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kelly, D. L., and Kolstad, C. D. (2000). “Integrated Assessment Models for Climate Change Control.” In The International Yearbook of Environmental and Resource Economics 1999/2000: A Survey of Current Issues, ed. Henk Folmer and Tom Tietenberg. Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  15. Knutti, R., Reinhard, F., Claudia, T., Jan, C., Gerald, A., & Meehl. (2010). “Challenges in combining projections from multiple climate models.”. Journal of Climate, 23(10), 2739–2758. doi: 10.1175/2009JCLI3361.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kriegler, Elmar, Jim W. Hall, Hermann Held, Richard Dawson, and Hans Joachim Schellnhuber. 2009. “Imprecise Probability Assessment of Tipping Points in the Climate System.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (March 16). doi: 10.1073/pnas.0809117106.
  17. Mastrandrea, M. D. 2010. “Representation of Climate Impacts in Integrated Assessment Models.” In Assessing the Benefits of Avoided Climate Change: Cost­Benefit Analysis and Beyond. Gulledge, J., L. J. Richardson, L. Adkins, and S. Seidel (eds.), Proceedings of Workshop on Assessing the Benefits of Avoided Climate Change, March 16–17, 2009. Pew Center on Global Climate Change: Arlington, VA, p. 85–99. Available at:
  18. Masur, Jonathan S. and Eric A. Posner. 2011 “Climate Regulation and the Limits of Cost-Benefit Analysis”, 99 Cal. L. Rev. 1557. Available at:
  19. Mendelsohn, R. O., Morrison, W. N., Schlesinger, M. E., & Andronova, N. G. (2000). Country-specific market impacts of climate change. Climate Change, 45(3–4), 553–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mendelsohn, R. O., Schlesinger, M. E., & Williams, L. J. (2000). Comparing impacts across climate models. Integrated Assessment, 1(1), 37–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Neumayer, E. (2007). “A missed opportunity: The Stern Review on climate change fails to tackle the issue of non-substitutable loss of natural capital.”. Global Environmental Change, 17(3–4), 297–301. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.04.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nordhaus, Prof William D. 2008. A question of balance: Weighing the options on global warming policies. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
  23. Nordhaus, William and Joseph Boyer. 2000. Warming the World. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Nordhaus, William D., and Joseph Boyer. 2003. Warming the world: Economic models of global warming. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  25. Posner, Eric and Cass Sunstein. 2007. “Climate Change Justice,” John M. Olin Law & Economics Working Paper No. 354. The University of Chicago Law School.Google Scholar
  26. Posner, E., & Neumayer, C. (2008). Climate change justice. The Georgetown Law Journal, 96, 1565–1612.Google Scholar
  27. Posner, Eric A., and David Weisbach. 2010. Climate Change justice. Princeton Univ Pr, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  28. Price, C. (1993). Time, discounting, and value. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  29. Prinn, R. G .& J. M. Reilly. (2012). “Energy and climate outlook 2012.”
  30. Schneider, S. (1997). Integrated assessment modeling of global climate change: transparent rational tool for policy making or opaque screen hiding value-laden assumptions? Environmental Modeling and Assessment, 2, 229–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sen, A. K. (1983). Accounts, actions and values: Objectivity of social science. In C. Lloyd (Ed.), Social theory and political practice. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  32. Sherwood, Steven C., Matthew Huber (2010). “An adaptability limit to climate change due to heat stress.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: May 6, 2010 (
  33. Smith, L. A. (2009). "Toward decision-relevant probability distributions: Communicating ignorance, uncertainty and model-noise" [Powerpoint slides]. Available from the Royal Meteorological Society website: /;accessed15.10.12.
  34. Spash, C. (2002). Greenhouse economics: Value and ethics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Stainforth, D. A., M. R Allen, E. R Tredger and L.A Smith (2007). "Confidence, uncertainty and decision-support relevance in climate predictions." Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 365, 2145–2161. doi: 10.1098/rsta.2007.2074.
  36. Steel, D. 2013. “The precautionary principle and the dilemma objection.” Ethics, Policy and Environment.Google Scholar
  37. Stern, N. (2007). The economics of climate change: The Stern Review. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  38. Sterner, T., & Martin Persson, U. (2008). “An even sterner review: Introducing relative prices into the discounting debate.”. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 2(1), 61–76. doi: 10.1093/reep/rem024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stiglitz, J., Sen, A., Fitoussi, J.-P. (2010). Mismeasuring our lives: Why GDP doesn't add up, Perseus Books Group, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  40. Tol, R. (2002a). Estimates of the damage costs of climate change. Part 1: Benchmark estimates. Environmental and Resource Economics, 21(1), 47–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tol, R. (2002b). Estimates of the damage costs of climate change, Part II. Dynamic estimates. Environmental and Resource Economics, 21(2), 135–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tol, R. (2012). On the uncertainty about the total economic impact of climate change. Environmental and Resource Economics, 1–20. doi: 10.1007/s10640-012-9549-3.
  43. Weitzman, M. L. (2009). “Additive damages, fat-tailed climate dynamics, and uncertain discounting.” Economics: The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal. doi: 10.5018/economics-ejournal.ja.2009-39.
  44. Weitzman, M. L. (2012). GHG targets as insurance against catastrophic climate damages. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 14(2), 221–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Maryland, College ParkCollege ParkUSA
  2. 2.Ludwig-Maximilians Universität MünchenMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations