Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 11, Issue 3–4, pp 301–315 | Cite as

Are Optimal CO2 Emissions Really Optimal?

  • Christian Azar

Abstract

Although the greenhouse effect is by many considered as one of the most serious environmental problems, several economic studies of the greenhouse effect, most notably Nordhaus's DICE model, suggest that it is optimal to allow the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) to increase by a factor of three over the next century. Other studies have found that substantial reductions can be justified on economic grounds. This paper explores into the reasons for these differences and identifies four (partly overlapping) crucial issues that have to be dealt with when analysing the economics of the greenhouse effect: low-probability but catastrophic events; cost evaluation methods; the choice of discount rate; the choice of decision criterion. The paper shows that (i) these aspects are crucial for the policy conclusions drawn from models of the economics of climate change, and that (ii) ethical choices have to be made for each of these issues. This fact needs wider recognition since economics is very often perceived as a value neutral tool that can be used to provide policy makers with “optimal” policies.

climate change cost-benefit analysis decision criterion discount rate weight factors JEL classification: D61, D62, D63 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arrow, K. J., W. Cline, K. G. Mäler, M. Munasinghe, R. Squitieri and J. Stiglitz (1996), ‘Intertemporal Equity, Discounting and Economic Efficiency’, in J. P. Bruce, H. Lee and E. F. Haites, eds., Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change, Second Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Ayres R. U. and J. Walter (1991), ‘The Greenhouse Effect: Damages, Costs and Abatement’, Environmental and Resource Economics 1, 237–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ayres, R. U and R. Axtell (1996), ‘Foresight as a Survival Characteristic: When if Ever Does the Long View Pay’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 51, 209–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Azar, C. and T. Sterner (1996), ‘Discounting and Distributional Considerations in the Context of Climate Change’, Ecological Economics 19, 169–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Azar, C. and H. Rodhe (1997), ‘Targets for Stabilisation of Atmospheric CO2’, Science 276, 1818–1819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Azar, C. (1998), ‘Weight Factors in Cost-benefit Analysis of Climate change’, Environmental and Resource Economics (in press).Google Scholar
  7. Azar, C. and O. Johansson (1996), ‘Uncertainty and Climate Change or the Economics of Twin Peaks’, paper presented at the annual conference of European Environmental and Resource Economists, Lisbon, June 1996.Google Scholar
  8. Bingham, G., R. Bishop, M. Brody, D. Bromley, E. Clark, W. Cooper, R. Costanza, T. Hale, G. Hayden, S. Kellert, R. Norgaard, B. Norton, J. Payne, C. Russel and G. Suter (1995), ‘Issues in Ecosystem Valuation: Improving Information for Decision-Making’, Ecological Economics 14, 73–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Birdsall, N. and A. Steer (1993), ‘Act Now on Global arming: But Don’t Cook the Books’, Finance and Development 30, 6–8.Google Scholar
  10. Broome J. (1992), Counting the Cost of Global Change. Cambridge, UK: The White Horse Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cline W. R. (1992). The Economics of Global Warming. Washington DC: Institute of International Economics.Google Scholar
  12. d'Arge, R. C., W. D. Schulze and D. S. Brookshire (1982), ‘Carbon Dioxide and Intergenerational Choice’, American Economic Review (papers and proceedings) 72(2), 251–256.Google Scholar
  13. Ekins, P. (1995), ‘Rethinking the Costs Related to Global Warming’, Environmental and Resource Economics 6, 231–277.Google Scholar
  14. Eriksson, K. E. (1994), ‘On Discount, Temporal Justice, Sustainability and Limited Foresight’, Richerche Economiche 48, 341–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fankhauser, S. (1995), Valuing Climate Change: The Economics of the Greenhouse. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  16. Gjerde, J., S. Grepperud and S. Kverndokk (1997), ‘Optimal Climate Policy under the Possibility of a Catastrophe’, paper presented at the Annual meeting of the European Association of Energy and Resource Economists (EAERE), Tilburg, Holland, June 1997.Google Scholar
  17. Grubb, M. (1993), ‘The Costs of Climate Change. Critical Elements, in Y. Kaya, N. Nakicenovic, W. D. Nordhaus and F. L. Toth, eds., Costs, Impacts, and Benefits of CO2 Mitigation, proceedings of a workshop held at IIASA, September 1992, Laxenburg, Austria, pp. 153–166.Google Scholar
  18. Ha-Duong, M., M. Grubb and J.-C. Hourcade (1997), ‘Influence of Socioeconomic Inertia and Uncertainty on Optimal CO2-emission Abatement’, Nature 390, 270–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hasselman, K, S. Hasselman, R. Giering, V. Ocana and H. V. Storch (1997), ‘Sensitivity Study of Optimal CO2 Emission Paths Using a Dimplified Structural Integrated Assessment Model’, Climatic Change 37, 345–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harrod, R. (1948), Towards a Dynamic Economics. London: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
  21. Howarth, R. B. (1997), ‘Discount Rates and Overlapping Generations: An Application to Climate Change’, Contemporary Economic Policy, in press.Google Scholar
  22. Jacobs, M. (1991), The Green Economy. London, UK: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  23. Johansson-Stenman, O. (1998), ‘The Importance of Ethics in Environmental Economics with a Focus on Existence Values’, Environmental and Resource Economics 11, in this issue.Google Scholar
  24. Krause, F., W. Bach and J. Kooney (1992), Energy Policy in the Greenhouse. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  25. Khanna, N. and D. Chapman (1996), ‘Time Preference, Abatement Costs, and International Climate Policy: An Appraisal of IPCC 1995’, Contemporary Economic Policy XIV, 56–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Layard, P. R. G and A. A. Walters (1978), Microeconomic Theory. UK: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  27. Lind, R. C. et al. (eds.) (1982), Discounting for Time and Risk in Energy Policy. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Lind, R. C. (1995), ‘Intergenerational Equity, Discounting, and the Role of Cost-Benefit Analysis in Evaluating Global Climate Policy’, Energy Policy 23, 379–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mahlman, J. D. (1997), ‘Uncertainties in Projections of Human-caused Climate Warming’, Science 278, 1416–1417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Manne, A. S. (1995), ‘The Rate of Time Preference. Implications for the Greenhouse Debate’, Energy Policy 23, 391–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Manne, A. S., R. Mendelsohn and R. G. Richels (1995), ‘MERGE. A Model for Evaluating Regional and Global Effects of GHG Reduction Policies’, Energy Policy 23, 17–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Manne, A. S. (1996), ‘Hedging Strategies for Global Carbon Dioxide Abatement: A Summary of Poll Results EMF 14 Subgroup – Analysis for Decision Making under Uncertainty’, in N. Nakicenovic et al., eds., Climate Change: Integrating Science, Economic and Policy, proceedings of a workshop held at IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria, June 19–20 March, pp. 207–228.Google Scholar
  33. Manne, A. S. (1997), ‘Intergenerational Altruism, Discounting and the Greenhouse Debate’, Draft. Stanford University, Ca.Google Scholar
  34. Markandya, A. and D. W. Pearce (1989), ‘Development, the Environment and the Social Rate of Discount’, The World Bank Research Observer 6, 137–152.Google Scholar
  35. Mendelsohn, R. and J. Neumann (eds.) (1998), ‘The Economic Impacts of Climate Change on the US Economy’, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. In press.Google Scholar
  36. Nordhaus W. D. (1991), ‘To Slow or Not to Slow: the Economics of the Greenhouse Effect’, Economic Journal 101, 920–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nordhaus, W. D. (1994), Managing the Global Commons: the Economics of Climate Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  38. Parry, I. W. H. (1993), ‘Some Estimates of the Insurance Value against Climate Change from Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions’, Resource and Energy Economics 15, 99–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pearce, D. W., W. R. Cline, A. N. Achanta, S. Fankhauser, R. K. Pachauri, R. S. J. Tol and P. Vellinga (1996), ‘The Social Costs of Climate Change: Greenhouse Damage and the Benefit of Control’, in J. P. Bruce, H. Lee and E. F. Haites, eds., Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change, Second Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Peck, S. C. and T. J. Teisberg (1993), ‘Global Warming Uncertainties and the Value of Information: An Analysis Using CETA’, Resource and Energy Economics 15, 71–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Price, C. (1993). Time Discounting and Value. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  42. Rabl, A. (1996), ‘Discounting of Long Term Costs. What Would Future Generations Want Us to Do?’ Ecological Economics 17, 137–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ramsey, F. P. (1928), ‘A Mathematical Theory of Saving’, The Economic Journal 138, 543–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rawls, J. (1972), A Theory of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Read, P. (1994), Responding to Global Warming. Zed Book Press.Google Scholar
  46. Rijsberman, F. R. and R. J. Swart, eds. (1990), Targets and Indicators of Climatic Change. Sweden: Stockholm Environment Institute.Google Scholar
  47. Rougharden, T. and S. H. Schneider (1998), ‘Quantifying Uncertainties for Damage from Climate Change’, submitted.Google Scholar
  48. Schelling, T. C. (1995), ‘Intergenerational Discounting’, Energy Policy 23, 395–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schultz, P. A. and J. F. Kastings (1997), ‘Optimal Reductions in CO2 Emissions, Energy Policy 25, 491–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schneider, S. H. (1997). ‘Integrated Assessment Modelling of Global Climate Change: Transparent Rational Tool for Policy Making or Opaque Screen Hiding Value-laden Assumptions’, Environmental Modelling and Assessment 2, 229–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sen, A. K. (1987), On Ethics and Economics. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  52. Sidgwick, H. (1907), The Methods of Ethics. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  53. Solow, R. (1992), An Almost Practical Step Towards Sustainability, An invited lecture on the occasion of the fortieth anniversary of resources for the future, Washington, 8 October.Google Scholar
  54. Spash, C. L. (1994), ‘Double CO2 and Beyond: Benefits, Costs and Compensation’, Ecological Economics 10, 27–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Spash, C. L. and R. C. d'Arge (1989), ‘The Greenhouse Effect and Intergenerational Transfers’, Energy Policy 17, 88–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sterner, T. (1994), ‘Discounting in a World of Limited Growth’, Environmental and Resource Economics 4, 527–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Titus, J. G. (1992), ‘The Costs of Climate Change to the United States’, in S. K. Majmudar, L. S. Kalkstein, B. Yarnal and E. W. Miller, eds., Global Climate Change: Implications Challenges and Mitigation Measures. Easton, PA: The Pensylvania Academy of Science, pp. 384–409.Google Scholar
  58. Tol, R. S. J. (1995), ‘The Damage Cost of Climate Change Toward More Comprehensive Calculations’, Environmental and Resource Economics 5, 353–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tol, R. S. J. (1996), ‘The Damage Costs of Climate Change. Towards a Dynamic Represenation’, Ecological Economics 19, 67–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Toman, M. (1998), ‘Research Frontiers in the Economics of Climate Change’, Environmental and Resource Economics 11, in this issue.Google Scholar
  61. Wigley, T., R. Richels, and J. Edmonds (1996), ‘Economics and Environmental Choices in the Stabilisation of Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations’, Nature 379, 240–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wallace, L. (1993), ‘Discounting Our Descendants’, Finance and Development 30, 2.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Azar
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Physical Resource TheoryChalmers University of Technology, Göteborg UniversityGöteborgSweden

Personalised recommendations