Evaluation of risk in cost-benefit analysis of climate change

  • Ingrid Nestle

Abstract

Assumptions on risk aversion have an important influence on the results of climate change cost estimates. However, it is highly controversial which values should be used. They can hardly be deduced from market behaviour, as the empirical risk aversion differs widely according to context. Therefore, an empirical survey has been conducted to enhance our understanding of empirical risk aversion in the context of climate change. First results give strong evidence that different values of risk aversion should be used for different damage categories. The risk aversion in the cases of human lives lost, serious health damages and irreversible damages in general is considerably higher than when moderate economic losses are at stake. On the contrary current climate cost models usually use one single value for risk aversion. The survey tends to support high values of risk aversion in the context of climate change.

Keywords

Climate change costs risk aversion empirical preferences 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Callaway J (2004) The benefits and costs of adapting to climate variability and climate change. In: The benefits of climate change policies. OECD-Publication: pp 11–158Google Scholar
  2. Dietz S (2007) Presentation for the Electricity Policy Research group at Cambridge University on 19th November 2007. Most of his elaboration has been published in Dietz et al. 2007Google Scholar
  3. Dietz S, Hope C, Patmore N (2007) Some economics of ‘dangerous’ climate change: reflections on the Stern Review. In: Global Environmental Change 17: 311–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hitz S, Smith J (2004) Estimating global impacts from climate change. In: The benefits of climate change policies. OECD-Publication, pp 31–82Google Scholar
  5. Hohmeyer O (2005) Die Abschätzung der Kosten des anthropogenen Treibhauseffekts – dominieren normative Setzungen das Ergebnis? In: Vierteljahreshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung 74 (2): 164–168Google Scholar
  6. Hope C (2006) The marginal impact of CO2 from PAGE2002: an integrated assessment model incorporating the IPCC’s five reasons for concern. In: The Integrated Assessment Journal 6 (1): 19–56Google Scholar
  7. IPCC (2001) Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and vulnerability. A report of the Working Group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed By McCarthy JJ, Canziani OF, Leary NA, Dokken DJ, White KS. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. IPCC (2001a) Climate Change 2001: mitigation. A report of the Working Group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed by Metz B and Davidson O. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  9. IPCC (1996) Climate change 1995. Economic and social dimensions of climate change. Contribution of Working group III to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Editors Bruce JP, Lee H, Haites EF. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  10. Jacoby H (2004) toward a framework for climate benefit estimation. In: The benefits of climate change policies. OECD-Publication, pp 299–323Google Scholar
  11. Jäger C, Renn O, Rosa E, Webler T (1998): Decision analysis and rational action. In: Rayner S and Malone EL (eds): Human choice and climate change, vol 3: The tools for policy analysis. Battelle Press, Columbus, pp 141–215Google Scholar
  12. Jones R (2004) Managing climate change risks. In: The benefits of climate change policies. OECD-Publication: pp 249–297Google Scholar
  13. BABS (Bundesamt für Bevölkerungsschutz der Schweiz) (without year): KATARISK – Katastrophen und Notlagen in der Schweiz. Eine Risikobeurteilung aus der Sicht des Bevölkerungsschutzes. Available at: http://www.bevoelkerungsschutz.admin.ch/internet/ bs/de/home/themen/gefaehrdungen/katarisk.ContentPar.0005.DownloadFile.tmp/ methode-monitor.pdfGoogle Scholar
  14. Kemfert C (2004) Die ökonomischen Kosten des Klimawandels. Wochenbericht des DIW Berlin, 71 (42): 615–623Google Scholar
  15. Lind R, Schuler R (1998): Equity and discounting in climate-change decisions. In: Nordhaus, Wiliam (ed): Economics and policy issues in climate change. Resources for the future, Washington DC, pp 59–96Google Scholar
  16. Litai D, Lanning DD, Rasmussen NC (1983) The public perception of risk. In: V.T. Covello et al. (eds) The analysis of actual versus perceived risks. Plenum Press New York/London, pp 212–224. Cited after Plattner et al. (2005)Google Scholar
  17. Maddison D (1999) The plausibility of the ExternE estimates of the external effects of electricity production. CSERGE Working Paper GEC 99–04 (Centre for social and economic research on the global environment at UEA and UCL)Google Scholar
  18. Markandya A (1994) Externalities of Fuel Cycles. ExternE Project. Report number 9. Economic valuation – an impact pathway approach. European Commission, DG XIIGoogle Scholar
  19. Morlot JC, Agrawala S (2004) Overview. In: The benefits of climate change policies. OECD-Publication, pp 9–30Google Scholar
  20. Nordhaus, William and Joseph Boyer (2000): Warming the world. Economic models of climate change. MIT press, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  21. Pittini M, Rahman M (2004) The social cost of carbon; key issues arising from a UK review. In: The benefits of climate change policies. OECD-Publication, pp 189–220Google Scholar
  22. Plattner T, Heinimann HR, Hollenstein K (2005) Risikobewertung bei Naturgefahren. Schlussbericht. Von der Plenarversammlung der Nationalen Plattform Naturgefahren (PLANAT) genehmigtGoogle Scholar
  23. Portney P (1998) Applicability of cost-benefit analysis to climate change. In: Nordhaus W (ed): Economics and policy issues in climate change. Resources for the future, Washington DC, pp 111–127Google Scholar
  24. Rabin M (2000) Diminishing marginal utility of wealth cannot explain risk aversion. Posted at the eScholarship Repository, University of California: http://repositories.edlib.org/ iber/econ/E00–287Google Scholar
  25. Schneider SH, Lane J (2004) Abrupt, non-linear climate change and climate policy. In: The benefits of climate change policies. OECD-Publication: pp 159–188Google Scholar
  26. Stern N (2006) The economics of climate change. London, HM TreasuryGoogle Scholar
  27. Tol R (2002) Estimates of damage costs of climate change. Part I. Benchmark estimates. In: Environmental and Resource Economics 21: pp 47–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tol R (2002a) Estimates of the damage costs of climate change. Part II. Dynamic estimates. In: Environmental and Resource Economics 21: pp 135–160Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ingrid Nestle
    • 1
  1. 1.Internationales Institut für ManagementFlensburg University24937 FlensburgGermany

Personalised recommendations