Economics of climate policy and collective decision making

  • Beat BürgenmeierEmail author
  • Andrea Baranzini
  • Catherine Ferrier
  • Céline Germond-Duret
  • Karin Ingold
  • Sylvain Perret
  • Peter Rafaj
  • Socrates Kypreos
  • Alexander Wokaun


This paper explores the reasons why economic instruments of climate change are reluctantly applied and stresses the need for interdisciplinary research linking economic theory and empirical testing to deliberative political procedures. It is divided in three parts. The first one recalls the main issues in implementing Cost-Benefit Analysis such as information problems, uncertainties, discounting the future and irreversibilities. The second part shows how these issues can be treated in integrated assessment and techno-economic models and presents a case study, which shows that
  • The chosen scenario tends to stabilize atmospheric CO2 concentration at around 550 ppm in the long run.

  • Exclusion of possibility to trade CO2 emission permits under a cap regime would increase the cost of emission abatement for OECD countries.

  • Combining different flexibility instruments might lead to significant gains in the overall cost of climate policy.

The third part presents results of a survey conducted among the main economic and environmental associations in Switzerland. The survey reveals conflicting views on economic instruments. It shows how the social acceptability of these instruments can be improved in taking explicitly into account these opposing views of special interest groups. Therefore, policy scenarios should be selected in combining techno-economic models with empirical studies about their political and normative context.


Discount Rate Climate Policy Baseline Scenario Marginal Abatement Cost Climate Change Policy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. AEN-NEA (Nuclear Energy Agency) (2005) Projected costs of generating electricity — 2005 update. OECD-Nuclear Energy Agency, OECD/IEA. Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  2. Anaheim HA (2002), Impacts of climate change in monetary terms? Issues for Developing Countries. In Baranzini A, Buergenmeier B (Guest Editors) Climate change: issues and opportunities for developing countries. Special Issue of the Int J Global Env Issues, November 2002, 2(3/4):223–239Google Scholar
  3. Arrow KJ (1951) Social choice and individual values. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Arrow KJ, Lind RC (1970) Uncertainty and the evaluation of public investment decisions. Am Econ Rev 60(3):364–378Google Scholar
  5. Arrow KJ, Parikh, J, Pillet G (1996) Decision-Making Frameworks for addressing climate change, in IPCC, cit. below, pp 52–77Google Scholar
  6. Bahn O, Drouet L, Edwards N, Haurie A, Kypreos S, Stocker T, Vial J-P (2006a) Optimal economic growth under climate change threats. Climatic Change, DOI 10.1007/s10584-006-9108-4, this issueGoogle Scholar
  7. Bahn O, Edwards N, Knutti R, Stocker TF (2006b) Climate policy preventing an Atlantic thermohaline collapse. Climatic Change (submitted)Google Scholar
  8. Baranzini A, Goldemberg J, Speck S (2000) A future for carbon taxes. Ecol Econ 32(3):395–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baranzini A, Chesney M, Morisset J (2003) The impact of possible climate catastrophes on global warming policy. Energy Policy 31(8):691–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Barde JP (1997) Economic instruments for environmental protection: experience in OECD countries. in applying market-based instruments to environmental policies in China and OECD countries, Paris, OECD, pp 31–58Google Scholar
  11. Buchanan J (1969) Cost and choice, an inquiry in economic theory. Chicago University Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  12. Bürgenmeier B (1993) Ethical aspects of environmental protection. In: Vernet JP (ed), Environmental contamination, studies in environmental sciences, no. 55. Amsterdam, Londres, New York, Tokyo: ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  13. Bürgenmeier B, Harayama Y, Wallart N (1997), Théorie et pratique des taxes environmentales, Economica, ParisGoogle Scholar
  14. Bürgenmeier B (2003) Modelling equity: a debate about values, in Environment Modelling and Assessment, No 8, pp. 165–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bürgenmeier B, Ferrier C, Germond-Duret C, Ingold K, Perret S (2006) Acceptation des instruments de marché dans la politique climatique suisse: enquête auprès des principaux acteurs économiques suisses, forthcoming (see also Perret S (2004) “L’acceptabilité des instruments économiques dans le domaine de la politique climatique en Suisse: résultats préliminaires”, Working Paper, No WP4-25Google Scholar
  16. Cropper M (2000) Has economic research answered the needs of environmental policy?. J Environ Econ Manag 39:328–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Falk I, Mendelsohn R (1993) The economics of controlling stock pollutants: an efficient strategy for greenhouse gases. J Environ Econ Manag 25:76–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fankhauser S (1995) Valuing climate change. the economics of the greenhouse. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1994) The worth of a songbird: ecological economics as a post-normal science. Ecol Econ 10:197–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Henry C (1974) Investment decisions under uncertainty: the irreversibility effect. Am Econ Rev 64(6):1006–1012Google Scholar
  21. Hettlage R (1993) Ökonomie auf dem Weg zur Sozialwissenschaft? Revue Suisse de Sociologie 19(1)Google Scholar
  22. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (1996) climate change 1995. economic and social dimensions of climate change. contribution of working group iii to the 2nd assessment report of the IPCC. WMO and UNEP, New York, Cambridge (U.K.): Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  23. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2000) special report on emission scenarios, a special report of the working group iii. of intergovernmental panel on climate change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (U.K.)Google Scholar
  24. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2001) climate change 2001: mitigation. contribution of working group iii to the third assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  25. Knutti R, Stocker TF, Joos F, Plattner G-K (2002) Constraints on radiative forcing and future climate change from observations and climate model ensembles. Nature 416:719–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Loulou R, Goldstein G, Noble K (2004). Documentation for the MARKAL family of models. Energy Technology Systems Analysis Programme (ETSAP), October 2004Google Scholar
  27. Maddison D (1995) A cost-benefit analysis of slowing climate change. Energy Policy 23(4/5):337–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Manne AS, Richels RG (2005) Global climate decisions under uncertainty. a paper presented at annual meeting of the international energy workshop 2005, 5–7 July 2005 at the Pa-lu-lu Plaza Kyoto, Kyoto, JapanGoogle Scholar
  29. Mishan EJ (1980) How valid are economic evaluations of allocative changes? J Econ Issues XIV(1):143–161Google Scholar
  30. National Research Council (2002), Abrupt climate change: inevitable surprises. The National Academics Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  31. Nordhaus, WD (1993) Rolling the DICE: an optimal transition path for controlling greenhouse gases. Resou Energy Econ 15:27–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Olson M (1971) Logic of collective action: public goods and the theory of groups. Harvard Universty Press, revised edition, Cambridge (Mass.)Google Scholar
  33. Rafaj P (2005): Analysis of policies contributing to sustainability of the global energy system using the global multi-regional MARKAL model (GMM), Ph.D. Thesis, Nr. 16122, ETH Zürich 2005Google Scholar
  34. Rafaj P, Kypreos S, Barreto L (2005) Flexible carbon mitigation policies: Analysis with a global multiregional MARKAL model. In: Haurie A, Viguier L (eds), Coupling climate and economic dynamics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp 237–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rotmans J, van Asselt MBA (2002) Integrated assessment: current practices and challenges for the future. in Abaza H, Baranzini A (eds) implementing sustainable development. integrated assessment and participatory decision-making processes. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, pp 78–116Google Scholar
  36. Söderbaum P (2000) Ecological economics. Earthcan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  37. Spash CL, Carter C (2001) Environmental valuation in Europe: findings from the concerted action, policy research brief, No 11, European Commission DG-XII, Cambridge Research for Environment (CRE)Google Scholar
  38. Spash CL (2002) Greenhouse economics, value and ethics, Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  39. Thalmann, Ph (2001) The public acceptance of green taxes: two million voters express their opinion. NCCR — WP4 Working Paper 1Google Scholar
  40. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC): 1999, The Kyoto protocol to the convention on climate change, UNFCCC Climate Change Secretariat and UNEP, UNEP/IUC/99/10, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  41. Vatter A (2002), Erfolgsfaktoren klimapolitischer Abstimmungsvorlagen, Büro VatterGoogle Scholar
  42. Viguier L, Barreto L, Haurie A, Kypreos S, Rafaj P (2006) Modelling endogenous learning and imperfect competition effects in climate change economics. Climatic Change, DOI 10.1007/s10584-006-9070-1, this issueGoogle Scholar
  43. Wallart N (2000), The political economy of environmental taxes. Edgar Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Beat Bürgenmeier
    • 1
    Email author
  • Andrea Baranzini
    • 2
  • Catherine Ferrier
    • 1
  • Céline Germond-Duret
    • 3
  • Karin Ingold
    • 1
  • Sylvain Perret
    • 1
  • Peter Rafaj
    • 5
  • Socrates Kypreos
    • 4
  • Alexander Wokaun
    • 4
  1. 1.Centre of Human Ecology and Environmental SciencesUniversity of GenevaGenevaSwitzerland
  2. 2.Geneva School of Business AdministrationUniversity of Applied Sciences of Western SwitzerlandSwitzerland
  3. 3.Graduate Institute of International RelationsUniversity of GenevaGeneva
  4. 4.Paul Scherrer InstituteSwitzerland
  5. 5.International Institute for Applied Systems AnalysisAustria

Personalised recommendations