Abstract
This essay discusses the relation between utility discounting and climate policy. Using a cost-benefit model, I show that the planner’s willingness to pay to eliminate a climate event is greater, but less sensitive to discounting, when the event is random instead of deterministic. Examples in an optimizing setting show that policy may be less sensitive to discounting, the more nonlinear is the underlying model. I then explain why, in general, there should be no presumption that the risk of catastrophe swamps discounting in the assessment of climate policy. I conclude by pointing out that intertemporal transfers between the same agent at different points in their life, and transfers between different agents at different points in time, are qualitatively different, and should not be assessed using the same discount rate.
I thank an anonymous reviewer for comments on an earlier draft of this paper. The usual disclaimer applies. Sects. 3.2 and 4 of this paper are adapted from Karp (2009), and Sect. 5 is based on Karp (2013a, b).
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The utility discount rate (the pure rate of time preference, or PRTP) is related to, but distinct from, the social discount rate, used to compare consumption (as distinct from utility) across two points in time. In the standard deterministic setting, the social discount rate equals the PRTP plus the growth rate multiplied by the inverse of the elasticity of intertemporal substitution. The latter provides a measure of the willingness to substitute consumption between “infinitely close” periods.
- 2.
The model in this section is based on Karp and Tsur (2008). That paper considers non-constant PRTP, whereas here the PRTP is constant. In the model here, society can eliminate the risk, whereas in the Karp and Tsur model society is able only to prevent the hazard from increasing. Neither model is nested in the other. Appendix 1 derives Eqs. 1 and 2.
- 3.
- 4.
The increase in the tax from $42/tC to $102/tC leads to a fall in per capital income (during the period when it is lowest, presumably the first period) from $6,801 to $6,799, i.e. about 0.03 %. In view of parameter uncertainty, a 0.03 % reduction in per capita income, equivalently a $15 billion increase in aggregate abatement costs (at Gross World Product—GWP—of $50 trillion), is close to rounding error.
- 5.
This model assumes that the sacrifice of one unit of consumption today makes one unit available in the future period. If instead, the sacrifice of v units makes \(\theta \left( v\right) \) units available the future, the numerator of the right side of Eq. 4 becomes \(\frac{du\left( c^{\prime }+\theta \left( v\right) \right) }{dv}\theta ^{\prime }\left( v\right) \). These and other extensions can be easily treated, but the simple model that I use is adequate for my purposes.
- 6.
These numerical results are interesting, but someone who accepts the controversial interpretation of the dismal theorem will not regard them as a convincing counter-argument to that interpretation. All of the numerical experiments arise in a deterministic context, and in that respect they do not really confront the dismal theorem, which makes sense only in a setting with risk and uncertainty. For this reason, I think that Horowitz and Lange’s very simple treatment of the problem is particularly helpful.
- 7.
In order to keep this example simple, suppose that current emissions affect only next period utility. Obviously, a realistic climate model has to take into account that today’s emissions persist in the atmosphere, affecting utility over a long span.
References
Arrow, K. (2007). Globak climate change: A challange to policy. The Economists Voice, 4, 1–5.
Barro, R. (1999). Ramsey meets Laibson in the neoclassical growth model. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 1125–52.
Calvo, G., & Obstfeld, M. (1988). Optimal time-consistent fiscal policy with finite lifetimes. Econometrica, 56, 32–411.
Clark, C. W. (1975). Mathematical bioeconomics: The optimal management of renewable resources. Wiley.
Cropper, M., & Laibson, D. (1999). The implications of hyperbolic discounting for project evaluation. In P. R. Portney & J. Weyant (Eds.), Discounting and Intergenerational Equity. Resources for the Future.
Ekeland, I., Karp, L., & Sumaila, R. (2012). Equilibrium management of fisheries with altruistic overlapping generations. University of British Columbia Working Paper.
Ekeland, I., & Lazrak, A. (2010). The golden rule when preferences are time inconsistent. Mathematical and Financial Economics, 4(1), 29–55.
Fujii, T., & Karp, L. (2008). Numerical analysis of non-constant pure rate of time preference: a model of climate policy. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Forthcoming, 56, 83–101.
Fujii, T. (2008). Numerical analysis of non-constant pure rate of time preference: a model of climate policy. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 56, 83–101.
Gerlagh, R., & Liski, M. (2012). Carbon prices for the next thousand years. Unpublished Working Paper.
Harris, C., & Laibson, D. (2001). Dynamic choices of hyperbolic consumers. Econometrica, 69(5), 935–957.
Heal, G. (1998). Valuing the future: economic theory and sustainability. New York: Columbia University Press.
Heal, G. (2001). Intertemporal welfare economics and the environment. In K.-G. Maler & J. Vincent (Eds.), The handbook of environmental economics. Amsterdam: North Holland.
Horowitz, J., & Lange, A. (2008). What’s wrong with infinity—a note on Weitzman’s dismal theorem. University of Maryland Working Paper.
Karp, L. (2005). Global Warming and hyperbolic discounting. Journal of Public Economics, 89, 261–282.
Karp, L. (2009). Sacrifice, discounting and climate policy: five questions. Giannini Foundation working paper.
Karp, L. (2013a). Overlapping generations and environmental policy: An Introduction. Giannini Foundation Working Paper.
Karp, L. (2013b). Provision of a public good with altruistic overlapping generations and many tribes. Giannini Foundation Working Paper.
Karp, L. (2013c). Railroad discounting. Giannini Foundation Working Paper.
Laibson, D. (1997). Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 62, 443–78.
Nordhaus, W. D. (2007). A Review of the stern review on the economics of climate change. Journal of Economic Literature, 3, 686–702.
Norhaus, W. (2009). An analysis of the dismal theorem. Cowles Foundatiuon Discussion Paper No 1686.
Phelps, E., & Pollack, R. (1968). On second-best national savings and game: equilibrium growth. Review of Economic Studies, 35, 185–199.
Ramsey, F. (1928). A mathematical theory of savings. Economic Journal, 38, 59–543.
Schneider, M., Traeger, C., & Winkler, R. (2012). Trading off generations: Equity, efficiency and climate change. European Economic Review, 56, 1621–1644.
Stern, N. (2007). The economics of climate change. Cambridge University Press.
Weitzman, M. (2009). On modeling and interpreting the economics of catastrophic climate change. Review of Economics and Statistics, 91(1), 1–19.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix 1
Appendix 1
If society pays the premium, thus eliminating risk, the present discounted stream of utility is
If society does not pay the insurance premium, and the event occurs at time T, the payoff is
If the event time T is exponentially distributed with hazard h, then
Using this formula, we have
For the certain event time, with \(T=\frac{1}{h}\), the maximum premium society would pay, X, is the solution to
or
Solving for X
Solving for X and setting \(y=100X\) gives Eq. 1. I obtain Eq. 2 by taking expectations with respect to T, using Eq. 7, and repeating the steps used to obtain Eq. 1 (Figs. 11 and 12).
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Karp, L. (2016). Discounting Utility and the Evaluation of Climate Policy. In: Chichilnisky, G., Rezai, A. (eds) The Economics of the Global Environment. Studies in Economic Theory, vol 29. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31943-8_19
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31943-8_19
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-31941-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-31943-8
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)