Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Assessing mitigation-adaptation scenarios for reducing catastrophic climate risk

  • Published:
Climatic Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Countries can use both mitigation and adaptation strategies to protect their citizens from catastrophic risk posed by climate change (e.g., shift in the jet stream). A nation can mitigate by reducing CO2 emissions, which reduces the probability of a catastrophic event; it can adapt by altering the infrastructure so that damages can be reduced in the event a catastrophe is realized. Herein we add to the current literature by extending the endogenous risk framework into a dynamic framework permitting analysis of both mitigation and adaptation while allowing for the dynamic process of global climate change. Our results suggest adaptation to catastrophe is a small fraction of the national climate protection budget relative to mitigation when nations cooperate fully, when damages are both continuous and catastrophic, and when nations have a short planning horizon. Adaptation becomes more important relative to mitigation when nations are unlikely to cooperate, when damages are mainly catastrophic, or when the nation’s planning horizon increases.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Hammitt JK, Adams JL (1996) The value of international cooperation for abating global climate change. Resour Energy Econ 18:219–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanley N, Shogren JF, White B (2006) Environmental economics: in theory and practice, 2nd edn. Palgrave, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Kane S, Shogren J (2000) Linking adaptation and mitigation in climate change policy. Clim Change 45(1):75–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nordhaus WD (1992) An optimal transition path for controlling greenhouse gases. Science 258:1315–1319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nordhaus WD (1994) Expert opinion on climate change. Am Sci 82:45–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordhaus WD (1997) Climate Allowances Protocol (CAP): Comparison of alternative global tradable emissions regimes. Paper presented to the NBER/Yale Workshop on International Environmental Economics, Snowmass, Colorado, June 17, 1997

  • Nordhaus WD, Yang Z (1996) A regional dynamic general-equilibrium model of alternative climate-change strategies. Am Econ Rev 741–764

  • Peck SC, Teisberg TJ (1995) International CO2 emissions control: an analysis using CETA. Energy Policy 23(4/5):297–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose A, Bulte E, Folmer H (1999) Long-run implications for developing countries of joint implementation of greenhouse gas mitigation. Environ Resour Econ 14:19–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shogren J (1999) The benefits and costs of the Kyoto protocol. AEI, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilbanks T, Kane SM, Leiby PN, Perlack RD, Settle C, Shogren JF, Smith JB (2003) Possible responses to global climate change: integrating mitigation and adaptation. Environment 45(5):28–38

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chad Settle.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Settle, C., Shogren, J.F. & Kane, S. Assessing mitigation-adaptation scenarios for reducing catastrophic climate risk. Climatic Change 83, 443–456 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-007-9260-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-007-9260-5

Keywords

Navigation