Author:
Roca Jordi,Padilla Emilio
Abstract
AbstractThe application of cost–benefit logic to climate change has been popularized as “the economics of climate change.” The Dynamic Integrated Climate-Economy (DICE) model of William Nordhaus, which models the interrelations between the economy and climate change and indicates the “optimal” path of emission mitigation, recommends moderate action to limit warming to 3.5 °C. This is in contrast to a recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which urges to limit it to 1.5 °C. The analyses à la Nordhaus contain several questionable assumptions, choices of methods, and parameters that are based on the value judgments of the authors, and these determine their results. The economic analysis of climate change policies should incorporate the precautionary principle and a concern for sustainability and environmental justice.
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Reference24 articles.
1. Azar, C. (1998). Are optimal CO2 emissions really optimal? Environmental and Resource and Energy Economics, 11, 301–315.
2. Azar, C., & Sterner, T. (1996). Discounting and distributional considerations in the context of global warming. Ecological Economics, 19, 169–184.
3. Cline, W. R. (1992). The economics of global warming. Institute for International Economics.
4. Goulder, L. H., & Williams, R. C., III. (2012). The choice of discount rate for climate change policy evaluation. Climate Change Economics, 3(4), 1250024.
5. IPCC. (2018). Global warming of 1.5°C an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. IPCC.