Between Two Worlds: Methodological and Subjective Differences in Climate Impact Meta-Analyses

Peter H. Howard and Thomas Sterner
Additional contact information
Thomas Sterner: Resources for the Future
Authors registered in the RePEc Author Service: Karen Palmer

No 22-10, RFF Working Paper Series from Resources for the Future

Abstract: In his 2019 Nobel Prize acceptance paper, William Nordhaus (2019) highlighted the uncertainty over climate damages by using two completely different damage functions: Nordhaus and Moffat (2017) and Howard and Sterner (2017). Despite their vastly different implications for climate policies, both were estimated using the meta-analysis technique, a method long considered the objective and scientifically rigorous way for combining results from multiple studies to develop a consensus estimate. This paper demonstrates that this disparity stems from differences in both methodological decisions (addressing methodological impacts and heteroskedasticity) and subjective decisions (about data search, selection, and weighting). Combining the two data sets, applying Nordhaus’s quality weights, and applying the best methodological practices, we find damages of approximately 7 to 10 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) for a 3°C increase in global average surface temperature, depending on the inclusion of catastrophic and productivity impacts; the result is relatively robust to alternative data selection, weighting, and methodological assumptions. However, subjective differences between the weighting assumptions of the two earlier studies are still unresolved. To address subjectivity, this paper makes transparent existing weighting rules, develops new weighting rules, and applies a recently developed quality effects estimator from the medical literature (Doi et al. 2015). Operationalizing these rules, we demonstrate that damages are approximately 7 to 16 percent of GDP for a 3°C increase, though the upper end of this range, which includes catastrophic and productivity impacts, is sensitive to the selected model and weight specification.

Date: 2022-07-05
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-ene, nep-env and nep-reg
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.rff.org/documents/3438/WP_22-10.pdf (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-22-10

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in RFF Working Paper Series from Resources for the Future Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Resources for the Future (info@rff.org).