Has economics caught up with climate science?

Shreekant Gupta

Ecology, Economy and Society - the INSEE Journal, 2020, vol. 03, issue 01

Abstract: Whereas scientific evidence points towards substantial and urgent reduction in greenhouses gas (GHG) emissions, economic analysis of climate change seems to be out of sync by indicating a more gradual approach. In particular, economic models that use benefit cost analysis, namely, integrated assessment models (IAMs) have been criticised for being conservative in their recommendations on the speed of reducing GHG emissions and the associated levels of carbon taxes. This essay focuses on a prototypical IAM, namely, Nordhaus‘ DICE model to argue the schism between science and economics is more apparent than real. Analysis of the DICE model suggests extreme climate scenarios can be captured through alternative specifications of the damage function (the impact of temperature on the economy). In particular, damage functions that extend the standard quadratic representation are highly convex (Weitzman 2012). Thus, they are able to capture climate tipping points as well as ―fat tail‖ risks originating from uncertainty with regard to equilibrium climate sensitivity.

Keywords: Environmental; Economics; and; Policy (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/303767/files/EES%203-1%2011-30.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:ags:inseej:303767

DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.303767

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Ecology, Economy and Society - the INSEE Journal from Indian Society of Ecological Economics (INSEE) Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by AgEcon Search ().