Insurance against Catastrophic Climate Change: How Much Will an Emissions Trading Scheme Cost Australia?
Philip D. Adams
No 331770, Conference papers from Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project
Abstract:
There is now compelling advice from the scientific community, including CSIRO, that a sharp cut in world greenhouse gas emissions would substantially reduce the risk of catastrophic climate change over the next century. Cutting greenhouse gas emissions is like buying an insurance policy: we incur a cost (a loss in GDP) to reduce a risk (catastrophic climate change). In any insurance decision, the cost matters. If a worthwhile reduction in risk costs 50 per cent of income, then living with the risk may be preferable. But if it costs 1 per cent of income, then taking the insurance policy may be the best option. The purpose of this article is to evaluate the possible cost in the context of an emissions trading scheme (ETS) for Australia. The analysis is based on simulations of the Monash Multi-Regional Forecasting (MMRF) model, with key inputs relating to the electricity sector provided by McLennan, Magasanik Associates (MMA) from modelling using their suite of energy market models.
Keywords: Environmental Economics and Policy; Resource/Energy Economics and Policy (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Pages: 29
Date: 2008
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:
Downloads: (external link)
https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/331770/files/3785.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:pugtwp:331770
Access Statistics for this paper
More papers in Conference papers from Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by AgEcon Search ().