The comparative impact of Integrated Assessment Models' structures on optimal mitigation policies

Baptiste Perrissin Fabert (), Etienne Espagne (), Antonin Pottier and Patrice Dumas ()
Additional contact information
Baptiste Perrissin Fabert: CIRED - centre international de recherche sur l'environnement et le développement - Cirad - Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - AgroParisTech - ENPC - École nationale des ponts et chaussées - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
Patrice Dumas: CIRED - centre international de recherche sur l'environnement et le développement - Cirad - Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - AgroParisTech - ENPC - École nationale des ponts et chaussées - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Cirad-ES - Département Environnements et Sociétés - Cirad - Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement

Post-Print from HAL

Abstract: This paper aims at providing a consistent framework to appraise alternative modeling choices that have driven the so-called "when flexibility" controversy since the early 1990s, dealing with the optimal timing of mitigation efforts and the social cost of carbon (SCC). The literature has emphasized the critical impact of modeling structures on the optimal climate policy. We estimate within a unified framework the comparative impact of modeling structures and investigate the structural modeling drivers of differences in climate policy recommendations. We use the integrated assessment model (IAM) RESPONSE to capture a wide array of modeling choices. Specifically, we analyse four emblematic modeling choices, namely the forms of the damage function (quadratic vs. sigmoid) and the abatement cost (with or without inertia), the treatment of uncertainty, and the decision framework, deterministic or sequential, with different dates of information arrival. We define an original methodology based on an equivalence criterion to compare modeling structures, and we estimate their comparative impact on two outputs: the optimal SCC and abatement trajectories. We exhibit three key findings: (1) IAMs with a quadratic damage function are insensitive to changes of other features of the modeling structure, (2) IAMs involving a non-convex damage function entail contrasting climate strategies, (3) Precautionary behaviors can only come up in IAMs with non-convexities in damage.

Keywords: optimal; mitigation; policies (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2015
Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://enpc.hal.science/hal-01298343v1
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (12)

Published in Environmental Modelling and Assessment, 2015, 20 (5), pp.453-473. ⟨10.1007/s10666-015-9443-9⟩

Downloads: (external link)
https://enpc.hal.science/hal-01298343v1/document (application/pdf)

Related works:
Working Paper: The Comparative Impact of Integrated Assessment Models' Structures on Optimal Mitigation Policies (2014)
Working Paper: The Comparative Impact of Integrated Assessment Models' Structures on Optimal Mitigation Policies (2014)
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:hal:journl:hal-01298343

DOI: 10.1007/s10666-015-9443-9

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Post-Print from HAL
Bibliographic data for series maintained by CCSD ().