SCCs and the use of IAMs: Let's separate the wheat from the chaff

Franck Nadaud (), Etienne Espagne, Antonin Pottier, Baptiste Perrissin Fabert and Patrice Dumas ()
Additional contact information
Franck Nadaud: 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
Etienne Espagne: 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: Cirad - Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement

Post-Print from HAL

Abstract: This paperargues that integrated assessment models (IAMs) are useful tools to build corridors ofsocialcosts of carbon (SCC)reflecting divergent worldviews.Instead of pursuing the elusive quest for the right SCC, IAMs could indeed be useful tools to rationalize the different beliefs on climate related parameters (or worldviews) in the climate debate and help build politically coherent corridors of SCCs. We first take the example of the Stern-Nordhaus controversy as an illustration of the impossible quest for the right SCC. Disentangling the drivers of this controversy, we show that the main differences in results come from a mix of ethical choices of therepresentativeagent(puretimepreference),long-termassumptionsontechnicalparameters (abatement cost dynamics) and climate related unknowns (climate sensitivity). We then argue that these sources of disagreement can be best understood as differing worldviews rather than purescientificuncertainties. ThisimpliesthatIAMsareoflimitedhelpindetermining theright SCC,in linewithPindyck(2017).Butcontrary tohim, weconsideritnecessarytoseparatethe wheat from the chaff, and argue for a middle way between the blind confidence in IAMs' outputs and their full rejection with respect to the SCC debate. Instead, we show how they could help rationalize the climate debates around a corridor of SCCs. We thus analyze the drivers of such corridors of values, or how the sources of divergent worldviews differently impact the SCC-abatementspacewithtime.All inall,theclimatepolicydebatearoundcarbonpricingcan benefitfromarenewedunderstandingoftheroleofIAMs,lessdivinatoryandmoreinstitutionallycentered.

Date: 2018-03
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3)

Published in Handbook of International Economics, 2018, ⟨10.1016/j.inteco.2018.02.004⟩

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
Journal Article: SCCs and the use of IAMs: Let's separate the wheat from the chaff (2018)
Journal Article: SCCs and the use of IAMs: Let's separate the wheat from the chaff (2018)
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-01780920

DOI: 10.1016/j.inteco.2018.02.004

Access Statistics for this paper

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