The Social Cost of Carbon and its Policy Implications
AbstractThe shadow price, or 'social cost', of carbon is an important indicator of the global incremental damage done by emitting greenhouse gases today. Cost--benefit analysis would set the optimal amount of greenhouse-gas-emission reduction at the point where this social cost just equals the incremental cost of controlling emissions. The higher the value for the social cost of carbon, the more control is warranted. This comparison assumes that cost--benefit analysis is the correct way of determining climate-change policy, and many believe this is not the case because of the very long-term, irreversible, and potentially catastrophic nature of global warming. But, in the short run at least, a comparison of cost and benefits is required, and, in any event, all decisions imply costs and benefits. But what is the 'right' figure for the social cost of carbon? This paper reviews the UK government's assessment of the cost and concludes that it has been set far too high because of a misreading of the integrated assessment models used to balance costs and benefits. Moreover, adoption of the UK government's shadow price would have formidable implications for energy policy in the UK, and for policies on afforestation. Copyright 2003, Oxford University Press.
Download InfoTo our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Oxford University Press in its journal Oxford Review of Economic Policy.
Volume (Year): 19 (2003)
Issue (Month): 3 ()
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://oxrep.oupjournals.org/
You can help add them by filling out this form.
RePEc Biblio mentionsAs found on the RePEc Biblio, the curated bibliography for Economics:CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
This item has more than 25 citations. To prevent cluttering this page, these citations are listed on a separate page. reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statisticsgeneral information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Oxford University Press) or (Christopher F. Baum).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.