IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0239520.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Approximate calculations of the net economic impact of global warming mitigation targets under heightened damage estimates

Author

Listed:
  • Patrick T Brown
  • Harry Saunders

Abstract

Efforts to mitigate global warming are often justified through calculations of the economic damages that may occur absent mitigation. The earliest such damage estimates were speculative mathematical representations, but some more recent studies provide empirical estimates of damages on economic growth that accumulate over time and result in larger damages than those estimated previously. These heightened damage estimates have been used to suggest that limiting global warming this century to 1.5 °C avoids tens of trillions of 2010 US$ in damage to gross world product relative to limiting global warming to 2.0 °C. However, in order to estimate the net effect on gross world product, mitigation costs associated with decarbonizing the world’s energy systems must be subtracted from the benefits of avoided damages. Here, we follow previous work to parameterize the aforementioned heightened damage estimates into a schematic global climate-economy model (DICE) so that they can be weighed against mainstream estimates of mitigation costs in a unified framework. We investigate the net effect of mitigation on gross world product through finite time horizons under a spectrum of exogenously defined levels of mitigation stringency. We find that even under heightened damage estimates, the additional mitigation costs of limiting global warming to 1.5 °C (relative to 2.0 °C) are higher than the additional avoided damages this century under most parameter combinations considered. Specifically, using our central parameter values, limiting global warming to 1.5 °C results in a net loss of gross world product of roughly forty trillion US$ relative to 2 °C and achieving either 1.5 °C or 2.0 °C require a net sacrifice of gross world product, relative to a no-mitigation case, though 2100 with a 3%/year discount rate. However, the benefits of more stringent mitigation accumulate over time and our calculations indicate that stabilizing warming at 1.5 °C or 2.0 °C by 2100 would eventually confer net benefits of thousands of trillions of US$ in gross world product by 2300. The results emphasize the temporal asymmetry between the costs of mitigation and benefits of avoided damages from climate change and thus the long timeframe for which climate change mitigation investment pays off.

Suggested Citation

  • Patrick T Brown & Harry Saunders, 2020. "Approximate calculations of the net economic impact of global warming mitigation targets under heightened damage estimates," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(10), pages 1-27, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0239520
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239520
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0239520
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0239520&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0239520?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Baumol, William J, 1972. "On Taxation and the Control of Externalities," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 62(3), pages 307-322, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Frans P. Vries & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Incentive-Based Policy Design for Pollution Control and Biodiversity Conservation: A Review," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(4), pages 687-702, April.
    2. Jonathan Colmer & Ralf Martin & Mirabelle Muûls & Ulrich J. Wagner, 2020. "Does pricing carbon mitigate climate change? Firm-level evidence from the European Union emissions trading scheme," CEP Discussion Papers dp1728, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    3. YingHua He & Thierry Magnac, 2022. "Application Costs and Congestion in Matching Markets," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 132(648), pages 2918-2950.
    4. Jayson Lusk, 2011. "The market for animal welfare," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 28(4), pages 561-575, December.
    5. Ogus, Anthony, 2001. "Regulatory Institutions and Structures," Centre on Regulation and Competition (CRC) Working papers 30704, University of Manchester, Institute for Development Policy and Management (IDPM).
    6. Cesar Revoredo-Giha & Neil Chalmers & Faical Akaichi, 2018. "Simulating the Impact of Carbon Taxes on Greenhouse Gas Emission and Nutrition in the UK," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-19, January.
    7. Dieter Schmidtchen & Jenny Helstroffer & Christian Koboldt, 2021. "Regulatory failure and the polluter pays principle: why regulatory impact assessment dominates the polluter pays principle," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 23(1), pages 109-144, January.
    8. Oleksandr Kubatko & Oleksandra Kubatko, 2019. "Economic estimations of air pollution health nexus," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 1507-1517, June.
    9. Abrego, Lisandro & Perroni, Carlo, 1999. "Free-riding, carbon treaties, and trade wars: the role of domestic environmental policies," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 463-483, April.
    10. Ge, Jianping & Lei, Yalin, 2018. "Resource tax on rare earths in China: Policy evolution and market responses," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 291-297.
    11. Brady, Mark, 2003. "The relative cost-efficiency of arable nitrogen management in Sweden," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 53-70, November.
    12. Ricci, Olivia, 2012. "Providing adequate economic incentives for bioenergies with CO2 capture and geological storage," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 362-373.
    13. Peifang Yang & Daniel T. Kaffine, 2016. "Community-Based Tradable Permits for Localized Pollution," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(4), pages 773-788, December.
    14. Marcus Berliant & Shin-Kun Peng & Ping Wang, 2014. "Taxing pollution: agglomeration and welfare consequences," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 55(3), pages 665-704, April.
    15. Petrov, Ivan & Ryan, Lisa, 2021. "The landlord-tenant problem and energy efficiency in the residential rental market," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    16. Charles Delmotte, 2021. "Simple rules and the Political Economy of Income Taxation: the strengths of a uniform expense rule," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 323-339, December.
    17. Dieckhoener, Caroline & Hecking, Harald, 2012. "Greenhouse Gas Abatement Cost Curves of the Residential Heating Market – a Microeconomic Approach," EWI Working Papers 2012-16, Energiewirtschaftliches Institut an der Universitaet zu Koeln (EWI).
    18. Vorotnikova, Ekaterina & Schmitz, Andrew, 2013. "On Positive Externality," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150462, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Sun, Xiaohua & Ren, Junlin & Wang, Yun, 2022. "The impact of resource taxation on resource curse: Evidence from Chinese resource tax policy," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    20. Claire Nicolas & Valérie Saint-Antonin & Stéphane Tchung-Ming, 2014. "(How) does sectoral detail affect the robustness of policy insights from energy system models? The refining sector's example," Working Papers hal-02475035, HAL.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0239520. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.