Climate Policy under Fat-Tailed Risk: An Application of FUND
AbstractWe apply four alternative decision criteria, two old ones and two new, to the question of the appropriate level of greenhouse gas emission reduction. In all cases, we consider a uniform carbon tax that is applied to all emissions from all sectors and all countries; and that increases over time with the discount rate. For a one per cent pure rate of the time preference and a rate of risk aversion of one, the tax that maximises expected net present welfare equals $120/tC in 2010. However, we also find evidence that the uncertainty about welfare may well have fat tails so that the expectation exists only by virtue of the finite number of runs in our Monte Carlo analysis. This confirms Weitzman's Dismal Theorem. We therefore consider minimax regret as a decision criterion. As regret is defined on the positive real line, we in fact consider large percentiles instead of the ill-defined maximum. Depending on the percentile used, the recommended tax lies between $100 and $170/tC. Regret is a measure of the slope of the welfare function, while we are in fact concerned about the level of welfare. We therefore minimise the tail risk, defined as the expected welfare below a percentile of the probability density function without climate policy. Depending of the percentile used, the recommended tax lies between $20 and $330/tC. We also minimise the fatness of the tails, as measured by the p-value of the test of the hypothesis that recursive mean welfare is stationary in the number of Monte Carlo runs. We cannot reject the null hypothesis of non-stationary at the 5% confidence level, but come closest for an initial tax of $50/tC. All four alternative decision criteria rapidly improve as modest taxes are introduced, but gradually deteriorate if the tax is too high. That implies that the appropriate tax is an interior solution. In stark contrast to some of the interpretations of the Dismal Theorem, we find that fat tails by no means justify arbitrarily large carbon taxes.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) in its series Papers with number WP348.
Date of creation: Jul 2010
Date of revision:
Climate change/integrated assessment/decision making under uncertainty/deep uncertainty/fat-tailed risk/dismal theorem;
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2010-07-10 (All new papers)
- NEP-ENE-2010-07-10 (Energy Economics)
- NEP-ENV-2010-07-10 (Environmental Economics)
- NEP-UPT-2010-07-10 (Utility Models & Prospect Theory)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- van den Bergh, Jeroen C. J. M., 2004. "Optimal climate policy is a utopia: from quantitative to qualitative cost-benefit analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 385-393, April.
- Thijs Dekker & Rob Dellink & Janina Ketterer, 2013. "The Fatter the Tail, the Fatter the Climate Agreement - Simulating the Influence of Fat Tails in Climate Change Damages on the Success of International Climate Negotiations," CESifo Working Paper Series 4059, CESifo Group Munich.
- Crost, Benjamin & Traeger, Christian P., 2011.
"Risk and aversion in the integrated assessment of climate change,"
Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series
qt1562s275, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
- Crost, Benjamin & Traeger, Christian P., 2010. "Risk and aversion in the integrated assessment of climate change," CUDARE Working Paper Series 1104R, University of California at Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Policy, revised Jul 2011.
- Duncan Foley & Lance Taylor & Armon Rezai, 2013. "The Social Cost of Carbon Emissions," INET Research Notes 28, Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET).
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sarah Burns).
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.