Economists and ecologists, in general, have offered differing opinions about the seriousness of climate change and the need for rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Economists have tended to urge caution, focusing on the potential for large-scale cutbacks to upset the economy. Ecologists have tended to focus on the potential for catastrophic losses from climate change, and have urged extensive shifts in policy. This paper uses the tools of cost benefit analysis and the decision sciences to examine why members of the two disciplines often reach different conclusions. First, economists and ecologists start from different perspectives about what is the point of reference against which policies should be judged. Second, economists and ecologists tend to apply different discount rates to future impacts of climate change. Third, economists and ecologists are likely to interpret differently the substantive findings and expressed uncertainties of formal cost-benefit analysis. Using a simplified version of the DICE model of climate change, this paper explores how these different viewpoints can be expressed in practice.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. 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.
Publisher Info
Paper provided by International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in its series Working Papers with number
ir97056.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Thomas Krichel).
Related research
Keywords:
References listed on IDEAS 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.: