A quantitative minimax regret approach to climate change: Does discounting still matter?
Using cost-benefit analysis to determine an optimal climate mitigation target is criticised, especially because i) it fails to sufficiently take into account low-probability, high-impact events, and ii) results strongly depend on the discount rate used. One of the alternative suggestions to inform policymakers about the right mitigation target that does take the risks associated with low-probability, high-impact events explicitly into account is the minimax regret criterion. We apply the minimax regret criterion quantitatively using an integrated assessment model with extreme values for climate sensitivity, damage estimates and mitigation costs. The goal is to analyse whether such a method leads to different results compared to standard cost-benefit analysis and whether the results are still sensitive to the discount rate used. We find that the minimax regret approach leads to more stringent and robust climate targets for relatively low discount rates and if both a high climate sensitivity and high damage estimates are assumed. If one of these assumptions does not hold, the difference between the minimax regret approach and standard cost-benefit analysis is much smaller. Therefore, we conclude that the discount rate used can still be of vital importance even when applying a minimax regret approach.
If 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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
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.:
- Tol, Richard S. J., 2009. "The Feasibility of Low Concentration Targets: An Application of FUND," Papers WP285, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
- Martin L. Weitzman, 1998.
Harvard Institute of Economic Research Working Papers
1843, Harvard - Institute of Economic Research.
- William D. Nordhaus, 2007. "A Review of the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 45(3), pages 686-702, September.
- Martin L. Weitzman, 2007. "A Review of the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 45(3), pages 703-724, September.
- William D. Nordhaus, 1992.
"Rolling the 'Dice': An Optimal Transition Path for Controlling Greenhouse Gases,"
Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers
1019, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
- Nordhaus, William D., 1993. "Rolling the 'DICE': an optimal transition path for controlling greenhouse gases," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 27-50, March.
- Tol, Richard S. J., 2002. "Welfare specifications and optimal control of climate change: an application of fund," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 367-376, July.
- Richard B. Howarth, 2003. "Discounting and Uncertainty in Climate Change Policy Analysis," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(3), pages 369-381.
- Tony Prato, 2008. "Accounting for risk and uncertainty in determining preferred strategies for adapting to future climate change," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 47-60, January.
- Martin L. Weitzman, 2009.
"On Modeling and Interpreting the Economics of Catastrophic Climate Change,"
The Review of Economics and Statistics,
MIT Press, vol. 91(1), pages 1-19, February.
- Weitzman, Martin L., 2009. "On Modeling and Interpreting the Economics of Catastrophic Climate Change," Scholarly Articles 3693423, Harvard University Department of Economics.
- Clarke Harry, 2008.
"Classical decision rules and adaptation to climate change ,"
Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics,
Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(4), pages 487-504, December.
- Clarke, Harry, . "Classical Decision Rules and Adaption to Climate Change," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
- Richard T. Woodward & Richard C. Bishop, 1997. "How to Decide When Experts Disagree: Uncertainty-Based Choice Rules in Environmental Policy," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 73(4), pages 492-507.
- Manne, Alan & Mendelsohn, Robert & Richels, Richard, 1995. "MERGE : A model for evaluating regional and global effects of GHG reduction policies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 17-34, January.
- Richard Tol, 2002. "Estimates of the Damage Costs of Climate Change, Part II. Dynamic Estimates," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 21(2), pages 135-160, February.
- van Vuuren, Detlef P. & de Vries, Bert & Eickhout, Bas & Kram, Tom, 2004. "Responses to technology and taxes in a simulated world," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 579-601, July.
- Camilla Froyn, 2005. "Decision Criteria, Scientific Uncertainty, and the Globalwarming Controversy," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 183-211, April.
- den Elzen, Michel G. J. & de Moor, Andre P. G., 2002. "Analyzing the Kyoto Protocol under the Marrakesh Accords: economic efficiency and environmental effectiveness," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(2-3), pages 141-158, December.
- Keller, Klaus & Bolker, Benjamin M. & Bradford, D.F.David F., 2004. "Uncertain climate thresholds and optimal economic growth," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 723-741, July.
- Solow, Robert M, 1974. "The Economics of Resources or the Resources of Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 64(2), pages 1-14, May.
- Thomas Sterner & U. Martin Persson, 2008. "An Even Sterner Review: Introducing Relative Prices into the Discounting Debate," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(1), pages 61-76, Winter.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:70:y:2010:i:1:p:43-51. See general 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: (Zhang, Lei)
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.