Climate change economics and discounted utilitarianism
In the recent debate on climate change economics triggered by the Stern Review and his opponents, fundamental methodological issues emerge. It becomes obvious that different choices for some variables in the models applied lead to vastly different conclusions. Specifically, the choice of the pure time discount rate δ decides on whether immediate strong action (in the Stern Review) or a more moderate response (as in Nordhaus' writings) is the right strategy facing the climate change challenge. This contribution critically comments the use of both δ and η, the elasticity of marginal utility with respect to income, as “adjustment screws” in models of climate economics. Often, the models remain ambiguous as to whether they apply empirical or normative variables; facts and value judgments are not sufficiently distinguished. Furthermore, Discounted Utilitarianism appears to be a questionable fundament for climate change economics. From a non-utilitarian, specifically a Rawlsian point of view, it is pointless to maximize the utility an abstract, eternally-long lived phantasm “humanity” where no human individuals are distinguished. The more persuading position in climate economics is to postulate a duty to do everything in order to avoid serious evil for future generations.
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.:
- Richard B. Howarth, 2003. "Discounting and sustainability: towards reconciliation," International Journal of Sustainable Development, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 6(1), pages 87-97.
- Ulrich Hampicke, 2003. "The capacity to solve problems as a rationale for intertemporal discounting," International Journal of Sustainable Development, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 6(1), pages 98-116.
- Heal, G., 1998. "Valuing the Future: Economic Theory and Sustainability," Papers 98-10, Columbia - Graduate School of Business.
- Robert Mendelsohn, 2008. "Is the Stern Review an Economic Analysis?," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(1), pages 45-60, Winter.
- Richard B. Howarth, 1997. "Sustainability as Opportunity," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 73(4), pages 569-579.
- Dasgupta, Partha, 2005. "What Do Economists Analyze And Why: Values Or Facts?," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 21(02), pages 221-278, October.
- Richard B. Howarth, 1995. "Sustainability under Uncertainty: A Deontological Approach," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 71(4), pages 417-427.
- Schelling, Thomas C, 1995. "Intergenerational discounting," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(4-5), pages 395-401.
- Howarth, Richard B, 1998. " An Overlapping Generations Model of Climate-Economy Interactions," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 100(3), pages 575-91, September.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:72:y:2011:i:c:p:45-52. 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: (Shamier, Wendy)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.