Communicating Trade-offs amid Controversial Science: Decision Support for Climate Policy
The paper considers the decision that arises in climate policy where there is expert disagreement about the correct scientific model and where a group of stakeholders needs to agree on a common policy target. Policy choice is posed as a decision under Knightian uncertainty, where decision-makers lack grounds for assigning a particular probability distribution across contending forecasting models. The decision is then framed as one of balancing two competing objectives that plausibly align with the dominant concern of stakeholders from each side in the policy debate. A decision criterion is proposed to identify options for compromise that balance these objectives in different ways. The criterion spans three standard non-Bayesian decision criteria. Policies generated by the criterion are combined with visual tools to communicate “what's at stake” in an environmental policy decision in which stakeholders disagree both about scientific models and about the relative importance of risks to the environment versus risks to economic growth. The approach summarizes information that could be useful to policy-makers tasked with negotiating a compromise. The framework is applied to climate policy using DICE-2007 (Nordhaus 2008). The results highlight a basic asymmetry between the mistake of “doing too little” and that of “doing too much” that suggests a strong argument for avoiding the current status quo of global inaction.
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.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:77:y:2012:i:c:p:74-90. 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.