Optimal carbon mitigation strategy under non-linear feedback effects and in the presence of permafrost release trigger hazard
The threat of release of methane sequestered in the circumpolar Arctic regions of the world creates the possibility of triggering additional feedback effects from the terrestrial and the deep ocean systems which could potentially add large amounts of carbon (C) into the atmosphere. This paper analyses the implications for C mitigation policy under the threats of a substantial permafrost methane release. Several insights emerge from the analysis. First, the presence of non-linear feedbacks creates a bifurcation zone in the C emissions-stock space, on one side of which large accumulations of atmospheric C materialize leading to significant damages. Second, the bifurcation line does not have a steep slope, implying that it would be possible to avoid falling on the wrong side of this zone even if the current atmospheric stock of C were higher than what they are today. Third, when the release of permafrost C is uncertain, there is benefit in reducing anthropogenic C more than what would be optimal under a certain release of the same. Fourth, higher abatement cost scenarios do not necessarily imply significantly reduced abatement efforts. On the contrary, abatement efforts, which are only reduced marginally under this scenario, ensure that long run carbon path is stabilized. This is done in order to avoid incurring substantial costs of abatement in the future when non-linear feedback effects kick in. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014
Volume (Year): 19 (2014)
Issue (Month): 4 (April)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.springer.com|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/11027|
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.:
- repec:hrv:faseco:33373343 is not listed on IDEAS
- Detlef Vuuren & Jason Lowe & Elke Stehfest & Laila Gohar & Andries Hof & Chris Hope & Rachel Warren & Malte Meinshausen & Gian-Kasper Plattner, 2011. "How well do integrated assessment models simulate climate change?," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 104(2), pages 255-285, January.
- Simon Dietz & Nicholas Stern, 2008. "Why Economic Analysis Supports Strong Action on Climate Change: A Response to the Stern Review's Critics," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(1), pages 94-113, Winter.
- 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.
- Martin L. Weitzman, 2010. "What Is The "Damages Function" For Global Warming — And What Difference Might It Make?," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 1(01), pages 57-69.
- 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.
- 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.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:masfgc:v:19:y:2014:i:4:p:479-497. 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: (Sonal Shukla)or (Rebekah McClure)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.