IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fae/wpaper/2019.11.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Social Cost of Carbon under stochastic tipping points: when does risk play a role?

Author

Listed:
  • Nicolas Taconet

    (CIRED, ENPC)

  • Céline Guivarch

    (CIRED, ENPC)

  • Antonin Pottier

    (EHESS)

Abstract

Carbon dioxide emissions impose a social cost on economies, owing to the damages they will cause in the future. In particular, emissions increase global temperature that may reach tipping points in the climate or economic system, triggering large economic shocks. Tipping points are uncertain by nature, they induce higher expected damages but also dispersion of possible damages, that is risk. Both dimensions increase the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC). However, the respective contributions of higher expected damages and risk have not been disentangled. We develop a simple method to compare how much expected damages explain the SCC, compared to the risk induced by a stochastic tipping point. We find that expected damages account for more than 90% of the SCC with productivity shocks lower than 10%, the high end of the range of damages commonly assumed in Integrated Assessment Models. It takes both high productivity shock and high risk aversion for risk to have a significant effect. Our results also shed light on the observation that risk aversion plays a modest role in determining the SCC (the ''risk aversion puzzle''): they suggest that too low levels of damages considered in previous studies could be responsible for the low influence of risk aversion.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicolas Taconet & Céline Guivarch & Antonin Pottier, 2019. "Social Cost of Carbon under stochastic tipping points: when does risk play a role?," Working Papers 2019.11, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
  • Handle: RePEc:fae:wpaper:2019.11
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://faere.fr/pub/WorkingPapers/Taconet_Guivarch_Pottier_FAERE_WP2019.11.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2019
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aurélie Méjean & Antonin Pottier & Stéphane Zuber & Marc Fleurbaey, 2017. "Intergenerational equity under catastrophic climate change," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 17040, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    2. Ackerman, Frank & Stanton, Elizabeth A., 2012. "Climate risks and carbon prices: Revising the social cost of carbon," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 6, pages 1-25.
    3. Martin L. Weitzman, 2012. "GHG Targets as Insurance Against Catastrophic Climate Damages," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 14(2), pages 221-244, March.
    4. Crost, Benjamin & Traeger, Christian P., 2013. "Optimal climate policy: Uncertainty versus Monte Carlo," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 120(3), pages 552-558.
    5. Frederick van der Ploeg & Aart de Zeeuw, 2013. "Climate Policy and Catastrophic Change: Be Prepared and Avert Risk," CEEES Paper Series CE3S-02/13, European University at St. Petersburg, Department of Economics.
    6. Wouter Botzen, W.J. & van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., 2012. "How sensitive is Nordhaus to Weitzman? Climate policy in DICE with an alternative damage function," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 117(1), pages 372-374.
    7. Céline Guivarch & Antonin Pottier, 2015. "Climate damages on production or on growth: what impact on the social cost of carbon," Working Papers 2015.15, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
    8. Mariia Belaia & Michael Funke & Nicole Glanemann, 2017. "Global Warming and a Potential Tipping Point in the Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation: The Role of Risk Aversion," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 67(1), pages 93-125, May.
    9. Ackerman, Frank & Stanton, Elizabeth A. & Bueno, Ramón, 2010. "Fat tails, exponents, extreme uncertainty: Simulating catastrophe in DICE," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1657-1665, June.
    10. Simon Dietz, 2011. "High impact, low probability? An empirical analysis of risk in the economics of climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 108(3), pages 519-541, October.
    11. Minh Ha-Duong & Nicolas Treich, 2004. "Risk Aversion, Intergenerational Equity and Climate Change," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 28(2), pages 195-207, June.
    12. Baptiste Perrissin Fabert & Etienne Espagne & Antonin Pottier & Patrice Dumas, 2014. "The Comparative Impact of Integrated Assessment Models' Structures on Optimal Mitigation Policies," Working Papers 2014.58, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    13. H. Damon Matthews & Nathan P. Gillett & Peter A. Stott & Kirsten Zickfeld, 2009. "The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions," Nature, Nature, vol. 459(7248), pages 829-832, June.
    14. Frank Ackerman & Elizabeth Stanton & Ramón Bueno, 2013. "Epstein–Zin Utility in DICE: Is Risk Aversion Irrelevant to Climate Policy?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(1), pages 73-84, September.
    15. Derek Lemoine & Christian Traeger, 2014. "Watch Your Step: Optimal Policy in a Tipping Climate," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 6(1), pages 137-166, February.
    16. Simon Dietz & Nicholas Stern, 2015. "Endogenous Growth, Convexity of Damage and Climate Risk: How Nordhaus' Framework Supports Deep Cuts in Carbon Emissions," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 0(583), pages 574-620, March.
    17. Brian C. O'Neill & Michael Oppenheimer & Rachel Warren & Stephane Hallegatte & Robert E. Kopp & Hans O. Pörtner & Robert Scholes & Joern Birkmann & Wendy Foden & Rachel Licker & Katharine J. Mach & Ph, 2017. "IPCC reasons for concern regarding climate change risks," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 7(1), pages 28-37, January.
    18. 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.
    19. Pizer, William, 2003. "Climate Change Catastrophes," RFF Working Paper Series dp-03-31, Resources for the Future.
    20. Delavane Diaz & Frances Moore, 2017. "Quantifying the economic risks of climate change," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 7(11), pages 774-782, November.
    21. Myles R. Allen & David J. Frame & Chris Huntingford & Chris D. Jones & Jason A. Lowe & Malte Meinshausen & Nicolai Meinshausen, 2009. "Warming caused by cumulative carbon emissions towards the trillionth tonne," Nature, Nature, vol. 458(7242), pages 1163-1166, April.
    22. Antonin Pottier & Etienne Espagne & Baptiste Perrissin Fabert & Patrice Dumas, 2015. "The comparative impact of Integrated Assessment Models' structures on optimal mitigation policies," Post-Print hal-01298309, HAL.
    23. Robert S. Pindyck, 2013. "The Climate Policy Dilemma," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(2), pages 219-237, July.
    24. Minh Ha-Duong & Nicolas Treich, 2004. "Risk Aversion, Intergenerational Equity and Climate Change," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 28(2), pages 195-207, June.
    25. Michael D. Mastrandrea & Stephen H. Schneider, 2001. "Integrated assessment of abrupt climatic changes," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(4), pages 433-449, December.
    26. Thomas S. Lontzek & Yongyang Cai & Kenneth L. Judd & Timothy M. Lenton, 2015. "Stochastic integrated assessment of climate tipping points indicates the need for strict climate policy," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 5(5), pages 441-444, May.
    27. 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.
    28. -, 2009. "The economics of climate change," Sede Subregional de la CEPAL para el Caribe (Estudios e Investigaciones) 38679, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    29. Dietz, Simon & Stern, Nicholas, 2015. "Endogenous growth, convexity of damage and climate risk: how Nordhaus’ framework supports deep cuts in carbon emissions," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 58406, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    30. Dietz, Simon, 2011. "High impact, low probability?: an empirical analysis of risk in the economics of climate change," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 38586, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Richard S. J. Tol, 2021. "Europe’s Climate Target for 2050: An Assessment," Intereconomics: Review of European Economic Policy, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics;Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), vol. 56(6), pages 330-335, November.
    2. Richard S. J. Tol, 2023. "Social cost of carbon estimates have increased over time," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 13(6), pages 532-536, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nicolas Taconet & Céline Guivarch & Antonin Pottier, 2021. "Social Cost of Carbon Under Stochastic Tipping Points," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 78(4), pages 709-737, April.
    2. Richard S J Tol, 2018. "The Economic Impacts of Climate Change," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(1), pages 4-25.
    3. Richard S.J. Tol, 2021. "Estimates of the social cost of carbon have not changed over time," Working Paper Series 0821, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.
    4. Samuel Jovan Okullo, 2020. "Determining the Social Cost of Carbon: Under Damage and Climate Sensitivity Uncertainty," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(1), pages 79-103, January.
    5. Richard S. J. Tol, 2021. "Estimates of the social cost of carbon have increased over time," Papers 2105.03656, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2022.
    6. van der Ploeg, Frederick & ,, 2018. "Pricing Carbon Under Economic and Climactic Risks: Leading-Order Results from Asymptotic Analysis," CEPR Discussion Papers 12642, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    7. Kent D. Daniel & Robert B. Litterman & Gernot Wagner, 2016. "Applying Asset Pricing Theory to Calibrate the Price of Climate Risk," NBER Working Papers 22795, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Ton S. van den Bremer & Frederick van der Ploeg, 2021. "The Risk-Adjusted Carbon Price," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(9), pages 2782-2810, September.
    9. Olijslagers, Stan & van der Ploeg, Frederick & van Wijnbergen, Sweder, 2023. "On current and future carbon prices in a risky world," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    10. Rising, James A. & Taylor, Charlotte & Ives, Matthew C. & Ward, Robert E.t., 2022. "Challenges and innovations in the economic evaluation of the risks of climate change," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 114941, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    11. Rising, James A. & Taylor, Charlotte & Ives, Matthew C. & Ward, Robert E.T., 2022. "Challenges and innovations in the economic evaluation of the risks of climate change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    12. Hjort, Ingrid, 2016. "Potential Climate Risks in Financial Markets: A Literature Overview," Memorandum 01/2016, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
    13. van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. & Botzen, W.J.W., 2015. "Monetary valuation of the social cost of CO2 emissions: A critical survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 33-46.
    14. Ikefuji, Masako & Laeven, Roger J.A. & Magnus, Jan R. & Muris, Chris, 2020. "Expected utility and catastrophic risk in a stochastic economy–climate model," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 214(1), pages 110-129.
    15. Tsigaris, Panagiotis & Wood, Joel, 2019. "The potential impacts of climate change on capital in the 21st century," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 74-86.
    16. Mariia Belaia & Michael Funke & Nicole Glanemann, 2017. "Global Warming and a Potential Tipping Point in the Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation: The Role of Risk Aversion," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 67(1), pages 93-125, May.
    17. Oliver D. Bettis & Simon Dietz & Nick G. Silver, 2017. "The risk of climate ruin," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 140(2), pages 109-118, January.
    18. J. Farmer & Cameron Hepburn & Penny Mealy & Alexander Teytelboym, 2015. "A Third Wave in the Economics of Climate Change," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 62(2), pages 329-357, October.
    19. Wonjun Chang & Thomas F. Rutherford, 2017. "Catastrophic Thresholds, Bayesian Learning And The Robustness Of Climate Policy Recommendations," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 8(04), pages 1-23, November.
    20. De Bruin, Kelly & Kiran Krishnamurthy, Chandra, 2021. "Optimal Climate Policy with Fat-tailed Uncertainty: What the Models Can Tell Us," Papers WP697, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Climate Change; Tipping points; Expected Utility; Integrated Assessment Models;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C61 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Optimization Techniques; Programming Models; Dynamic Analysis
    • H41 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Public Goods
    • Q54 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Climate; Natural Disasters and their Management; Global Warming

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fae:wpaper:2019.11. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Dorothée Charlier (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/faereea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.