IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/88757.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Climate Policy Without Intertemporal Dictatorship: Chichilnisky Criterion Versus Classical Utilitarianism in Dice

Author

Listed:
  • Chichilnisky, Graciela

Abstract

Dynamic Integrated Climate-Economy (DICE), and compare results for different damage functions, namely the standard one in DICE and the one proposed by Weitzman implying potential large climate damages at high temperature increases. We calculate optimal climate policy for different parameter settings and compare the results with those under the green golden rule (only final utility matters) and classical utilitarianism (no discounting). Optimal emission abatement trajectories turn out to be very different between standard dis- counted utilitarianism, classical utilitarianism and Chichilnisky specifications. The results are very sensitive to the damage function, the climate sensitivity parameter and especially the “Chichilnisky weight” given to utility of generations in the far future. We discuss conditions and reasons for preferring either classical utilitarianism or the Chichilnisky criterion, and conclude that a critical factor is the time horizon used in climate policy analysis. Adopting sustainable preferences as formalized by the Chichilnisky criterion in climate policy analysis has the advantage that the very long-term implications of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere on the environment and human welfare are not downplayed.

Suggested Citation

  • Chichilnisky, Graciela, 2017. "Climate Policy Without Intertemporal Dictatorship: Chichilnisky Criterion Versus Classical Utilitarianism in Dice," MPRA Paper 88757, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:88757
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/88757/1/MPRA_paper_88757.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. W. Botzen & Jeroen Bergh, 2014. "Specifications of Social Welfare in Economic Studies of Climate Policy: Overview of Criteria and Related Policy Insights," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 58(1), pages 1-33, May.
    2. Nordhaus, William D, 1991. "To Slow or Not to Slow: The Economics of the Greenhouse Effect," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 101(407), pages 920-937, July.
    3. 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.
    4. Tol, Richard S.J., 2013. "Climate policy with Bentham–Rawls preferences," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 118(3), pages 424-428.
    5. Alain Ayong Le Kama & Thai Ha-Huy & Cuong Le Van & Katheline Schubert, 2014. "A never-decisive and anonymous criterion for optimal growth models," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 55(2), pages 281-306, February.
    6. Alvarez-Cuadrado, Francisco & Van Long, Ngo, 2009. "A mixed Bentham-Rawls criterion for intergenerational equity: Theory and implications," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 154-168, September.
    7. Graciela Chichilnisky, 1997. "What Is Sustainable Development?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 73(4), pages 467-491.
    8. Pizer, William A., 1999. "The optimal choice of climate change policy in the presence of uncertainty," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3-4), pages 255-287, August.
    9. Graciela Chichilnisky, 2009. "Avoiding extinction: the future of economics," International Journal of Green Economics, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 3(1), pages 1-18.
    10. In Hwang & Frédéric Reynès & Richard Tol, 2013. "Climate Policy Under Fat-Tailed Risk: An Application of Dice," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(3), pages 415-436, November.
    11. Dietz, Simon & Asheim, Geir B., 2012. "Climate policy under sustainable discounted utilitarianism," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 321-335.
    12. 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.
    13. Chichilnisky, Graciela & Heal, Geoffrey & Beltratti, Andrea, 1995. "The Green Golden Rule," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 175-179, August.
    14. Zuber, Stéphane & Asheim, Geir B., 2012. "Justifying social discounting: The rank-discounted utilitarian approach," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 147(4), pages 1572-1601.
    15. Chichilnisky, Graciela, 2009. "Avoiding extinction: equal treatment of the present and the future," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 3, pages 1-25.
    16. Richard S. J. Tol & Francisco Estrada & Carlos Gay-García, 2012. "The persistence of shocks in GDP and the estimation of the potential economic costs of climate change," Working Paper Series 4312, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.
    17. Stern,Nicholas, 2007. "The Economics of Climate Change," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521700801.
    18. 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.
    19. Graciela Chichilnisky, 1996. "An axiomatic approach to sustainable development," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 13(2), pages 231-257, April.
    20. John Roemer, 2011. "The Ethics of Intertemporal Distribution in a Warming Planet," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(3), pages 363-390, March.
    21. 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.
    22. Alain Ayong Le Kama & Thai Ha-Huy & Cuong Le Van & Katheline Schubert, 2014. "A never-decisive and anonymous criterion for optimal growth models," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 55(2), pages 281-306, February.
    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. Rogna, Marco & Vogt, Carla J., 2021. "Accounting for inequality aversion can justify the 2° C goal," Ruhr Economic Papers 925, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    2. Marco Rogna & Carla J. Vogt, 2022. "Optimal climate policies under fairness preferences," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 174(3), pages 1-20, October.

    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. W. Botzen & Jeroen Bergh, 2014. "Specifications of Social Welfare in Economic Studies of Climate Policy: Overview of Criteria and Related Policy Insights," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 58(1), pages 1-33, May.
    2. 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.
    3. Kitti, Mitri, 2018. "Sustainable social choice under risk," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 19-31.
    4. Tol, Richard S.J., 2013. "Targets for global climate policy: An overview," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 911-928.
    5. Graciela Chichilnisky & Peter J. Hammond & Nicholas Stern, 2020. "Fundamental utilitarianism and intergenerational equity with extinction discounting," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 54(2), pages 397-427, March.
    6. Ha-Huy, Thai & Nguyen, Thi Tuyet Mai, 2022. "Saving and dissaving under Ramsey–Rawls criterion," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    7. Hänsel, Martin C. & Quaas, Martin F., 2018. "Intertemporal Distribution, Sufficiency, and the Social Cost of Carbon," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 520-535.
    8. 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.
    9. Jean-Pierre Drugeon & Thai Ha Huy, 2022. "A not so myopic axiomatization of discounting," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 73(1), pages 349-376, February.
    10. Figuières, Charles & Long, Ngo Van & Tidball, Mabel, 2017. "The MBR intertemporal choice criterion and Rawls’ just savings principle," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 11-22.
    11. Geir B. Asheim, 2017. "Sustainable growth," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 49(3), pages 825-848, December.
    12. 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.
    13. Richard S. J. Tol, 2021. "Estimates of the social cost of carbon have increased over time," Papers 2105.03656, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2022.
    14. Ngo Long & Vincent Martinet, 2018. "Combining rights and welfarism: a new approach to intertemporal evaluation of social alternatives," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 50(1), pages 35-64, January.
    15. Charles Figuières & Mabel Tidball, 2016. "Sustainable Exploitation of a Natural Resource: A Satisfying Use of Chichilnisky’s Criterion," Studies in Economic Theory, in: Graciela Chichilnisky & Armon Rezai (ed.), The Economics of the Global Environment, pages 207-229, Springer.
    16. Martinet, Vincent & Del Campo, Stellio & Cairns, Robert D., 2022. "Intragenerational inequality aversion and intergenerational equity," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, issue forthcomi.
    17. Havranek, Tomas & Irsova, Zuzana & Janda, Karel & Zilberman, David, 2015. "Selective reporting and the social cost of carbon," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 394-406.
    18. Ha-Huy, Thai, 2022. "A tale of two Rawlsian criteria," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 30-35.
    19. Thomas Michielsen, 2013. "Environmental Catastrophes under Time-Inconsistent Preferences," Working Papers 2013.55, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    20. Bontems, Philippe & Martinet, Vincent & Rotillon, Gilles & Withagen, Cees, 2015. "Interactions between agricultural economics and environmental and resource economics in European research: Insights from the theory of non-renewable resources," Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, Editions NecPlus, vol. 96(01), pages 167-185, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Chichilnisky welfare criterion; classical utilitarianism; climate change; DICE model; Weitzman damage function.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D7 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making
    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations
    • F01 - International Economics - - General - - - Global Outlook
    • Q5 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics
    • 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:pra:mprapa:88757. 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.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.