Sea Level Rise And Equity Weighting
Using the FUND model, an impact assessment is conducted over the 21st century for rises in sea level of up to 2-m/century and a range of national socio-economic scenarios. This model balances the costs of retreat with the costs of protection, including the effects of coastal squeeze. While the costs of sea-level rise increase due to greater damage and protection costs, the model suggests that an optimum response in a benefit-cost sense remains widespread protection of developed coastal areas, as identified in earlier analyses. The socio-economic scenarios are also important in terms of influencing these costs. In terms of the four components of costs considered in FUND, protection seems to dominate, with substantial costs from wetland loss under some scenarios. The regional distribution of costs shows that a few regions experience most of the costs, especially East Asia, North America, Europe and South Asia. Importantly, this analysis suggests that protection is much more likely and rational than is widely assumed, even with a large rise in sea level. However, there are some important limitations to the analysis, which collectively suggest that protection may not be as widespread as suggested in the FUND analysis. Equity weighting allows the damages to be modified to reflect the wealth of those impacted by sea-level rise. Taking these distributional issues into account increases damage estimates by a factor of three, reflecting that the coasts fall disproportionately on poorer developing countries.
|Date of creation:||May 2007|
|Date of revision:||May 2007|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Bundesstrasse 55, 20146 Hamburg|
Phone: +49 40 42838 6593
Fax: +49 40 42838 7009
Web page: http://www.fnu.zmaw.de/
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- David Pearce, 2003. "The Social Cost of Carbon and its Policy Implications," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(3), pages 362-384.
- Fankhauser, Samuel & S.J. Tol, Richard, 2005.
"On climate change and economic growth,"
Resource and Energy Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 1-17, January.
- Samuel Fankhauser & Richard S.J. Tol, 2001. "On Climate Change And Economic Growth," Working Papers FNU-10, Research unit Sustainability and Global Change, Hamburg University, revised Jun 2002.
- Azar, Christian & Sterner, Thomas, 1996. "Discounting and distributional considerations in the context of global warming," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 169-184, November.
- R K Turner & N Adger & P Doktor, 1995. "Assessing the Economic Costs of Sea Level Rise," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 27(11), pages 1777-1796, November.
- R K Turner & N Adger & P Doktor, 1995. "Assessing the economic costs of sea level rise," Environment and Planning A, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 27(11), pages 1777-1796, November.
- Samuel Fankhauser & Richard Tol & DAVID Pearce, 1997. "The Aggregation of Climate Change Damages: a Welfare Theoretic Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(3), pages 249-266, October.
- Anthoff, David & Hepburn, Cameron & Tol, Richard S.J., 2009. "Equity weighting and the marginal damage costs of climate change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 836-849, January.
- David Anthoff & Cameron Hepburn & Richard S.J. Tol, 2006. "Equity weighting and the marginal damage costs of climate change," Working Papers FNU-121, Research unit Sustainability and Global Change, Hamburg University, revised Dec 2006.
- David Anthoff & Cameron Hepburn & Richard S.J. Tol, 2007. "Equity Weighting and the Marginal Damage Costs of Climate Change," Working Papers 2007.43, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
- Christian Azar, 1999. "Weight Factors in Cost-Benefit Analysis of Climate Change," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 13(3), pages 249-268, April. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sgc:wpaper:136. 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: (Uwe Schneider)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.