From: glevy@PRATT.EDU
Date: Mon Sep 24 2007 - 21:08:43 EDT
>From: GDAE Announce <GDAEannounce@tufts.edu> >Subject: New Research on Climate Economics >Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 15:38:25 -0400 > > >It was a busy summer for climate economics research at GDAE, with several >new publications released. > >* >Debating Climate Economics: The Stern Review vs. Its Critics ><http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/rp/SternDebateReport.pdf>/, ><http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/rp/SternDebateReport.pdf> /*a report to >Friends of the Earth-UK, by Frank Ackerman. > >British economist Nicholas Stern, in a report to the UK government released >in late 2006, found that the benefits of immediate, active climate >mitigation measures would be several times as great as their costs. Other >economists, many of whom have come to different conclusions, were quick to >criticize Stern's conclusions. In this report, Frank Ackerman reviews the >debate around the Stern Review, examining the range of economists' views of >the appropriate discount rate, the treatment of uncertainty, and the >calculations of costs and benefits. The Stern Review gets many things >right, and reaches a more believable conclusion than many of its critics. >It may understate the importance of uncertainty, and exaggerate the >completeness and significance of cost-benefit analysis - but it pushes the >world in the right direction. > >*Law and Economics for a Warming World*, ><http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/policy_research/WarmingWorld.html> by Lisa >Heinzerling and Frank Ackerman, /Harvard Law and Policy Review/ volume 1, >no. 2, pp.331-362. > >Both law and economics offer frameworks for understanding public policy - >and both require changes in order to respond effectively to the challenge >of climate change. Contrary to implicit conservative assumptions, >maintaining the status quo is not an option; "business as usual" will lead >to rapidly worsening results as greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise. >The causal links between actions and impacts extend across centuries; the >most important effects of our actions occur long after our lifetimes. The >consequences, and probabilities of damages, from climate change are >incalculable in detail, although worsening in general. Each of these >problems compels a rethinking of aspects of both law and economics, as Lisa >Heinzerling and Frank Ackerman explain in this article. >* >The Carbon Content of Japan-US Trade*, ><http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/policy_research/CarbonContent.html> by Frank >Ackerman, Masanobu Ishikawa, and Mikio Suga, /Energy Policy/, volume 35 no. >9, September 2007, pp.4455-4462. > >How much carbon is "embodied" in world trade? If one country imports >carbon-intensive products from another, should the production emissions be >attributed to the consuming nation rather than the producer? A growing >empirical research literature addresses these questions. In the first study >to examine the carbon content of trade between the world's two largest >industrial economies, Ackerman, Ishikawa, and Suga find that the US, on >balance, is a small net importer of carbon from Japan - and that both >countries are large net carbon importers from the rest of the world. In >Japan-US trade, carbon-intensity of production has a weak but significantly >positive correlation with comparative advantage. This article is the final >product of a two-year research project, supported by the Japan >Foundation/Center for Global Partnership, and co-directed by Professor >Masanobu Ishikawa, of the economics department at Kobe University in Japan, >and by Frank Ackerman. >* >The Economics of Inaction on Climate Change: A Sensitivity Analysis*, ><http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/policy_research/EconomicsofInaction.html> by >Frank Ackerman and Ian Finlayson, /Climate Policy/, volume 6 no. 5 (2006), >pp.509-526. (Despite the nominal publication date, this first appeared in >print in mid-2007.) > >Why do economic models of climate change so often find that the "optimal" >policy is to do very little about this serious global threat? Frank >Ackerman and Ian Finlayson examine the widely used DICE model, focusing on >its choice of a discount rate, its somewhat dated science [in the 1999 >version, the latest available when the article was written], and its >curious assumption of global net benefits from moderate warming. >Alternatives to these three assumptions cause significant changes in the >model's optimal policy, resulting in a high and rising carbon tax which >would stimulate immediate, large-scale mitigation. In view of the >ambiguities of such cost-benefit calculations, it would be preferable to >pursue a cost-effectiveness analysis of the least-cost strategies for >achieving safe levels of atmospheric CO_2 . (Previously circulated as a >working paper, this article finally survived the struggle into >peer-reviewed publication!) > > >/Read more about GDAE's work on the Economics of Climate Change / ><http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/policy_research/ClimateChange.htm>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 30 2007 - 00:00:05 EDT