Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T07:24:34.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

RECAST THE DICE AND ITS POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 November 2010

Armon Rezai*
Affiliation:
Vienna University of Economics and Business
*
Address correspondence to: Armon Rezai, Department of Socio-Economics, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Nordbergstraße 15 B.4, 1090 Vienna, Austria; e-mail: [email protected].

Abstract

The DICE (for Dynamic Integrated model of Climate and the Economy) introduced two important policy aspects to the economic discussion of global warming. First, it argues for a “climate-policy ramp” that deems back-loading of mitigation optimal. Second, it demonstrates that an intergenerational tradeoff is at the heart of the mitigation problem. In this paper we argue that both of these findings rest on contestable assumptions. To demonstrate this a recast DICE is presented. Its outcomes show that DICE's predictions are not robust with higher migitations earlier on and slower temperature increases along the optimal path. The adoption of a baseline scenario in which pollution is a negative externality makes mitigating climate change a Pareto improvement. The alleged sacrifice of present generations vanishes. This strengthens the case for immediate policy action.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bovenberg, Ary L. and Heijdra, Ben (1998) Environmental tax policy and intergenerational distribution. Journal of Public Economics 67 (1), 124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foley, Duncan K. (2008) The economic fundamentals of global warming. In Harris, Jonathan M. and Goodwin, Neva R. (eds.), Twenty-First Century Macroeconomics: Responding to the Climate Challenge, Chapter 5. Cheltenham and Northampton, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Gerlagh, Reyer and van der Zwaan, Bob C.C. (2001) The effects of ageing and an environmental trust fund in an OLG model on carbon emission reductions. Ecological Economics 36 (2), 311326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howarth, Richard (1998) An overlapping generations model of climate–economy interactions. Scandinavian Journal of Economics 100 (3), 575591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007, the Fourth IPCC Assessment Report. Available at http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm. Accessed 10 August 2008.Google Scholar
Lewis, Nathan S. (2007) Powering the planet. Engineering and Science 70 (2), 1223.Google Scholar
Lynas, Mark (2008) Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet. Washington, DC: National Geographic.Google Scholar
Nordhaus, William D. (1992) An optimal transition path for controlling greenhouse gases. Science 258, 13151319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nordhaus, William D. (1994) Managing the Global Commons: The Economics of Climate Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nordhaus, William D. (2008) A Question of Balance: Weighing the Options on Global Warming Policies. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rezai, Armon (2009) Recast DICE: The economics of global warming. Mimeo. Available at http://www.wu.ac.at/ruw/mitarbeiter/mitarbeiter/rezaia. Accessed 20 October 2009.Google Scholar
Rezai, Armon and Foley, Duncan K. with Lance Taylor (in press) Global warming and economic externalities. Economic Theory.Google Scholar