Model confirmation in climate economics

Significance Benefit–cost integrated assessment models (BC-IAMs) combine climate science, impacts studies, and representations of long-run economic growth to estimate the costs and benefits of climate policy. They provide valuable qualitative insights into how policy outcomes might depend on ethical and empirical assumptions. Increasingly, however, BC-IAMs are being used to inform quantitative policy choices, despite their economic components being largely untested, or untestable, over relevant time scales. We demonstrate the potential benefits of model confirmation exercises for policy applications, demonstrating that the economic growth model used by a prominent BC-IAM had little predictive power over the 20th century. Insofar as possible, out-of-sample empirical tests of the economic components of BC-IAMs should inform their future development for real-world applications. Benefit–cost integrated assessment models (BC-IAMs) inform climate policy debates by quantifying the trade-offs between alternative greenhouse gas abatement options. They achieve this by coupling simplified models of the climate system to models of the global economy and the costs and benefits of climate policy. Although these models have provided valuable qualitative insights into the sensitivity of policy trade-offs to different ethical and empirical assumptions, they are increasingly being used to inform the selection of policies in the real world. To the extent that BC-IAMs are used as inputs to policy selection, our confidence in their quantitative outputs must depend on the empirical validity of their modeling assumptions. We have a degree of confidence in climate models both because they have been tested on historical data in hindcasting experiments and because the physical principles they are based on have been empirically confirmed in closely related applications. By contrast, the economic components of BC-IAMs often rely on untestable scenarios, or on structural models that are comparatively untested on relevant time scales. Where possible, an approach to model confirmation similar to that used in climate science could help to build confidence in the economic components of BC-IAMs, or focus attention on which components might need refinement for policy applications. We illustrate the potential benefits of model confirmation exercises by performing a long-run hindcasting experiment with one of the leading BC-IAMs. We show that its model of long-run economic growth—one of its most important economic components—had questionable predictive power over the 20th century.

[1]  Christian Gollier,et al.  Pricing the Planet's Future , 2012 .

[2]  W. Collins,et al.  Evaluation of climate models , 2013 .

[3]  Howard Pack Endogenous Growth Theory: Intellectual Appeal and Empirical Shortcomings , 1994 .

[4]  R. Gordon Is U.S. Economic Growth Over? Faltering Innovation Confronts the Six Headwinds , 2012 .

[5]  L. Clarke,et al.  Assessing Transformation Pathways , 2014 .

[6]  P. Aghion,et al.  The Environment and Directed Technical Change , 2009, The American economic review.

[7]  O. Edenhofer,et al.  Climate change 2014 : mitigation of climate change , 2014 .

[8]  Daron Acemoglu,et al.  Introduction to Modern Economic Growth , 2009 .

[9]  P. Romer Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth , 1986, Journal of Political Economy.

[10]  Reto Knutti,et al.  Should we believe model predictions of future climate change? , 2008, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[11]  W. Nordhaus The 'DICE' Model: Background and Structure of a Dynamic Integrated Climate-Economy Model of the Economics of Global Warming , 1992 .

[12]  Erik Brynjolfsson,et al.  The second machine age: work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies, 1st Edition , 2014 .

[13]  N. Stern,et al.  Endogenous Growth, Convexity of Damages and Climate Risk: How Nordhaus' Framework Supports Deep Cuts in Carbon Emissions , 2014 .

[14]  T. Iverson,et al.  When the long run matters , 2015, Climatic Change.

[15]  Charles I. Jones,et al.  Time Series Tests of Endogenous Growth Models , 1995 .

[16]  Edward C. Prescott,et al.  Needed: a theory of total factor productivity , 1998 .

[17]  R. Quandt Tests of the Hypothesis That a Linear Regression System Obeys Two Separate Regimes , 1960 .

[18]  Hadi Dowlatabadi,et al.  US long-term energy intensity: Backcast and projection , 2006 .

[19]  G. Roe,et al.  Why Is Climate Sensitivity So Unpredictable? , 2007, Science.

[20]  Michael Marien,et al.  Book Review: The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies , 2014 .

[21]  H. Theil Introduction to econometrics , 1978 .

[22]  Danièle Revel,et al.  Climate change policy: What do the models tell us? , 2013 .

[23]  G. Heal,et al.  Scientific Ambiguity and Climate Policy , 2013 .

[24]  Richard G. Newell,et al.  Modeling endogenous technological change for climate policy analysis , 2008 .

[25]  Richard S. J. Tol,et al.  On the optimal control of carbon dioxide emissions: an application of FUND , 1997 .

[26]  William D. Nordhaus,et al.  Economic aspects of global warming in a post-Copenhagen environment , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[27]  J. Wooldridge Introduction to Econometrics , 2013 .

[28]  Per Krusell,et al.  Optimal Taxes on Fossil Fuel in General Equilibrium , 2011 .

[29]  G. Zucman,et al.  Capital is Back: Wealth-Income Ratios in Rich Countries, 1700-2010 , 2013 .

[30]  Dennis Anderson,et al.  Induced Technical Change in Energy and Environmental Modeling: Analytic Approaches and Policy Implications , 2002 .

[31]  N Oreskes,et al.  Verification, Validation, and Confirmation of Numerical Models in the Earth Sciences , 1994, Science.

[32]  Emanuele Borgonovo,et al.  Uncertainty in Climate Change Modeling: Can Global Sensitivity Analysis Be of Help? , 2014, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[33]  Chris Hope,et al.  The marginal impact of CO2 from PAGE2002: An integrated assessment model incorporating the IPCC's five reasons for concern , 2006 .

[34]  Antony Millner,et al.  Reflections Uncertainty and Decision Making in Climate Change Economics , 2014 .

[35]  N. Stern The Structure of Economic Modeling of the Potential Impacts of Climate Change: Grafting Gross Underestimation of Risk onto Already Narrow Science Models , 2013 .

[36]  Thomas Sterner,et al.  Global warming: Improve economic models of climate change , 2014, Nature.

[37]  W. Easterly,et al.  What Have We Learned from a Decade of Empirical Research on Growth? It's Not Factor Accumulation: Stylized Facts and Growth Models , 2001 .

[38]  James C. West,et al.  The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies. , 2015 .

[39]  William D. Nordhaus,et al.  Climate Clubs: Overcoming Free-riding in International Climate Policy † , 2015 .

[40]  Edward C. Prescott,et al.  A unified theory of the evolution of international income levels , 2004 .