There is an increasing interest in the economics of climate change, and the marginal damage costs of emissions, known as the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC). In 2002, the UK Government recommended an SCC for policy appraisal. A recent review of this SCC was commissioned and summarised in this paper. The authors conclude that SCC estimates span at least three orders of magnitude, reflecting uncertainties in climate change and choices of key parameters/variables (discount rate, equity weighting and risk aversion). Estimates also vary due to their coverage, and a risk matrix was developed to compare climate change eects (predictable to major events) against impacts (market, non-market and socially contingent). From several lines of evidence, the current lower SCC value is considered a reasonable lower benchmark for a global decision committed to reducing the threat of dangerous climate change. An upper benchmark was more dicult to deduce, though the risk of high values was considered significant. It is currently impossible to provide a central value with confidence. The study also reviewed the use of the SCC in policy, from project appraisal to long-term climate policy, and used stakeholder interviews to elicit views. A wide diversity of responses was found: whilst most considered some values are needed for policy appraisal, nearly all had reservations for long-term policy. From this, the authors propose a two tier approach. The economic benefits of climate change should be considered when setting long-term policy, but a wider framework is needed (i.e. than cost-benefit analysis). This should include a disaggregated analysis of economic winners and losers by region and sector, and key impact indicators such as health and ecosystems. It should also consider the full risk matrix (i.e. non-marginal/irreversible eects). Once long-term policy is set, shadow prices for appraisal across Government are useful, provided they are consistent with the long-term goal, and are applied consistently.
[1]
D. Pearce.
The Social Cost of Carbon and its Policy Implications
,
2003
.
[2]
S. Lawrence Dingman,et al.
Effective sea-level rise and deltas: Causes of change and human dimension implications
,
2006
.
[3]
農林水産奨励会農林水産政策情報センター,et al.
The green book : appraisal and evaluation in central government
,
2003
.
[4]
P. deMenocal.
Cultural Responses to Climate Change During the Late Holocene
,
2001,
Science.
[5]
Chris Hope,et al.
PAGE95: An updated valuation of the impacts of global warming
,
1996
.
[6]
G. Yohe.
Some thoughts on the damage estimates presented in the Stern Review—An Editorial
,
2006
.
[7]
R. Tol.
Estimates of the Damage Costs of Climate Change. Part 1: Benchmark Estimates
,
2002
.
[8]
R. Tol.
Estimates of the Damage Costs of Climate Change, Part II. Dynamic Estimates
,
2002
.
[9]
Y. Yamagata,et al.
Clashing strategic cultures and climate policy
,
2004
.
[10]
D Pearce.
Aviation and the environment: using economic instruments
,
2003
.
[11]
Myles R. Allen,et al.
Constraining climate forecasts: The role of prior assumptions
,
2005
.
[12]
Richard S. J. Tol,et al.
The Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change: A Comment
,
2006
.
[13]
Cultural Responses to Climate Change During the Late Holocene
,
2001
.
[14]
Leonard A. Smith,et al.
Uncertainty in predictions of the climate response to rising levels of greenhouse gases
,
2005,
Nature.
[15]
Richard S. J. Tol,et al.
New Estimates of the Damage Costs of Climate Change
,
1998
.
[16]
Richard S. J. Tol,et al.
Discounting and the social cost of carbon: A closer look at uncertainty
,
2006
.
[17]
D. Zhang,et al.
Climate Change and War Frequency in Eastern China over the Last Millennium
,
2007
.