Blog Post

Blogs review: the discounting debate in climate change mitigation

What’s at stake: Decisions with respect to climate change action depend on various parameters, but a particularly important one is the choice of the social discount rate (SDR), which captures – among other things – the weight at which we discount the welfare of future generations. This discounting decision has direct implications as to whether it is necessary to delay or accelerate climate change mitigation policies. In discussions about the choice of the appropriate SDR, two main approaches have emerged: an a priori approach (as proposed by Stern) and a market based approach (as proposed by Nordhaus and Weitzman).

By: and Date: April 20, 2012 Topic: Energy & Climate

What’s at stake: Decisions with respect to climate change action depend on various parameters, but a particularly important one is the choice of the social discount rate (SDR), which captures – among other things – the weight at which we discount the welfare of future generations. This discounting decision has direct implications as to whether it is necessary to delay or accelerate climate change mitigation policies. In discussions about the choice of the appropriate SDR, two main approaches have emerged: an a priori approach (as proposed by Stern) and a market based approach (as proposed by Nordhaus and Weitzman).

Standard Cost-Benefit Analysis

The 2006 Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change broke down the social discount rate into three components: the pure time discount rate (d), the elasticity of the social marginal utility of consumption with respect to consumption (h), and the growth rate of technology (g): SDR = d + hg. In terms of numeric values, Stern sets d=0.001, implying a 0.1% chance of human extinction each year. Stern thus basically treats current and future generations equally; the only difference between the two arises from a small possibility of extinction. Stern then sets h=1, which implies that the elasticity of marginal consumption between better-off and worse-off individuals is equal to the ratio of their wealth. A high value of h means that transfers of wealth from rich to poor are endorsed, while a low h implies little concern about distributional equality. Stern then goes on to make a positive assumption about the growth rate of technology and sets g=1.3%. This leads to an SDR of 1.4%. With this value, urgent action against climate change is warranted. The practical policy implication Stern calls for is an investment of 1% of global GDP in the fight against CO2 emissions, which would stabilize global stocks of GHG below the 550ppm threshold.

Martin Weitzman – of Harvard University – argues in the Journal of Economic Literature that the conclusions of the report rely on parameter values that are imposed a priori rather than chosen in a democratic manner. The author argues that it is possible to come up with more reasonable numbers based on observed behavior in the marketplace. One option would be an SDR of 6%, obtained by setting d=2%, h=2, and g=2%. He further suggests that the general uncertainty surrounding the topic warrants a higher SDR. This need not be 6, as in the previous example and could also lie in the 2-4 range. This would create a middle-ground between Stern’s recommendations and more skeptical views according to which climate change action should be delayed.

William Nordhaus argues that the findings of Stern – that “if we don’t act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more” – differ markedly from economic models that calculate least-cost emissions paths to stabilize concentrations or paths that balance the costs and benefits of emissions reductions. Mainstream economic models definitely find it economically beneficial to take steps today to slow global warming, but efficient policies generally involve modest rates of emissions reductions in the near term, followed by sharp reductions in the medium and long term. Nordhaus suggests taking an h=3 and keeping d close to 0. This, he argues, would lead to real returns and savings rates closer to values observed in the economy. Stern’s findings rely on a low discount rate and low inequality aversion, which results in savings rates and real returns which are very different from actual economic values. In a recent article for the NYT Review of Books, Nordhaus argues in favor of immediate moderate action, via cap-and-trade or carbon taxes.

Partha Dasgupta – of Cambridge University – is suspicious as to whether Stern’s theory remains defensible in the face of small changes in parameter values. If a g=0 were to come about (while keeping d and h fixed at the values chosen by Stern), Dasgupta argues that current generations ought to save 97.5% of current production for future generations. He thus accuses Stern’s theory of exhibiting normative bias. Brad DeLong responds to Dasgupta’s assessment. DeLong considers the arithmetic underlying Dasgupta’s conclusion and finds that a savings rate of 22.5%, not of 97.5 %, is in fact required. This renders Stern’s prescription more reasonable. DeLong also advocates a d=0, which implies that current and future generations carry equal weight in climate change mitigation. DeLong goes on to express his agreement with Dasgupta with regards to the importance of the h parameter. He suggests that different hs, in the range of 1 to 5, should be considered and that this should have also been the approach of the Stern Review.

Richard Tol does a meta-analysis of the social cost of carbon. The author finds that there is a downward trend in the estimates of the social cost of carbon and that the Stern Review is an outlier. Its impact estimates are pessimistic even when compared to other studies in the gray literature and other estimates that use low discount rates. The uncertainty about the social cost of carbon is so large that the tails of the distribution may dominate the conclusions.

Fat tails and the economics of climate change

In a recent article, Martin Weitzmann argues that the most striking feature of the economics of climate change is that its extreme downside is nonnegligible and that the way in which this deep uncertainty is conceptualized and formalized influences the outcomes of any reasonable cost-benefit analysis (CBA) of climate change. The author does not argue that the standard model is wrong or even implausible, but rather that it may not be robust with respect to the modeling of catastrophic outcomes.

He suggests that the unprecedented scale and speed of GHG increases brings policy makers into uncharted territory, rendering climate predictions very difficult. Current CBA models assume that the climate will respond in a certain way to increased GHG emissions and that this response will follow a distribution with thin tails. This implies very little concern for potentially extreme outcomes. Weitzman points out that modeling tail probabilities one way or the other can have huge consequences. He contrasts a Pareto distribution with a normal distribution, assuming that the latter is usually at the heart of CBA models. Carrying out simulations using the two leads to extremely different estimates, particularly regarding the reactiveness of high-temperature probabilities to the level of GHGs.  He concludes that the focus should be shifted away from central tendencies and towards extreme tails.

William Nordhaus provides an assessment of Weitzman’s initial views on this topic. He particularly focuses on Weitzman’s point that under certain strict assumptions about the structure of uncertainty and preferences, “society has an indefinitely large expected loss from high-consequence, low-probability events” (the ‘dismal theory’). Nordhaus stresses that the theory is only applicable under very limited conditions involving strong risk aversion, a fat tail for the uncertain variables and an inability on society’s part to act in time against climate change. He finds nonetheless that tail events deserve attention and careful analysis and acknowledges Weitzman’s merit in drawing attention to the existence of deep uncertainties. He goes on to suggest that it is unclear when cost-benefit analysis should or should not be employed. He concludes that this decision will rest largely on the “the uncertainty surrounding specific issues and phenomena, as well as attitudes toward risk.”


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.

View comments
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

A few good (wo)men – on the representation of women in economics

Last week, the American Economics Association Annual Meetings held a session on Gender Issues in Economics and later announced that a new code of professional conduct is in the pipeline. In this blogs review we revise the recent contributions on female representation and perception in economics.

By: Inês Goncalves Raposo Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: January 15, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

The Republican Tax Plan (2): The debate rumbles on

Reactions to the Republican tax plans continue, concentrating on different aspects of the proposed legislation. We review the latest contributions.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: December 18, 2017
Read article More by this author

Blog Post

The DSGE Model Quarrel (Again)

Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium models have come under fire since the financial crisis. A recent paper by Christiano, Eichenbaum and Trabandt – who provide a defense for DSGE – has generated yet another wave of reactions in the economic blogosphere. We review the most recent contributions on this topic.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Global Economics & Governance Date: December 11, 2017
Read article More by this author

Blog Post

The Bitcoin Bubble

The price of bitcoin has just passed $11,000. A year ago it was worth less than $800. Economists and commentators are thus increasingly concerned that this may be a bubble waiting to burst. We review recent opinions on the topic.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation, Global Economics & Governance Date: December 4, 2017
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

The Republican Tax Plan

As the Trump administration’s tax plan continues its way through the legislature, we review economists’ and commentators’ recent opinions on the matter.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: November 27, 2017
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Has the Phillips curve disappeared?

The Phillips curve prescribes a negative trade-off between inflation and unemployment. Economists have been recently debating on whether the curve has disappeared in the US and Europe. We report some of the most recent views.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: November 21, 2017
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Powell's Federal Reserve

With the appointment of Jerome Powell as the next Fed’s chairman, President Trump break a tradition of bipartisan re-nomination and chooses someone who is not an economy by formation. We review economist’s opinions on this choice and the challenges ahead.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: November 13, 2017
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

The Bank of England’s dovish hike

For the first time since 2007, the Bank of England raised interest rates, with a hike of 25 basis points. At the same time, it provided forward guidance that outlines a very gradual path for future increases. We review the economic blogosphere’s reaction to this decision.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: November 6, 2017
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

The capital tax cut debate

How much do workers gain from a capital gains tax cut? CEA chairman Hasset claims the tax cut will cause average household labour income to increase by between $4000 and $9000. Several commentators note this implies that more than 100% of the incidence of the tax is on labour. This question has triggered a heated discussion in the economic blogosphere, which we review here.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: October 30, 2017
Read article More by this author

Blog Post

Bailout, bail-in and incentives

Ever since the outbreak of the global financial crisis, more and more rules have been developed to reduce the public cost of banking crises and increase the private sector’s share of the cost. We review some of the recent academic literature on bailout, bail-in and incentives.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation, Global Economics & Governance Date: October 23, 2017
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

An irrational choice: behavioural economist wins Nobel Prize

Richard Thaler was awarded this year's Nobel Prize in Economics for his contributions to the field of behavioural economics. His work documents a set of cognitive biases affecting economic decision-making and casts doubt on commonly-held assumptions about the rational ‘homo economicus’ that inhabits economic models and theories. What are the implications for the economics discipline and public policy?

By: Konstantinos Efstathiou Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: October 16, 2017
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

On the cost of gun ownership

On 1 October 2017, 59 people were killed and another 489 injured in what is currently the deadliest mass shooting in US modern history. The author reviews recent contributions on the economic cost of gun violence, as well as the impact of regulation.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: October 11, 2017
Load more posts