Moving targets-costs-effective climate policy under scientific uncertainty

Reyer Gerlagh, Thomas Michielsen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

Abstract

The IPCC’s fifth assessment report of Working Group III has just come out. It pays special attention to the 2 °C temperature target and tells us that the window of opportunity to prevent such climate change is rapidly closing. Yet, the report also presents a portfolio of stabilization targets, reflecting a fundamental ambiguity: there is no unique “dangerous” climate threshold. Here, we describe a framework for the evaluation of optimal climate policy given an uncertain formal climate threshold. We find that uncertainty leads to moving targets: even when the available information does not change, future regulators will tend to relax current climate plans.
We develop a reduced form integrated assessment model to assess the quantitative significance of our findings. We calibrate preferences such that in 2000 a stabilization target of 450 ppmv maintains the optimal balance between climate risks and abatement costs. The naïve equilibrium ultimately reaches a peak of 570 ppmv, missing the 2000 stabilizations targets by a wide margin. Our results offer an explanation for the inertia in mitigation efforts over the past decades: policies often delay the majority of abatement efforts. Yet, believing that subsequent regulators will uphold the planned future efforts is self-defeating.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)519-529
JournalClimatic Change
Volume132
Issue number4
Early online date23 Jun 2015
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2015

Fingerprint

environmental policy
stabilization
climate
cost
abatement cost
inertia
mitigation
climate change
temperature

Cite this

Gerlagh, Reyer ; Michielsen, Thomas. / Moving targets-costs-effective climate policy under scientific uncertainty. In: Climatic Change. 2015 ; Vol. 132, No. 4. pp. 519-529.
@article{ee29b3d7e7e74dcdacea89b9566c8f70,
title = "Moving targets-costs-effective climate policy under scientific uncertainty",
abstract = "The IPCC’s fifth assessment report of Working Group III has just come out. It pays special attention to the 2 °C temperature target and tells us that the window of opportunity to prevent such climate change is rapidly closing. Yet, the report also presents a portfolio of stabilization targets, reflecting a fundamental ambiguity: there is no unique “dangerous” climate threshold. Here, we describe a framework for the evaluation of optimal climate policy given an uncertain formal climate threshold. We find that uncertainty leads to moving targets: even when the available information does not change, future regulators will tend to relax current climate plans.We develop a reduced form integrated assessment model to assess the quantitative significance of our findings. We calibrate preferences such that in 2000 a stabilization target of 450 ppmv maintains the optimal balance between climate risks and abatement costs. The na{\"i}ve equilibrium ultimately reaches a peak of 570 ppmv, missing the 2000 stabilizations targets by a wide margin. Our results offer an explanation for the inertia in mitigation efforts over the past decades: policies often delay the majority of abatement efforts. Yet, believing that subsequent regulators will uphold the planned future efforts is self-defeating.",
author = "Reyer Gerlagh and Thomas Michielsen",
year = "2015",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1007/s10584-015-1447-6",
language = "English",
volume = "132",
pages = "519--529",
journal = "Climatic Change",
issn = "0165-0009",
publisher = "Springer",
number = "4",

}

Moving targets-costs-effective climate policy under scientific uncertainty. / Gerlagh, Reyer; Michielsen, Thomas.

In: Climatic Change, Vol. 132, No. 4, 10.2015, p. 519-529.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Moving targets-costs-effective climate policy under scientific uncertainty

AU - Gerlagh, Reyer

AU - Michielsen, Thomas

PY - 2015/10

Y1 - 2015/10

N2 - The IPCC’s fifth assessment report of Working Group III has just come out. It pays special attention to the 2 °C temperature target and tells us that the window of opportunity to prevent such climate change is rapidly closing. Yet, the report also presents a portfolio of stabilization targets, reflecting a fundamental ambiguity: there is no unique “dangerous” climate threshold. Here, we describe a framework for the evaluation of optimal climate policy given an uncertain formal climate threshold. We find that uncertainty leads to moving targets: even when the available information does not change, future regulators will tend to relax current climate plans.We develop a reduced form integrated assessment model to assess the quantitative significance of our findings. We calibrate preferences such that in 2000 a stabilization target of 450 ppmv maintains the optimal balance between climate risks and abatement costs. The naïve equilibrium ultimately reaches a peak of 570 ppmv, missing the 2000 stabilizations targets by a wide margin. Our results offer an explanation for the inertia in mitigation efforts over the past decades: policies often delay the majority of abatement efforts. Yet, believing that subsequent regulators will uphold the planned future efforts is self-defeating.

AB - The IPCC’s fifth assessment report of Working Group III has just come out. It pays special attention to the 2 °C temperature target and tells us that the window of opportunity to prevent such climate change is rapidly closing. Yet, the report also presents a portfolio of stabilization targets, reflecting a fundamental ambiguity: there is no unique “dangerous” climate threshold. Here, we describe a framework for the evaluation of optimal climate policy given an uncertain formal climate threshold. We find that uncertainty leads to moving targets: even when the available information does not change, future regulators will tend to relax current climate plans.We develop a reduced form integrated assessment model to assess the quantitative significance of our findings. We calibrate preferences such that in 2000 a stabilization target of 450 ppmv maintains the optimal balance between climate risks and abatement costs. The naïve equilibrium ultimately reaches a peak of 570 ppmv, missing the 2000 stabilizations targets by a wide margin. Our results offer an explanation for the inertia in mitigation efforts over the past decades: policies often delay the majority of abatement efforts. Yet, believing that subsequent regulators will uphold the planned future efforts is self-defeating.

U2 - 10.1007/s10584-015-1447-6

DO - 10.1007/s10584-015-1447-6

M3 - Article

VL - 132

SP - 519

EP - 529

JO - Climatic Change

JF - Climatic Change

SN - 0165-0009

IS - 4

ER -