Climate cost-benefit analysis in an unequal worldRICE –SCC 2015 high discounting FUND –SCC 2010...
Transcript of Climate cost-benefit analysis in an unequal worldRICE –SCC 2015 high discounting FUND –SCC 2010...
![Page 1: Climate cost-benefit analysis in an unequal worldRICE –SCC 2015 high discounting FUND –SCC 2010 middle discounting ANZ 1% CAM 1% CAN 1% CHI 31% EEU 1% FSU JPK 8% 0% LAM 2% MDE](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050409/5f85b25a4a5db80f5578f915/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Climate Cost-Benefit Analysis in an Unequal World
David Anthoff
Energy and Resources GroupUniversity of California, Berkeley
![Page 2: Climate cost-benefit analysis in an unequal worldRICE –SCC 2015 high discounting FUND –SCC 2010 middle discounting ANZ 1% CAM 1% CAN 1% CHI 31% EEU 1% FSU JPK 8% 0% LAM 2% MDE](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050409/5f85b25a4a5db80f5578f915/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Outline
• Use of cost-benefit analysis in climate policy
• Issues with standard cost-benefit analysis
• Equity weighting
![Page 3: Climate cost-benefit analysis in an unequal worldRICE –SCC 2015 high discounting FUND –SCC 2010 middle discounting ANZ 1% CAM 1% CAN 1% CHI 31% EEU 1% FSU JPK 8% 0% LAM 2% MDE](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050409/5f85b25a4a5db80f5578f915/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
UK history
• 2002 – early phase• Social Cost of Carbon: £70/tC or $29/tCO2
• Multiple revisions (including Stern Review)
• Uses include RIA of fluorinated gases regulation, road transport infrastructure appraisal, building regulations, energy investment appraisal, water sector asset management programs
• 2008 – Climate Change Act• Long-term climate policy (60% reduction from 1990 levels)
• No cost-benefit analysis in setting the target
• Ex post check with PAGE model
• 2009 – Major shift to marginal abatement cost estimates• ETS covered sectors: $32/tCO2
• Other sectors from in-house energy modeling: $77/tCO2
Watkiss and Hope (2011)
![Page 4: Climate cost-benefit analysis in an unequal worldRICE –SCC 2015 high discounting FUND –SCC 2010 middle discounting ANZ 1% CAM 1% CAN 1% CHI 31% EEU 1% FSU JPK 8% 0% LAM 2% MDE](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050409/5f85b25a4a5db80f5578f915/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
US
• 2007: Supreme Court ruling Massachusetts v. EPA
• 2009: EPA Endangerment Finding
• Executive Order 12866
• 2010: Interagency Report sets Social Cost of Carbon to $21/tCO2
• 2013: Social Cost of Carbon updated to $39/tCO2
• Used three integrated assessment models• One of them FUND, which I co-develop (www.fund-model.org)
Greenstone et al. (2013)
![Page 5: Climate cost-benefit analysis in an unequal worldRICE –SCC 2015 high discounting FUND –SCC 2010 middle discounting ANZ 1% CAM 1% CAN 1% CHI 31% EEU 1% FSU JPK 8% 0% LAM 2% MDE](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050409/5f85b25a4a5db80f5578f915/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Hahn and Ritz (forthcoming)
![Page 6: Climate cost-benefit analysis in an unequal worldRICE –SCC 2015 high discounting FUND –SCC 2010 middle discounting ANZ 1% CAM 1% CAN 1% CHI 31% EEU 1% FSU JPK 8% 0% LAM 2% MDE](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050409/5f85b25a4a5db80f5578f915/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Option 1 - state Option 1 - regional Option 2 - state Option 2 - regional
bill
ion
20
11
$
Proposed rule for existing power plants - benefits and cost in 2020
Complience Cost Health benefits Climate benefits (5% dr)
Climate benefits (3% dr) Climate benefits (2.5% dr)
Source: US EPA (2014), Table ES-8
![Page 7: Climate cost-benefit analysis in an unequal worldRICE –SCC 2015 high discounting FUND –SCC 2010 middle discounting ANZ 1% CAM 1% CAN 1% CHI 31% EEU 1% FSU JPK 8% 0% LAM 2% MDE](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050409/5f85b25a4a5db80f5578f915/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Outline
• Use of cost-benefit analysis in climate policy
• Issues with standard cost-benefit analysis
• Equity weighting
![Page 8: Climate cost-benefit analysis in an unequal worldRICE –SCC 2015 high discounting FUND –SCC 2010 middle discounting ANZ 1% CAM 1% CAN 1% CHI 31% EEU 1% FSU JPK 8% 0% LAM 2% MDE](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050409/5f85b25a4a5db80f5578f915/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Standing or “who’s welfare?”
vs.
Gayer and Viscusi (2014)Pizer et al. (2014)Kopp and Mignone (2013)
![Page 9: Climate cost-benefit analysis in an unequal worldRICE –SCC 2015 high discounting FUND –SCC 2010 middle discounting ANZ 1% CAM 1% CAN 1% CHI 31% EEU 1% FSU JPK 8% 0% LAM 2% MDE](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050409/5f85b25a4a5db80f5578f915/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Social Cost of Carbon by Region
RICE – SCC 2015 high discounting FUND – SCC 2010 middle discountingANZ1%
CAM1%
CAN1%
CHI31%
EEU1%
FSU8%JPK
0%LAM2%
MDE3%
NAF5%
SAS3%
SEA5%
SIS1%
SSA5%
USA13%
WEU21%
US7%
EU8%
Japan2%Russia
1%Eurasia
1%
China21%
India16%
Middle East7%
Africa16%
Latin America5%
OHI3%
Other developing
13%
Source: Nordhaus (2011) and Anthoff et al. (2011)
![Page 10: Climate cost-benefit analysis in an unequal worldRICE –SCC 2015 high discounting FUND –SCC 2010 middle discounting ANZ 1% CAM 1% CAN 1% CHI 31% EEU 1% FSU JPK 8% 0% LAM 2% MDE](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050409/5f85b25a4a5db80f5578f915/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Anthoff et al. (2009)
Global1.3%
![Page 11: Climate cost-benefit analysis in an unequal worldRICE –SCC 2015 high discounting FUND –SCC 2010 middle discounting ANZ 1% CAM 1% CAN 1% CHI 31% EEU 1% FSU JPK 8% 0% LAM 2% MDE](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050409/5f85b25a4a5db80f5578f915/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
![Page 12: Climate cost-benefit analysis in an unequal worldRICE –SCC 2015 high discounting FUND –SCC 2010 middle discounting ANZ 1% CAM 1% CAN 1% CHI 31% EEU 1% FSU JPK 8% 0% LAM 2% MDE](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050409/5f85b25a4a5db80f5578f915/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Outline
• Use of cost-benefit analysis in climate policy
• Issues with standard cost-benefit analysis
• Equity weighting
![Page 13: Climate cost-benefit analysis in an unequal worldRICE –SCC 2015 high discounting FUND –SCC 2010 middle discounting ANZ 1% CAM 1% CAN 1% CHI 31% EEU 1% FSU JPK 8% 0% LAM 2% MDE](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050409/5f85b25a4a5db80f5578f915/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
7
8
9
10
Δ𝑐 Δ𝑐
Δ𝑤𝑟
Δ𝑤𝑝
rich
poor
consumption
wel
fare
For same Δ𝑐:Δ𝑤𝑝 > Δ𝑤𝑟
![Page 14: Climate cost-benefit analysis in an unequal worldRICE –SCC 2015 high discounting FUND –SCC 2010 middle discounting ANZ 1% CAM 1% CAN 1% CHI 31% EEU 1% FSU JPK 8% 0% LAM 2% MDE](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050409/5f85b25a4a5db80f5578f915/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Optimal taxes in 2005
2 2 4 5 8 8 9 11 12 12 13
80
96
119
137
179
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
SSA SAS SIS NAF FSU SEA MDE CAM CHI EEU LAM ANZ CAN WEU USA JPK
$/t
C
Transfers
No transfers
FUND 3.4; η=1; ρ=1%; USD 1995
Anthoff (2011)
![Page 15: Climate cost-benefit analysis in an unequal worldRICE –SCC 2015 high discounting FUND –SCC 2010 middle discounting ANZ 1% CAM 1% CAN 1% CHI 31% EEU 1% FSU JPK 8% 0% LAM 2% MDE](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050409/5f85b25a4a5db80f5578f915/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Equity Weights - Caveats
• All costs and benefits need to be equity weighted consistently• UK didn’t do that…
• Based on one very specific and strong ethical position
• “You are trying to address world inequality via climate policy”
• Difficult to agree on specifics (degree of inequality aversion)
Anthoff et al. (2009a)Anthoff et al. (2009b)Anthoff and Tol (2010)
![Page 16: Climate cost-benefit analysis in an unequal worldRICE –SCC 2015 high discounting FUND –SCC 2010 middle discounting ANZ 1% CAM 1% CAN 1% CHI 31% EEU 1% FSU JPK 8% 0% LAM 2% MDE](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050409/5f85b25a4a5db80f5578f915/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Conclusion
• Pragmatic point of view• Great success that carbon pricing is incorporated into federal regulatory
analysis
• Pushing for equity weighting in the regulatory process probably too ambitious at this point
• Academic view• A standard cost-benefit analysis really runs into major conceptual problems
with climate change related to equity
• Talk about it (“ideas matter”)
![Page 17: Climate cost-benefit analysis in an unequal worldRICE –SCC 2015 high discounting FUND –SCC 2010 middle discounting ANZ 1% CAM 1% CAN 1% CHI 31% EEU 1% FSU JPK 8% 0% LAM 2% MDE](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050409/5f85b25a4a5db80f5578f915/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Thank you!http://www.david-anthoff.com
![Page 18: Climate cost-benefit analysis in an unequal worldRICE –SCC 2015 high discounting FUND –SCC 2010 middle discounting ANZ 1% CAM 1% CAN 1% CHI 31% EEU 1% FSU JPK 8% 0% LAM 2% MDE](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022050409/5f85b25a4a5db80f5578f915/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Literature
• Anthoff, D., J. Ketterer and J. Lippelt (2009). "Klimaschäden und Klimaverhandlungen." ifo Schnelldienst 62(22): 52-54.
• Anthoff, D., C. Hepburn and R. S. J. Tol (2009a). "Equity weighting and the marginal damage costs of climate change." Ecological Economics 68(3): 836-849.
• Anthoff, D., R. S. J. Tol and G. W. Yohe (2009). "Discounting for Climate Change." Economics: The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal 3(2009-24).
• Anthoff (2011). „Optimal Global Dynamic Carbon Abatement.“ http://www.david-anthoff.com/AnthoffJobmarketPaper.pdf
• Anthoff, D., S. Rose, R. S. J. Tol and S. Waldhoff (2011). Regional and Sectoral Estimates of the Social Cost of Carbon: An Application of FUND. ESRI Working Paper. Dublin, Ireland, Economic and Social Research Institute.
• Gayer and Viscusi (2014) Determining the Proper Scope of Climate Change Benefits. http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Papers/2014/06/04-determining-proper-scope-climate-change-benefits-gayer/04_determining_proper_scope_climate_change_benefits.pdf?la=en
• Greenstone, M., E. Kopits and A. Wolverton (2013). "Developing a Social Cost of Carbon for US Regulatory Analysis: A Methodology and Interpretation." Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 7(1): 23-46.
• Kopp, R. and B. Mignone (2013). "Circumspection, reciprocity, and optimal carbon prices." Climatic Change: 1-13.
• Nordhaus, W. (2011). Estimates of the Social Cost of Carbon: Background and Results from the RICE-2011 Model. Cowles Foundation Discussion Paper.
• Watkiss, P. and C. Hope (2011). "Using the social cost of carbon in regulatory deliberations." Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 2(6): 886-901.
• Hahn and Ritz (forthcoming). “Does the social cost of carbon matter? Evidence from US policy.” Journal of Legal Studies
• Pizer, W., M. Adler, J. Aldy, D. Anthoff, M. Cropper, K. Gillingham, M. Greenstone, B. Murray, R. Newell, R. Richels, A. Rowell, S. Waldhoff and J. Wiener (2014). "Using and improving the social cost of carbon." Science 346(6214): 1189-1190.