An economic model to help policymakers understand willingness to deal with climate change efforts

September 27, 2018 by Bob Yirka, Phys.org report
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

Two economists, one with the London School of Economics and Political Science, the other with Princeton University, have created a model to assist policymakers in better understanding willingness issues related to climate change mitigation efforts. In their paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Timothy Besley and Avinash Dixit describe how their model works and the ways it could be used.

Climate change is happening because we have pumped so much carbon dioxide and other gases into the atmosphere that it is causing the planet to heat up. And most scientists agree that as the planet heats up, there his a high likelihood of things like more damaging storms or longer droughts—some events might even be categorized as catastrophic. Yet, amazingly, we are still doing little to stop it. We are still driving gas-powered cars and creating electricity by burning coal. We are still having meetings and making pledges to lower emissions, even as the planet continues to warm.

Besley and Dixit suggest the reason the world has not responded in a serious way to the threat of is because there is no way those in charge can properly assess when and where catastrophic events due to change will occur. They believe that policymakers require a means for assessing the willingness to pay for carbon emission reductions based on the odds of occurring in a given time frame. To address this problem, they have created a model (an Excel spreadsheet) that accounts for various factors and returns answers that represent the willingness of an entity to take on such an effort under a given set of circumstances. The underlying measurement is money. What are the costs if a major city is hit by a catastrophic storm, for example? Or if a drought wipes out a country's ability to grow food? To make their model, the researchers used real-world statistics such as the costs involved in the cleanup after Hurricane Katrina laid waste to much of New Orleans.

The researchers note that using the model suggests some common assumptions are correct: For instance, the of one country to enact mitigation efforts is strongly impacted by efforts carried out by others. Their model also suggests that the mitigation effort that appears most feasible at this time is implementation of a .

Explore further: Evaluating the contribution of black carbon to climate change

More information: Timothy Besley et al. Environmental catastrophes and mitigation policies in a multiregion world, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2018). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1802864115

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Afromontane forests and climate change

January 17, 2019

In the world of paleoecology, little has been known about the historical record of ecosystems in the West African highlands, especially with regard to glacial cycles amidst a shifting climate and their effects on species ...

10 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

marcush
2.8 / 5 (6) Sep 27, 2018
The assumption that government policy is based on some kind of rational cost benefit analysis is a fantasy. Economists have been recommending a carbon tax for decades. It is clear the ideologues in power and their supporters would rather the world burn.
antigoracle
3.1 / 5 (8) Sep 27, 2018
The assumption that government policy is based on some kind of rational cost benefit analysis is a fantasy. Economists have been recommending a carbon tax for decades. It is clear the ideologues in power and their supporters would rather the world burn.

Another Chicken Little idiot brays.
Tell us, how would a carbon tax reduce CO2?
And, don't say it would force people to burn less fossil fuels, since we all know that won't stop you Chicken Little hypocrites.
Old_C_Code
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 27, 2018
Make lying to the people legal. Oh, they actually just did that.

"The newest version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) has an amendment added that negates the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 (SMA) and the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1987.

These laws made propaganda used to influence foreigners and US citizens illegal. Without these laws, disinformation could run rampant throughout our information junkets."

https://www.occup...ericans/

Fact, CO2 is not a poison, and it's 30% increase appears to have helped Earth.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 27, 2018
CO2 is one of our main sources of Oxygen with which we fill our lungs, as our symbiotic relationships with plants and trees bear witness to the fact that without CO2, neither humans/mammals/animals or plants/trees would survive.

The plants and trees might survive for a time by absorbing the Carbon from the soil and water, but human lungs would collapse and blood's need for Oxygen and lack of it would be the death of all humans and animals.

Perhaps the Climate Change Crowd (CCC) would love to see humanity eliminated from the mix, where only non-sentient animals and plants/trees ruled the planet without a care as to comfort, warmth, shelter, security and civilisation no longer exists anywhere. But even non-sentient animals would die off quickly - their lungs collapsing as though drowning.
rrwillsj
2 / 5 (3) Sep 28, 2018
Well old-coot since you are so tepid and lightweight for legalisms?

I am sure in your fever of civic virtue you will totter right down to the nearest LEO? Do your duty as a self-righteous prig and report the criminally subversive activities that you, auntieoral and Surfeit_Egghead_Unicycle are engaged with?

After all, you wouldn't want to have to confront your history of hysterically histrionic hypocrisy?
barakn
3 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2018
CO2 is one of our main sources of Oxygen with which we fill our lungs, as our symbiotic relationships with plants and trees bear witness to the fact that without CO2, neither humans/mammals/animals or plants/trees would survive. -SEU

Ummm... oxygen is required to create CO2. So what you're suggesting is that we need CO2 to replace the O2 that was removed by creating the CO2.
Old_C_Code
2 / 5 (4) Sep 29, 2018
rrwillgizbag: oh go suck mainstream's c**k, that's a fact you fool.
doogsnova
1 / 5 (2) Sep 29, 2018
There is only one solution. Stop having so many children.
Wallace from PA is the only politician I've ever heard in my life talk about overpopulation.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 30, 2018
That will help with the rational response, but we know from previous research that the main anti-climate science response in US comes from political opinion.

Fact, CO2 is not a poison, and it's 30% increase appears to have helped Earth.


Any chemical in wrong proportion is a poison - people have drowned in water or died from ingesting such amount that their salt balance was affected - but that is not what climate science says. It has observed - now anyone with a spreadsheet can observe - that man made greenhouse gases increases global temperature. It has neither "helped" nor "not helped", but it has become very risky (say, the increase of heath waves kills) and costly - hence the work above.
Anonym518498
1 / 5 (2) Sep 30, 2018
Is somebody paying money for this garbage?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.