Can you trust a model whose output keeps changing? Interpreting changes in the social cost of carbon produced by the DICE model

被引:0
作者
Naeini M.E. [1 ]
Leibowicz B.D. [1 ]
Bickel J.E. [1 ]
机构
[1] Operations Research and Industrial Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, 204 E. Dean Keeton St., Stop C2200, Austin, 78712, TX
关键词
Climate change; DICE; Integrated assessment; Social cost of carbon; Uncertainty;
D O I
10.1007/s10669-020-09783-y
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
The social cost of carbon (SCC) measures the present value of the economic damages caused by emitting one marginal ton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It plays a crucial role in climate policy analysis, where it is used to suggest optimal carbon prices or quantify the benefits of actions that reduce emissions. One prominent framework used to estimate the SCC is the Dynamic Integrated Climate-Economy (DICE) model. As updated versions of DICE have been introduced, its SCC estimates have changed, sometimes by amounts that would appear significant. For example, the SCC in 2020 produced by DICE rose 54% from its 2013R version to its 2016R2 version. We address two important questions. First, what changes to DICE explain this increase in its SCC? Second, how surprising is the magnitude of this increase, relative to the uncertainty present in DICE’s input parameters? We find that changes in scientific parameters and updated initial conditions due to near-term forecasting errors accounted for the largest shares of the SCC increase. The later SCC estimate falls within the 80% probability interval produced using the earlier model with uncertainty. Therefore, the 54% increase should not be considered surprising or dispositive regarding the quality of DICE itself. © 2020, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
引用
收藏
页码:301 / 320
页数:19
相关论文
共 39 条
[1]  
Ackerman F., Munitz C., Climate damages in the FUND model: a disaggregated analysis, Ecol Econ, 77, pp. 219-224, (2012)
[2]  
Ackerman F., Stanton E.A., Bueno R., Fat tails, exponents, extreme uncertainty: simulating catastrophe in DICE, Ecol Econ, 69, pp. 1657-1665, (2010)
[3]  
Anthoff D., Tol R.S.J., The uncertainty about the social cost of carbon: a decomposition analysis using fund, Clim Change, 117, pp. 515-530, (2013)
[4]  
Bickel J.E., Climate engineering and climate tipping-point scenarios, Environ Syst Decis, 33, pp. 152-167, (2013)
[5]  
Butler M.P., Reed P.M., Fisher-Vanden K., Keller K., Wagener T., Identifying parametric controls and dependencies in integrated assessment models using global sensitivity analysis, Environ Model Softw, 59, pp. 10-29, (2014)
[6]  
Cooke R., Wielicki B.A., Young D.F., Mlynczak M.G., Value of information for climate observing systems, Environ Syst Decis, 34, pp. 98-109, (2014)
[7]  
Crost B., Traeger C.P., Optimal climate policy: uncertainty versus Monte Carlo, Econ Lett, 120, pp. 552-558, (2013)
[8]  
Diaz D., Moore F., Quantifying the economic risks of climate change, Nat Clim Change, 7, pp. 774-782, (2017)
[9]  
Ekholm T., Climatic cost-benefit analysis under uncertainty and learning on climate sensitivity and damages, Ecol Econ, 154, pp. 99-106, (2018)
[10]  
Gerst M.D., Howarth R.B., Borsuk M.E., The interplay between risk attitudes and low probability, high cost outcomes in climate policy analysis, Environ Model Softw, 41, pp. 176-184, (2013)