Chronicles of Noura @ HKS:
|
|
Chronicles of Noura @ HKS:
|
|
This post is based on an assignment we had to submit for API 165, Energy and Environmental Economics and Policy taught by Joe Aldy, on evaluating the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) and Target-Consistent Pricing (TCP).
As the world continues to find ways for addressing the challenges of climate change, the debate around carbon pricing intensifies. Two key approaches dominate discussions: the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) and Target-Consistent Pricing (TCP). Both frameworks offer valuable insights, but their underlying assumptions, methodologies, and conclusions diverge in important ways. In this post, I explore these two approaches, uncover their strengths and limitations, and suggest how we can move forward to design more effective climate policies. What Is the Social Cost of Carbon? The Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) is a tool used by economists to put a price on the damages caused by emitting one additional ton of CO2 into the atmosphere. It essentially tells us how much climate change is going to cost society in terms of things like reduced agricultural productivity, increased mortality rates, and the destruction of property due to extreme weather events. Governments and policymakers use SCC to evaluate the costs and benefits of climate policies. Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs), such as DICE, FUND, and PAGE, are the main tools for calculating SCC. These models try to balance the costs of reducing emissions with the economic damage caused by climate change (Pizer et al., 2014). While widely used, these models are often criticized for oversimplifying the complexities of climate change, particularly when it comes to dealing with uncertainty and catastrophic risks (Stern et al., 2022). The Problem with Relying Solely on SCC Despite its widespread use, the SCC approach has its shortcomings. One of the main criticisms is that it relies on "discount rates," which help economists figure out how much future climate damage is worth today. A high discount rate lowers the present value of future damages, which can justify weaker climate policies. On the other hand, a low discount rate places a higher value on future generations' well-being, supporting stronger action (Aldy et al., 2021). The debate around discount rates reflects deeper ethical questions about how we value the future and what kind of world we want to leave behind. Another issue with SCC is the challenge of accounting for deep uncertainty. Climate change involves not only risks we can predict but also extreme events we can't foresee or quantify, such as catastrophic sea-level rise or the collapse of ecosystems. These "fat-tail" risks aren't adequately captured by traditional IAMs, which focus on expected utility and average outcomes (Stern et al., 2022). This means that SCC, in many cases, may underestimate the true risks of climate change. A New Approach: Target-Consistent Pricing (TCP) TCP, on the other hand, offers a more goal-oriented solution. Instead of trying to calculate the economic cost of each ton of CO2, TCP sets carbon prices based on what is needed to achieve a specific climate goal, such as net-zero emissions by 2050. Kaufman et al. (2020) propose the Near-Term to Net Zero (NT2NZ) approach, a specific type of TCP, which focuses on setting carbon prices that reflect the cost of staying within the near-term trajectory required to meet long-term climate targets. This approach is aligned with international agreements like the Paris Agreement, which seeks to limit global temperature increases to 1.5–2°C. TCP has the advantage of providing policymakers with clearer, actionable guidance. Instead of dealing with the complexities of estimating long-term climate damages (which are subject to great uncertainty), TCP focuses on the immediate policy actions needed to meet specific climate goals. SCC vs. TCP: Where Do They Diverge? While both SCC and TCP aim to guide climate action, their methods and philosophies diverge significantly.
Bridging the Gap: A New Way Forward Both SCC and TCP have their strengths and weaknesses. SCC gives us a way to measure the economic impacts of climate change, but it’s riddled with uncertainties and ethical dilemmas. TCP is more pragmatic, offering a clear path to meeting climate goals, but it lacks the rigorous theoretical foundation of SCC. To truly advance climate policy, we need to bridge the gap between these two approaches. One way forward is to integrate the best aspects of both: using SCC to inform the broader economic context while adopting the NT2NZ approach to set actionable, near-term targets. This hybrid framework could provide a more comprehensive roadmap for policymakers, balancing economic efficiency with the urgent need to tackle climate change head-on. Conclusion As we refine the ways we address climate change, it’s clear that no single approach can solve the problem. The Social Cost of Carbon offers valuable insights into the long-term economic damages of climate change, while Target-Consistent Pricing gives us a practical path forward. By combining these approaches, we can design more effective policies that not only optimize economic outcomes but also ensure we meet critical climate goals. This is the challenge of our time: balancing the costs of today with the risks of tomorrow. And as we continue to refine these models, we must remember that the future depends on the decisions we make now. References
2 Comments
Abdulkareem Alolama
6/10/2024 08:15:39 pm
The challenge of balancing today's costs with tomorrow's risks transcends a mere evaluation of policy-making skills. It represents a profound opportunity to redefine what we consider progress, emphasizing a commitment to a future where long-term wellbeing takes precedence over immediate gains. As we persist in refining these models, let us do so with unwavering optimism and determination. And if there is anyone poised to lead this transformative journey, it is undoubtedly you.
Reply
Shaikhah Laradhi
4/11/2024 08:17:27 am
Your article is both insightful and inspiring. You've highlighted the complexity of climate action with such clarity, and your dedication to finding balanced solutions is truly admirable. Thank you for setting such a high standard for thoughtful, impactful work—you're a model for all of us striving to make a difference
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorNoura Y. Mansouri ArchivesCategories
All
|