This paper investigates the world-wide economic cost of rapid sea-level rise of the kind that could be caused by accelerated ice flow from the West Antarctic and/or the Greenland ice sheets. Such an event would have direct impacts on economic activities located near the coastline and indirect impacts further inland. Using data from the DIVA model on sea floods, river floods, land loss, salinisation and forced migration, we analyse the effects of these damages in a computable general equilibrium model for 25 world regions. We consider three sea-level rise scenarios that correspond to 0.47, 1.12 and 1.75 m by the 2080s. By incorporating a wider range of damage categories, implemented in an economy-wide framework and including very rapid sea-level rise, the study offers a new contribution to climate change impact studies. We find that the loss of GDP worldwide is 0.5 % in the highest sea-level rise scenario, with a loss of welfare (equivalent variation) of almost 2 % world-wide. Within these aggregates, there are large regional disparities, with the Central Europe North region and parts of South-East Asia and South Asia being especially prone to high costs (welfare losses in the range of 4-12 %). The analysis assumes that there is not public adaptation, which would substantially lower the costs. In this way, the analysis demonstrates what is at risk, and could be used to justify adaptation expenses.

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in Juan Carlos Ciscar IPTS, European Commission, SevilleAbstract Recent thinking about the economics of climate change has concerned the uncertainty about the upper bound of both climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases and the damages that might occur at high temperatures. This argument suggests that the appropriate probability distributions for these factors may be fat-tailed. The matter of tail shape has important implications for the calculation of the social cost of carbon dioxide (SCCO2). In this paper a probabilistic integrated assessment model is adapted to allow for the possibility of a thin, intermediate or fat tail for both (i) the climate sensitivity parameter and (ii) the damage function exponent. Results show that depending on the tail shape of the climate sensitivity parameter the mean SCCO2 rises by 29 to 85 percent. Changes in the mean SCCO2 due to the adjustments to the damage function alone range from a reduction of 7 percent to a rise of 12 percent. The combination of both leads to rises of 33 to 115 percent. Greater rises occur for the upper percentiles of the SCCO2 estimates. Given the uncertainties in both the science and the economics of climate change different tail shapes deserve consideration due to their important implications for the range of possible values for the SCCO2.

No abstract

The paper uses the computable general equilibrium model CORTAX to analyse the extent of base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) in the EU, Japan and the US. Our approach estimates the direct fiscal losses of BEPS and accounts for the second round effects, in particular on the cost of capital and corporate investment. Our central estimates show that the net corporate tax revenue losses in the EU are e36.0 billion per year (7.7% of CIT revenues), e24.0 billion in Japan and e100.8 billion in the US (in both cases representing 10.7% of corporate tax revenues). Our estimates are comparable in size to the global tax revenue losses found using newly reported statistics on foreign affiliates. Our macroeconomic results suggest that eliminating profit shifting would slightly reduce investment and GDP and rise corporate tax revenues, which would positively affect welfare.

No abstract