Consistent climate policies

Gerlagh, Reyer; Liski, Matti

doi:10.1093/jeea/jvx010

Cited by 74 publications

(84 citation statements)

References 52 publications

(112 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Formula (18) for the carbon price is similar to carbon price formulas presented in Golosov et al (2014), van den Bijgaart et al (2016), and Gerlagh and Liski (2017b). The carbon price tends to increase proportionally with output as a larger economy values emissions more.…”

Section: Carbon Policiesmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…11 Others have added risk updating when climate information arrives (Gerlagh and Liski, 2017a), temperature delays and general time preferences (Gerlagh and Liski, 2017b), 12 and tax distortions (Barrage, 2016). We add demographic parameters to these.…”

Section: Further Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Time is discrete and runs to infinity. The economy's technology is based on Gerlagh and Liski (2017b), while our quantitative assessment employs the (median) climate-damage description listed in van den Bijgaart et al (2016). 10 It is important to mention that we model a closed economy and therefore the aggregate savings rate equals the investment rate.…”

Section: The Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We use a stylized climate module as in van den Bijgaart et al (2016) and Gerlagh and Liski (2017b). The dynamics of damages θ i are governed by carbon exchange between reservoirs, which is conveniently described through an exponential CO 2 decay function.…”

Section: Climate Dynamics Calibrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In turn, these lead to a substantial tightening of present efficient climate policies, that is, a large increase in the (present) efficient carbon price. 1 The reason that future capital markets have such robust effects for present climate policies comes from the extreme persistence of climate change (Gerlagh and Liski, 2017b). The same demographic patterns, in the RCK model, result in a decrease in both the future savings rate and the present carbon price.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Global Demographic Change and Climate Policies

Gerlagh

Jaimes

Motavasseli³

2017

SSRN Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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. Between 1950 and 2017, world average life expectancy increased from below-50 to above-70, while the fertility rate dropped from 5 to about 2.5. We develop and calibrate an analytic climate-economy model with overlapping generations to study the effect of such demographic change on capital markets and optimal climate policies. Our model replicates findings from the OLG-demography literature, such as a rise in households' savings, and a declining rate of return to capital. We also find that demographic change raises the social cost of carbon, at 2020, from 28 euro/tCO 2 in a model that abstracts from demography, to 94 euro/tCO 2 in our calibrated model. JEL-Codes: H230, J110, Q540, Q580. Terms of use: Documents in

show abstract

Section: Carbon Policiesmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Further Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Climate Dynamics Calibrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Global Demographic Change and Climate Policies

Gerlagh

Jaimes

Motavasseli³

2017

SSRN Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Integrated Assessment of Carbon Dioxide Removal

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To maintain the chance of keeping the average global temperature increase below 2°C and to limit long‐term climate change, removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (carbon dioxide removal, CDR) is becoming increasingly necessary. We analyze optimal and cost‐effective climate policies in the dynamic integrated assessment model (IAM) of climate and the economy (DICE2016R) and investigate (1) the utilization of (ocean) CDR under different climate objectives, (2) the sensitivity of policies with respect to carbon cycle feedbacks, and (3) how well carbon cycle feedbacks are captured in the carbon cycle models used in state‐of‐the‐art IAMs. Overall, the carbon cycle model in DICE2016R shows clear improvements compared to its predecessor, DICE2013R, capturing much better long‐term dynamics and also oceanic carbon outgassing due to excess oceanic storage of carbon from CDR. However, this comes at the cost of a (too) tight short‐term remaining emission budget, limiting the model suitability to analyze low‐emission scenarios accurately. With DICE2016R, the compliance with the 2°C goal is no longer feasible without negative emissions via CDR. Overall, the optimal amount of CDR has to take into account (1) the emission substitution effect and (2) compensation for carbon cycle feedbacks.

show abstract