Costs of greenhouse gas abatement: meta-analysis of post-SRES mitigation scenarios

Abstract

Economic analyses have produced widely differing estimates of the economic implications of policies for greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation, ranging from high costs to modest benefits. The main reason for the differences appears to be differences in approaches and assumptions. This paper analyzes the extent to which the post-SRES 1 (after the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios) model results for the global costs of GHG mitigation can be explained by the model's characteristics and the assumptions adopted. The research applies meta-analysis methodology combined with scatter plots of the data to identify the ranges of the results and outlying data points. A database of scenarios and results was compiled for the post-SRES scenarios, which has the major advantage that a11 seven models for which suitable data are available have been run using the same, independently defined scenarios. The results are strongly clustered, with only a few results outside the range of -4% to 0% gross domestic product (GDP), with a strong correlation between CO2 reduction and GDP reduction. A set of model characteristics is found to be highly significant (1 % level), explaining some 70% of the variance. The main conclusion is that a11 modeling results regarding "GDP costs of mitigating climate change" should be qualified by the key assumptions leading to the estimates. The treatment of these assumptions can lead to the mitigation being associated with increases in GDP or with reductions.

A cost–benefit analysis of the EU 20/20/2020 package

“…and there a few recent meta-analyses as well (Barker et al 2002;Fischer and Morgenstern 2006;Kuik et al 2009;Repetto and Austin 1997). There are two equally important messages from this literature.…”

Modeling the Economic Costs of Climate Policy: An Overview

“…Several previous studies note that the estimated costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions tend to vary a lot across different models and model runs, e.g., [53,[55][56][57]. The presence of a wide range of cost estimates may undermine policy support for fairly stringent climate policy measures; faced with significant uncertainties of the economic impacts politicians may hesitate whether or not to promote tough measures unless more light can be shed on the true costs of these.…”

Counting only the hits? The risk of underestimating the costs of stringent climate policy

“…In such cases, a model for filling in the missing observations needs to be devised. Essentially, we conduct a meta-3 With the exception of POLES analysis (Barker et al 2002;Fischer et al 2006;Kuik et al 2009;Repetto et al 1997) and use the estimated model to impute the missing observations. We propose a simple OLS regression 4 between the (log) of the policy costs and a series of independent variables that include the stringency of the climate target in radiative forcing, model dummies, a delayed participation dummy, and an overshoot dummy.…”