Selection of climate policies under the uncertainties in the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC

A risk assessment framework shows that policymakers’ preferences affect carbon budget choices more than future uncertainties. Such preferences are as important as the much-discussed discount rate. Strategies for dealing with climate change must incorporate and quantify all the relevant uncertainties...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Nature climate change 2015-10, Vol.5 (10), p.937-940
Main Authors: Drouet, L., Bosetti, V., Tavoni, M.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
704/844/2175
704/844/843
Climate Change
Climate Change/Climate Change Impacts
Climate policy
Decision making
Environment
Environmental Law/Policy/Ecojustice
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
letter
Risk aversion
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:A risk assessment framework shows that policymakers’ preferences affect carbon budget choices more than future uncertainties. Such preferences are as important as the much-discussed discount rate. Strategies for dealing with climate change must incorporate and quantify all the relevant uncertainties, and be designed to manage the resulting risks 1 . Here we employ the best available knowledge so far, summarized by the three working groups of the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC AR5; refs  2 , 3 , 4 ), to quantify the uncertainty of mitigation costs, climate change dynamics, and economic damage for alternative carbon budgets. We rank climate policies according to different decision-making criteria concerning uncertainty, risk aversion and intertemporal preferences. Our findings show that preferences over uncertainties are as important as the choice of the widely discussed time discount factor. Climate policies consistent with limiting warming to 2 °C above preindustrial levels are compatible with a subset of decision-making criteria and some model parametrizations, but not with the commonly adopted expected utility framework.
ISSN:1758-678X
1758-6798
DOI:10.1038/nclimate2721