IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cpr/ceprdp/19137.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Synthesis of evidence yields high social cost of carbon due to structural model variation and uncertainties

Author

Listed:
  • Moore, Frances
  • Drupp, Moritz
  • Rising, James
  • Dietz, Simon
  • Rudik, Ivan
  • Wagner, Gernot

Abstract

Estimating the cost to society from a ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) released into the atmosphere requires connecting a model of the climate system with a representation of the economic and social effects of changes in climate, as well as the valuation and aggregation of diverse, uncertain impacts across both time and space. The literature on this cost, termed the social cost of carbon (SCC), is large and growing. Prior work has largely focused on better constraining the values of parameters such as climate sensitivity, the discount rate, and the damage function. A growing literature has also examined the effect of varying more fundamental structural elements of the models supporting SCC calculations. These structural model choices—including the introduction of climate or economic tipping points, changing the structure of economic preferences, and accounting for the persistence of climate damages—have been analyzed in piecemeal, uncoordinated fashion, leaving their relative importance unclear. Here we perform a comprehensive synthesis of the evidence on the SCC, combining 1823 estimates of the SCC from 147 studies published between 2000 and 2020 with a survey of the authors of these studies. The distribution of published SCC values for a 2020 pulse year is wide and substantially right-skewed, showing evidence of a heavy right tail (truncated mean of $132, median $39). Analysis of variance reveals important roles for structural elements in driving SCC estimates, particularly the inclusion of persistent damages via effects on economic growth, representation of the Earth system, and distributional weighting. However, our survey reveals that experts believe the literature is biased downwards due to an under-sampling of structural model variations, as well as biases in damage-function and discount-rate parameters. To address this imbalance, we train a random forest model on variation in the literature and use it to generate a synthetic SCC distribution that more closely matches expert assessments of appropriate model structure and discounting. This synthetic distribution has a median and mean of $185 and $284 per ton CO2, respectively, for a 2020 pulse year (5%–95% range: $32–$874), higher than all official government estimates, including a 2023 update from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Suggested Citation

  • Moore, Frances & Drupp, Moritz & Rising, James & Dietz, Simon & Rudik, Ivan & Wagner, Gernot, 2024. "Synthesis of evidence yields high social cost of carbon due to structural model variation and uncertainties," CEPR Discussion Papers 19137, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  • Handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:19137
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cepr.org/publications/DP19137
    Download Restriction: CEPR Discussion Papers are free to download for our researchers, subscribers and members. If you fall into one of these categories but have trouble downloading our papers, please contact us at subscribers@cepr.org
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q54 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Climate; Natural Disasters and their Management; Global Warming

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:19137. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cepr.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.