IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/32544.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Synthesis of Evidence Yields High Social Cost of Carbon Due to Structural Model Variation and Uncertainties

Author

Listed:
  • Frances C. Moore
  • Moritz A. Drupp
  • James Rising
  • Simon Dietz
  • Ivan Rudik
  • Gernot Wagner

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

  • Frances C. Moore & Moritz A. Drupp & James Rising & Simon Dietz & Ivan Rudik & Gernot Wagner, 2024. "Synthesis of Evidence Yields High Social Cost of Carbon Due to Structural Model Variation and Uncertainties," NBER Working Papers 32544, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:32544
    Note: EEE
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w32544.pdf
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text is generally limited to series subscribers, however if the top level domain of the client browser is in a developing country or transition economy free access is provided. More information about subscriptions and free access is available at http://www.nber.org/wwphelp.html. Free access is also available to older working papers.
    ---><---

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

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Anthoff & Richard S. J. Tol, 2022. "Testing the Dismal Theorem," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 9(5), pages 885-920.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tol, Richard S.J., 2024. "A meta-analysis of the total economic impact of climate change," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    2. Faustino Prieto & Catalina B. Garc'ia-Garc'ia & Rom'an Salmer'on G'omez, 2024. "Modelling Global Fossil CO2 Emissions with a Lognormal Distribution: A Climate Policy Tool," Papers 2403.00653, arXiv.org.
    3. Giacomo Marangoni & Jonathan R. Lamontagne & Julianne D. Quinn & Patrick M. Reed & Klaus Keller, 2021. "Adaptive mitigation strategies hedge against extreme climate futures," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 166(3), pages 1-17, June.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q0 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - General
    • Q50 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - General
    • Q54 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Climate; Natural Disasters and their Management; Global Warming

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:nbr:nberwo:32544. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    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.