Order:
  1.  27
    Impact of Population Growth and Population Ethics on Climate Change Mitigation Policy.Mark Budolfson, Noah Scovronick, Francis Dennig, Marc Fleurbaey, Asher Siebert, Robert H. Socolow, Dean Spears & Fabian Wagner - 2017 - Pnas 114 (46).
    Future population growth is uncertain and matters for climate policy: higher growth entails more emissions and means more people will be vulnerable to climate-related impacts. We show that how future population is valued importantly determines mitigation decisions. Using the Dynamic Integrated Climate-Economy model, we explore two approaches to valuing population: a discounted version of total utilitarianism (TU), which considers total wellbeing and is standard in social cost of carbon dioxide (SCC) models, and of average utilitarianism (AU), which ignores population size (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  2.  10
    Inequality, Climate Impacts on the Future Poor, and Carbon Prices.Mark Budolfson, Francis Dennig, Marc Fleurbaey, Asher Siebert & Robert H. Socolow - 2015 - Pnas 112 (52).
    Integrated assessment models of climate and the economy provide estimates of the social cost of carbon and inform climate policy. We create a variant of the Regional Integrated model of Climate and the Economy (RICE)—a regionally disaggregated version of the Dynamic Integrated model of Climate and the Economy (DICE)—in which we introduce a more fine-grained representation of economic inequalities within the model’s regions. This allows us to model the common observation that climate change impacts are not evenly distributed within regions (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  3.  10
    The Impact of Human Health Co-Benefits on Evaluations of Global Climate Policy.Noah Scovronick, Mark Budolfson, Francis Dennig, Frank Errickson, Marc Fleurbaey, Wei Peng, Robert H. Socolow, Dean Spears & Fabian Wagner - 2019 - Nature Communications 2095 (19).
    The health co-benefits of CO2 mitigation can provide a strong incentive for climate policy through reductions in air pollutant emissions that occur when targeting shared sources. However, reducing air pollutant emissions may also have an important co-harm, as the aerosols they form produce net cooling overall. Nevertheless, aerosol impacts have not been fully incorporated into cost-benefit modeling that estimates how much the world should optimally mitigate. Here we find that when both co-benefits and co-harms are taken fully into account, optimal (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation