Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T08:41:26.542Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Benefit-Cost Analysis for Climate Action

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 November 2021

Dominique Bureau ,
Alain Quinet  and
Katheline Schubert
Dominique Bureau
Affiliation:
French Ministry of Ecological Transition, La Defense, France
Alain Quinet
Affiliation:
Committee on the Shadow Price of Carbon, France
Katheline Schubert*
Affiliation:
Paris School of Economics, University Paris 1 Panthéon Sorbonne, Paris, France
*
*e-mail: schubert@univ-paris1.fr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although a carbon value has often been integrated in the frameworks established to guide public decision-making, benefit-cost analysis (BCA) has played no more than a minor role in the design of climate policies. It is urgently necessary to promote BCA in this area, and there is currently a unique opportunity for doing so. Major countries are designing new packages in order to meet their commitments, as illustrated by the European Green Deal, recent decisions on the part of the Biden Administration, and the creation of a Chinese national carbon market. These constructive processes must be based on BCA. BCA is absolutely necessary in order to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 at a reasonable cost. Indeed, abatement costs across and within sectors, and across and within countries, are extremely heterogeneous, and many of the policy instruments in use (subsidies, feed-in tariffs, technical standards, etc.) overlap inefficiently. The instrumental debate between carbon pricing and other instruments is sterile if it merely remains at the level of stating principles. BCA can help on this point too, by specifying comparisons between alternatives, identifying complementarities, and selecting the most relevant combinations of instruments. Its scope should therefore range from setting benchmarks for carbon pricing to assessing, e.g., green investments or measures to enhance carbon sinks. When applied to decarbonization policies, BCA requires firstly the selection of a carbon value, in order to monetize the climate benefits of investments and policies. However, the whole assessment framework must be updated, including the time horizon, the discount rate, the cobenefits of climate mitigation actions, and the pricing of climate risks. We show that such an updated framework leads to an upward revision in the assessment of the climate benefits of mitigation actions, and that combining the valuation of damages and cost-effectiveness approaches is necessary in order to meet the needs of policy assessment. Finally, there is a need to extend analysis beyond the efficiency criterion in order to deal with other dimensions of climate policies, particularly their distributive impacts. This requires specific analyses, which should be articulated with BCA and carried out at an early stage for a better implementation of climate policies than we have seen to date.

Keywords

benefit-cost analysisclimate policyQ1
Type
Article
Information
Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , Fall 2021 , pp. 494 - 517
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adler, M. D. 2016. “Benefit-Cost Analysis and Distributional Weights: An Overview.” Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 10(2): 264–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anthoff, D., and Tol, R.. 2014. “The Income Elasticity of the Impact of Climate Change.” In Is the Environment a Luxury? An Inquiry into the Relationship Between Environment and Income, edited by Tiezzi, S., and Martini, C.. New York: Routledge, p. 34–47.Google Scholar
Aufhammer, M. 2018. “Quantifying Economic Damages from Climate Change.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 32(4): 33–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumstark, L., Guesnerie, R., Ni, J., and Ourliac, J.-P.. 2021. “Cost-Benefit Assessment of Public Investments in France: The Use of Counter-Experts.” Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 12(1): 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boiteux, M. (2001). Transports: choix des investissements et coût des nuisances. Commissariat Général du Plan, Rapport. La Documentation Française.Google Scholar
Borenstein, S., and Davis, L.. 2016. “The Distributional Effects of US Clean Energy Tax Credit.” Tax Policy and the Economy, 30(1): 191–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boiteux, M. (1994). 1994 – Transports: pour un meilleur choix des investissements, Commissariat Général du Plan, Rapport, La Documentation Française.Google Scholar
Bureau, D., Henriet, F., and Schubert, K.. 2019. A proposal for the climate: taxing carbon not people. Conseil d’Analyse Economique.Google Scholar
Dennig, F., Budolfson, M. B., Fleurbaey, M., Siebert, A., and Socolow, R. H.. 2015. “Inequality, Climate Impacts on the Future Poor, and Carbon Prices.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(52): 15827–15832.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dietz, S., and Stern, N.. 2015. “Endogenous Growth, Convexity of Damage and Climate Risk: How Nordhaus’ Framework Supports Deep Cuts in Carbon Emissions.” The Economic Journal, 125(583): 574–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drèze, J., and Stern, N.. 1987. “The Theory of Cost-Benefit Analysis”. In Handbook of Public Economics, edited by Auerbach, Alan J, and Feldstein, Martin. Handbooks in Economics (4): 909–990. Oxford: North-Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enkvist, P., Nauclér, T., and Rosander, J.. 2007. “A Cost Curve for Greenhouse Gas Reduction.” McKinsey Quarterly, 1: 34.Google Scholar
European Commission. 2019. The European Green Deal. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions.Google Scholar
Fleurbaey, M., and Abi-Rafeh, R.. 2016. “The Use of Distributional Weights in Benefit-Cost Analysis: Insights from Welfare Economics.” Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 10(2): 286–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillingham, K., and Stock, J. H.. 2018. “The Cost of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 32(4): 53–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gollier, C. 2012. Pricing the Planet’s Future: The Economics of Discounting in an Uncertain World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hammit, K. H. 2021. “Accounting for the Distribution of Benefits and Costs in Benefit-Cost Analysis.” Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 12(1): 64–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HM Treasury. 2018. The Green Book: Central Government Guidance on Appraisal and Evaluation. London.Google Scholar
Hope, C. 2006. “The Marginal Impact of CO2 from PAGE2002: An Intergrated Assessment Model Incorporating the IPCC’s Five Reasons for Concern.” The Integrated Assessment Journal, 6(1): 19–56.Google Scholar
IPCC. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects.Google Scholar
IPCC. 2018. Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornek, U., Klenert, D., Edenhofer, O., and Fleurbaey, M.. 2021. “The Social Cost of Carbon and Inequality: When Local Redistribution Shapes Global Carbon Prices.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 107: 102450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, F. C., and Diaz, D. B.. 2015. “Temperature Impacts on Economic Growth Warrant Stringent Mitigation Policy.” Nature Climate Change, 5: 127–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordhaus, W. D. 2018. “Projections and Uncertainties About Climate Change in an Era of Minimal Climate Policies.” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 10(3): 333–360.Google Scholar
Quinet, A. 2008. La Valeur tutélaire du carbone. Rapport de la commission présidée par Alain Quinet. Centre d’analyse stratégique, Rapports et documents N° 16. Paris. La Documentation française.Google Scholar
Quinet, A. 2019. La valeur de l’action pour le climat. Rapport de la commission présidée par Alain Quinet. France Stratégie, Rapport.Google Scholar
Revesz, R. L., Howard, P., Arrow, K. J., Goulder, L. H., Kopp, R. E., Livermore, M. A., Oppenheimer, M., and Sterner, T.. 2014. “Global Warming: Improve Economic Models of Climate Change.” Nature, 508: 173–175.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sinn, H. W. 2015. “The Green Paradox: A Supply-Side View of the Climate Problem.” Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 9(2): 239–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, N. 2006. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. London: HM Treasury.Google Scholar
Stern, N. 2016. “Economics: Current Climate Models Are Grossly Misleading.” Nature, 530(7591): 407–409.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stern, N., and Stiglitz, J.. 2021. “The Social Cost of Carbon, Risk, Distribution, Market Failures: An Alternative Approach.” NBER Working Paper No. 28472.Google Scholar
Sussman, F., Grambsch, A., Li, J., and Weaver, C. P.. 2014. “Introduction to a Special Issue Entitled Perspectives on Implementing Benefit-Cost Analysis in Climate Assessment.” Journal of Benefit Cost Analysis, 5(3): 333–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The White House. 2021. Executive Order on Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis, 20 January.Google Scholar
U.S. Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon. 2016. Technical Support Document – Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis – Under Executive Order 12866.Google Scholar
Van der Ploeg, F., and de Zeeuw, A.. 2014. “Climate Tipping Points and Economic Growth: Precautionary Saving and the Social Cost of Carbon.” CEPR Discussion Paper No. 9982.Google Scholar
Wagner, G., Anthoff, A., Cropper, M., Dietz, S., Gillingham, K., Groom, B., Kelleher, J. P., Moore, F. C., and Stock, J. H.. 2021. “Eight Priorities for Calculating the Social Cost of Carbon.” Nature, 590: 548–550.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weitzman, M. L. 2011. “Fat-Tailed Uncertainty in the Economics of Catastrophic Climate Change.” Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 5(2): 275–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weitzman, M. L. 2014. “Fat Tails and the Social Cost of Carbon.” American Economic Review, 104(5): 544–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar