Copenhagen Consensus 2008 Yohe

copenhagen consensus 2008
global warming
Challenge Paper
Copenhagen Consensus 2008 Challenge Paper
Global Warming
April 3, 2008
Gary W. Yohea, Richard S.J. Tolb, Richard G. Richelsc, and Geoffrey J. Blanfordd
a
Department of Economics, Wesleyan University, 238 Church St., Middletown, CT
06459 USA (Phone: 860-685-3658; Fax: 860-685-2781; e-mail: [email protected])
b
Economic and Social Research Institute,Whitaker Square, Sir John Rogerson’s Quay,
Dublin 2, Ireland, [email protected]; Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije
Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Engineering and Public
Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
c
Electric Power Research Institute, 2000 L St. NW, Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036,
[email protected].
d
Electric Power Research Institute, 3420 Hillview Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94304,
[email protected].
1
global warming
Challenge Paper
Multiple changes are occurring simultaneously around the globe at an increasing

pace. Energy and resource scarcities have emerged or intensified. Different trade
regimes have evolved. New communication and information technologies have exploded
into daily life. New human health issues have appeared, and old health issues have, in
some cases, been exacerbated. Changes in global climate and associated patterns of
extreme weather events must be added to this list, especially for the global poor whose
very livelihoods depend directly in many instances on the use of specific natural
resources.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in its recently released

Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), has concluded that a portfolio of mitigation and
adaptation will prove to be the best option for dealing with climate change; see IPCC
(2007b & 2007c). In this paper, we provide some additional evidence in support of such
a multifaceted approach. In addition, it will become clear that ignoring climate change
would mean that efforts which have been designed to ameliorate many of the other
challenges contemplated in the Copenhagen Consensus exercise will ultimately be
“swimming upstream” – i.e., expending effort unnecessarily simply to stay in place.
We begin in Section 1 by offering a brief overview of the state of knowledge

about the risks of climate change. We rely heavily in this overview on the IPCC’s AR4
(IPCC, 2007a and 2007b). Perhaps because many of the same authors were involved, the
conclusions offered there (and here) are consistent with a parallel assessment conducted
in support of Stern, et al. (2006). Both assessments build from the second assessment of
the IPCC where the observation that global mean temperature is rising was statistically
confirmed (IPCC, 1995). The IPCC concluded in its third assessment that increased
concentrations of greenhouse gases (most notably carbon dioxide) were driving the
warming and that climate impacts were beginning to be observed (IPCC, 2001). In its
fourth assessment, the IPCC attributed observed impacts to anthropogenic sources (IPCC,
2007b) and the reported the statistical significance of anthropogenic sources of warming
observed on continental scales (IPCC, 2007a).
Section 2 provides some insight into how two integrated assessment models
(MERGE and FUND) were combined to produce emissions and impacts scenarios along
which four alternative policy approaches are examined; two appendices provide more
detail about the models themselves. The four approaches, described in our third section,
including a “Business as Usual” baseline (alternatively viewed as a “No Climate Policy”
Approach) as well as four more proactive approaches. All are consistent with the
Copenhagen Consensus budget constraint both in the near term (the next four years) and
the future (in monetary equivalence that recognizes the very long time horizon for any
climate policy). We ultimately favor the fourth pro-active alternative, a combination of
research and development, mitigation and adaptation, because it exploits the
complementarity of straight mitigation efforts (enacted through economic mechanisms),
2
global warming
Challenge Paper
enhanced investment in R&D for emissions saving and carbon sequestration

technologies, and expanded adaptation to combat infectious disease.
Our results are presented in Section 4 where we report benefit-cost ratios using
standard discounting practices that are well above the unity benchmark. Section 5
explores some caveats and extensions, most notably the significant value that would
accrue if global policy over the next century or so could exploit cost minimizing
flexibility over the timing of mitigation and investment efforts rather than adhering to the
Copenhagen Consensus budget constraint each year. Concluding remarks in Section 6
bring our results into context with both the IPCC (2007a, 2007b and 2007c) assessments
and the early contribution of Cline (2004) to the Copenhagen Consensus exercise.
1. Scoping the Problem
Section 1 summarizes briefly the state of knowledge about observed and

anticipated climate change and associated impacts as reported in IPCC (2007a and
2007b). It begins with observed impacts, reviews anticipated climate trends and major
sources of risk across sectors and continents, and concludes with a discussion of the value
of pursuing mitigation and adaptation together in a portfolio approach designed to reduce
risk.
Observed Climate Change through 2007.
A robust signal of anthropogenic climate change (particularly warming) has now

been detected in every continent except Australia with strong statistical significance; and
even there, the signal is quite evident. This signature conclusion of the Contribution of
Working Group 1 to the AR4 is displayed in Figure 1.1 (Figure SPM.4, IPCC, 2007a).
The result may be observed in the figure by noting that the bands of uncertainty for
model simulations with and without anthropogenic forcing separate and that the pink
bands (including anthropogenic forcing) capture observed trends in continental average
temperature. This conclusion is important because it means that thinking about
mitigation makes sense for every country, especially in the long run.
The manifestations of these observed changes have also been noted across the
globe. The Tables 1.1 and 1.2, for example, provide the evidence with respect to
transient trends in specific physical impacts and the incidence of extreme events (Tables
10.2 and 10.3, IPCC, 2007b). They focus on Asia, but they can easily be extended; the
references listed can be tracked through Chapter 10 of IPCC (2007b). The take-home
message for present purposes is that climate impacts have already been observed in
precisely the regions where people are most vulnerable not only to climate-related stress,
but also the other stresses captured in the Copenhagen Convention’s list of challenges.
3
global warming
Challenge Paper
Figure 1.1: Identifying the Signal of Anthropogenic Warming on Continental Scales
4
global warming
Challenge Paper
Table 1.1: Observed Past and Present Trends in Climate and Climate Variability
5
global warming
Challenge Paper
Table 1.1 continued
6
global warming
Challenge Paper
Table 1.2: Observed Changes in Extreme Events and Severe Climate Anomalies
7
global warming
Challenge Paper
Anticipated Climate Change Impacts.
Warming is generally anticipated across the globe, but it will be unevenly

distributed. The general trajectory will depend on global emissions scenarios, to be sure,
but impacts will depend critically on local manifestations. Figure 1.2, for example,
displays results across a collection of global circulation models in terms of global
averages and the associated global distributions for three SRES scenarios (IPCC, 2000)
for the 2020’s and the 2090’s (Figure SPM.6, IPCC, 2007a). Significant warming is
expected everywhere, but especially in the northern latitudes. The 2 to 5 degree warming
patterns expected across Asia and Africa by the 2080’s along the higher emissions
scenarios A1B and A2 are, perhaps, most troubling because they will impact the very
people who experience stress from the other challenges. Indeed, even the B1 scenario
would push temperatures 2.5 degrees higher toward the end of this century.
8
global warming
Challenge Paper
Figure 1.2: Projections of Surface Temperatures for the 2020’s and the
2090’s.
The discussion thus far has focused attention on what we know about the physical
manifestations of climate change with only passing mention to the activities that support
human welfare. Tables 1.3 and 1.4 correct this omission by replicating the summary
tables for major sectors and major regions, respectively, from AR4 (Tables 20.8 and 20.9,
IPCC, 2007b). All of the entries in both tables were selected by the author teams of the
respective chapters to illustrate impacts that are important for human welfare; references
back to those chapters are indicated in the table notes.1 The criteria used in the selection
process included magnitude, rate, timing and persistence. Where possible, the entries
identify both a threshold calibrated to change in global mean temperature and a
1
The various chapters of the Working Group II report are available before their publication by Cambridge
University Press on the IPCC website: http://www.ipcc-wg2.org/index.html.
9
global warming
Challenge Paper
quantitative measure calibrated in the most appropriate metric. The time dimension
along different scenarios, including mitigation scenarios, is reflected by the bars on the
top of Table 1.3. The real message to be drawn from these bars is one of uncertainty. No
temperature threshold that might be subjectively judged as the lower bound of
“dangerous climate change” can be guaranteed by even the most stringent of mitigation
policies; adaptation is thus an imperative. Moreover, we are currently committed to
roughly another 0.6 degrees C of warming regardless of efforts to reduce future
greenhouse gas emissions.
Many of the bars in Tables 1.3 and 1.4 highlight risks that will be born by the
planet’s most vulnerable – those who face declining opportunities to sustain subsistence
born of higher temperatures and increased water stress. Tables 1.5 and 1.6 translate these
vulnerabilities into global and regional estimates along representative scenarios for the
2080’s; they replicate Tables 20.4 and 20.5 in IPCC (2007b). While the precise numbers
depend on climate futures and assumptions about adaptation and carbon dioxide
fertilization (not to mention the specific global circulation model employed to represent
future climate change), it is clear that future impacts depend most critically upon future
development choices. For example, impacts calibrated in human lives are greatest along
the A2 scenario not because climate change would be most severe in that case, but
because there would be more people on the planet.
Anticipated Climate Change Impacts on Agriculture.
As can be gleaned from Tables 1.3 through 1.6, vulnerability to climate risk is not
uniform across the planet. Two explanations come to mind. On the one hand, as
displayed in Figure 1.2, climate change itself is not uniformly distributed. In addition,
vulnerability depends on socio-economic factors that determine exposure, sensitivity, and
adaptive capacity on a site-by site basis. To explore the ramifications of this diversity,
consider the impact of climate change on cereals. Parry, et al. (2005) superimposed these
yield relationships onto geographically explicit representations of climate change to
produce maps that display the relative changes in yield across the globe. Their findings
for cereal yields in the 2080’s are reflected here in Figure 1.3 (Figure 5, Parry, et al.,
2005). Unmitigated climate change produces significant yield reductions across Africa
and much of southern Asia even though gains are anticipated elsewhere. It follows that
measures of global aggregates might show modest changes in overall productivity and
thereby mask significant geographic dispersion. This disparity can, as well, be amplified
by local climate factors that are not adequately captured in climate model outputs.
10
global warming
Challenge Paper
Figure 1.3: Potential Changes in Cereal Yields in the 2080’s
Comparing Adaptation and Mitigation.
It is now widely accepted that mitigation alone is not enough to solve the climate
problem; that was one of the major messages of Tables 1.3 and 1.4. Nor will adaptation
alone be sufficient. Even together, they may not be sufficient to avoid dangerous
interference and associated significant damages. These points are illustrated in Figure 1.4
and 1.5 for 2050 and 2100. Replicated from Yohe, et al. (2006), both figures are based
11
global warming
Challenge Paper
on the intermediate A2 SRES emissions scenario assuming climate sensitivity turns out to
be high. The regional distributions reflect climate impacts, calibrated in temperature
change, for each country averaged across results derived from a collection of global
circulation models. The top right panels depict the global distribution of a vulnerability
index without any specific climate policy intervention. The top right panels display the
implications of improving adaptive capacity so that, by 2100, developing countries
achieve levels that are typical of developed countries at the turn of the 21st century.
Notice the improvement almost everywhere, but particularly in China, in 2050; notice, as
well, that climate change overwhelms even enhanced adaptive capacity by 2100.
The bottom two panels bring mitigation into the mix by tracing the implications
of pursuing a least cost path to limiting atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases
to 550 parts per million in carbon dioxide (and so less restrictive than restricting to 550
ppmv in carbon dioxide equivalents). The left panel captures only the effects of
mitigation. Some improvement is observed in 2050, but the capacity to adapt is
overwhelmed in most regions by 2100, despite mitigation effort. Comparing these results
with the middle panel of Figure 1.3 is also instructive. Parry, et al. (2005) show
mitigation having significant benefit for cereal yields in the 2080’s. Their results do not,
however, reflect the high climate sensitivity embodied in the current figures. Nor do they
aggregate multiple climate stresses felt across multiple sectors. Finally, the right panels
of Figures 1.3 and 1.4 add enhanced adaptive capacity to the mix. Again, there is some
additional improvement in 2050, and the combination of the two approaches is most
effective. Unfortunately, vulnerability to climate change remains nearly everywhere by
2100.
12
global warming
Challenge Paper
Table 1.3: Examples of Projected Impacts by Sector
13
global warming
Challenge Paper
Table 1.4: Examples of Projected Impacts by Region
14
global warming
Challenge Paper
Table 1.5: Global Scale Climate Impacts by 2080
Table 1.6: Regional Scale Climate Impacts by 2080
15
global warming
Challenge Paper
Figure 1.4: Geographical Distribution of Vulnerability in 2050 (A2

emissions; high climate sensitivity)
16
global warming
Challenge Paper
Figure 1.5: Geographical Distribution of Vulnerability in 2100 (A2 emissions; high

climate sensitivity)
2. Modeling Emissions and Climate Impact Scenarios
Emissions Scenarios.
Six emissions scenarios were constructed using the MERGE model (see Appendix
A for a description of the model). In three scenarios, a pessimistic set of assumptions
about new energy technology was applied, termed “technology as usual” (TAU). In the
other three scenarios, an accelerated technology path (ATP) was applied to represent the
results of a targeted R&D investment program. For each technology scenario, the model
was used to evaluate three alternative emissions control strategies. The first is a
reference case in which there is no price on carbon dioxide emissions. The reference
scenario is used as a baseline for measurement of the costs and benefits of the emissions
mitigation effort entailed in the other two scenarios. However, note that there are two
distinct reference cases, since the availability of new technology will affect deployment
and emissions even in the absence of a carbon price.
Two mitigation scenarios were considered in which policy constraints place an

implicit price on carbon emissions. Many mitigation studies assume full “where” and
“when” flexibility to assure that a given stabilization target is achieved at least cost. That
is, emissions are reduced where and when it is least costly to do so, subject to a long-term
17
global warming
Challenge Paper
constraint on total greenhouse forcing in the atmosphere. Because this idealized

framework would be very difficult to implement in reality given the current lack of strong
institutions for international and intergenerational cooperation, we conduct most of our
analysis along a second-best mitigation scenario with much more limited flexibility. In
this case, for example, only nations in Annex B of the UNFCCC undertake emissions
reductions (i.e., developing countries face a zero shadow price of carbon through 2100),
and they do so according to annual emissions targets rather than toward a long-term
stabilization goal.2 Costs of mitigation are measured in terms of the deadweight loss in
the economy as emissions reduction requirements force shifts to more expensive energy
options. The discussion in this paper focuses primarily on the limited mitigation
scenario, but an understanding of the potential cost reductions of a flexible policy
implementation is important nonetheless; a brief discussion of the difference is offered in
Section 5.
In light of the Copenhagen Consensus project goal of measuring the benefits of a

fixed expenditure, the specific targets for the mitigation scenarios were chosen
heuristically so that the total cost of mitigation effort reached the desired amount. While
the focus of the current exercise is the allocation of $75 billion over the next 4 years,
coping with climate change will involve a long term commitment to policy. Therefore
the “budget” for this analysis assumes expenditure at an equivalent fraction of global
GDP for the entire 21st century and beyond. Using the MERGE model’s assumptions
about economic growth and discounting, this amounts to a net present value of $800
billion, or roughly 0.05% of global GDP on an annual basis. It is our view that
abandoning a four-year climate response program in 2012 is not an approach worth
pursuing. That said, by focusing on the limited mitigation scenario, we do not assume an
optimal allocation of these funds over time. We do not, therefore, commit future
generations to underwriting decisions taken at the beginning of the 21st century. Instead,
we assume that the funds will be expended as they become available and thereby
approximate, at least roughly, the muddling through approach that would likely be
forthcoming.
Because the emissions scenarios consider both mitigation effort and investment in
R&D for new technology, the total budget is shared between these two activities. In the
TAU scenarios, all $800 billion is allocated to the mitigation effort. Consistent with
estimates from the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI, 2007), we assume an
additional funding requirement of $50 billion, largely in the next few decades, for the
R&D component. Thus in the ATP scenarios, only $750 billion is allocated to mitigation
effort. Note that in the optimal mitigation scenarios, most expenditure is delayed until
2
Additional experiments could be conducted in which non-Annex B countries begin to participate in
mitigation efforts by mid-century. Their participation would have little effect on the cost of meeting
prescribed global emissions targets because, under the assumption that annual expenditure on climate
policy is constrained by the annual budget imposed by this Copenhagen Consensus exercise, only modest
mitigation effort would be undertaken. For deeper cuts in emissions, participation of rapidly growing
developing countries will be crucial.
18
global warming
Challenge Paper
future periods, whereas in the limited case, the annual emission targets necessitate an
approximately constant annual rate of expenditure. Table 2.1 summarizes the six
emissions scenarios.
Table 2.1: MERGE Emissions Scenarios
Global Emissions
Scenario Policy Description (billion tons CO2)
2000 2050 2100
TAU Reference No Policy 24 44 67
TAU Cost
Global participation
Effective 2 24 43 20
Stabilization at 5.2 W/m
Mitigation
TAU Limited Annex B only
24 38 55
Mitigation Emissions constant at 2010 levels
ATP Reference No Policy 24 32 48
ATP Cost
Global participation
Effective 24 29 14
Stabilization at 4.5 W/m2
Mitigation
Annex B only
ATP Limited
Emissions reduced by 0.275% per year 24 30 37
Mitigation
from 2010 levels
Impacts Scenarios.
Each emissions scenario was evaluated using the climate and impacts modules in
the FUND model (see Appendix B for a description of this model). First using an central,
“best guess” value for climate sensitivity (3.0oC) and later considering a range of values,
FUND calculates a temperature trajectory associated with the given emissions path.3
Market and non-market damages from climate impacts are calculated as a regional
function of temperature increase. These calculations include economically efficient
reactive adaptations, so they represent net impacts inclusive of the costs of adaptation. In
addition to R&D investment and mitigation effort, we examine a third response activity –
3
Climate sensitivity is a measure of the increase in equilibrium global mean temperature that would be
associated with a doubling of the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide from pre-industrial levels
– roughly 550-560 ppmv versus 280 ppmv.
19
global warming
Challenge Paper
adaptation designed to confront specific health impacts more aggressively and

proactively. This activity occurs ex post of climate changes and allows amelioration of
their negative impact. Thus for selected emissions scenarios, damages are calculated
with and without adaptation policies. The NPV cost of additional adaptation is $1 billion,
much smaller than the cost of the other two activities. It is therefore not separated from
the mitigation/R&D budget, but it is important to realize that it does not handle the wide
range of impacts (particularly from extreme events and abrupt change) that are
highlighted in Section 1.
3. Scoping the Proposed Responses
As suggested in Section 2, we explore four responses within a synthesis of two

integrated assessment models: FUND and MERGE. A review of the details of the
models, as provided in the two appendices, indicates that we thereby exploit the relative
strengths of both (the technological detail of MERGE on the mitigation side and the
geographic and sector diversity of FUND on the impacts and adaptation side). While the
focus of the Copenhagen Consensus exercise is how to spend $75 billion over the next 4
years, it is also important to reiterate that coping with climate change will involve a long
term commitment to policy. We therefore examine a collection of approaches that build
toward a portfolio of adaptation and mitigation options that expend up to an equivalent
proportion of global GDP over the next century. The present value of these expenditures,
allocated either to specific initiatives or to cover the economic dead weight loss of
mitigation, amounts to $800 billion (constant 2000 dollars); this sum will represent the
cost side of our benefit-cost calculations.
The four responses that are the focus of our analysis are listed below; Figure 3.1
depicts their effects on emissions and temperature increases over time assuming a central
climate sensitivity of 3 degrees centigrade.
(1) “Business as usual” – the TAU Reference case in Table 2.1.
Inaction on the climate front is certainly an option that must be taken

seriously. Climate change has never been favored in the Copenhagen
Consensus process; moreover, current policy seems to be long on
rhetoric but short on action. Analyzing this case, both in terms of
global aggregates and underlying regional and sectoral manifestations,
also provides the baseline scenario against which potential benefits of
the other policy options will be measured.
(2) “Mitigation only (annual)” – the TAU Limited Mitigation case in Table 2.1.
Allocate the full budget to covering the economic deadweight loss of

mitigation with limited flexibility. Economic instruments (e.g., a carbon tax)
20
global warming
Challenge Paper
are employed to reduce annual emissions of greenhouse gases up to the point

where the economic cost matches the annual budget; there is no additional
R&D investment in technology and no proactive adaptation.
(3) “R&D + mitigation (annual)” – the ATP Limited Mitigation case in Table
2.1.
Invest immediately in R&D to make new technologies for emission

reduction and carbon sequestration available; these technologies
complement near-term mitigation and eventually increase the
efficiency of longer-term efforts to reduce emissions. There is no
additional adaptation and mitigation is undertaken with limited
flexibility (since annual expenditures for either R&D or dead weight
loss coverage is limited annually to 0.05% of then current global
GDP).
(4) Adaptation + R&D + mitigation (annual)” – a portfolio approach.
This approach will be a combination of approach (3) with an

additional focus on adaptations designed to ameliorate specific health
impacts related to some of the other Copenhagen Consensus topics.
Additional expenditures covered within the specified budgetary limits
will underwrite responses to the likelihood that climate change will
exacerbate health hunger problems worldwide. These expenditures
will cover only the increments attributed to climate change, and they
will not be inclusive (in the sense of covering all of the potential
impacts displayed in Section 1). Since these initiatives will not reduce
the pace of climate change, their cost, taken in isolation, would reflect
the degree to which the “Do nothing” alternative would make it more
difficult to make progress in other contexts. Comparisons with earlier
approaches will illustrate the value of responding to the climate
problem with a variety of approaches that simultaneously “fight the
disease” and “treat the symptoms”. As reported in the IPCC AR4,
mitigation and adaptation should both be more effective given the
complementary effects of the other, and we confirm this expectation.
Figure 3.1 shows the trajectories of CO2 emissions for four cases. Figure 3.2 does
the same for increases in global mean temperature, as derived from MERGE. Notice that
the “Business as usual” trajectory puts the increase in global mean temperature at
approximately 3.5oC in 2100 (relative to the 2007 level); we are, therefore, depicting a
baseline that tracks roughly into the middle of the distribution of temperature increase
reported in Figure 1.2 for the A2 “storyline”. The first three correspond to options (1),
(2) and (3) above. Adaptation is not depicted, since adaptation has no effect on emissions
or temperature, so option (4) tracks along option “R&D + mitigation” trajectory. R&D
21
global warming
Challenge Paper
alone is also depicted to show that enhanced technology produces a lower trajectory in
the near to medium term even without other policy intervention (this is the “ATP
Reference” case in Table 2.1). It is included for reference, because enhanced technology
will make any level of expenditure on mitigation more effective. It is not included as a
climate policy option, however, because emissions and temperatures rise at an increasing
rate over the long term to the point that both eventually exceed the “Mitigation only”
alternative. For reference, as well, it is important to note that mitigation constrained to
the annual Copenhagen Consensus budget requires imposing a persistent real shadow
price of $20 per ton of CO2 (by some means – a carbon tax or a carbon permit market, for
example) with or without R&D investment in enhanced carbon saving or sequestering
technology. Clearly, though, enhanced technology makes this intervention more
effective in reducing emissions and slowing the rate of increase in global mean
temperature.
Figure 3.1 Emissions (gigatons per year of CO2) for Alternative Policies
30
Business as Usual
R&D + mitigation (annual)
25 Mitigation only (annual)
R&D only
CO2 emissions (gigatons)
20
15
10
0
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 2120 2140
22
global warming
Challenge Paper
Figure 3.2 Increases in Global Mean Temperature (in degrees C above 2005 levels)
for Alternative Policies
5
Business as Usual
4.5 R&D + mitigation (annual)
Mitigation only (annual)
4
R&D only
3.5
degree centigrade
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 2120 2140
*Note: The adaptation only case is not depicted because it has no effect on emissions and therefore
tracks the business as usual case.
23
global warming
Challenge Paper
4. Results
Table 4.1 displays the summary net present value statistics from our analysis of
the four policy intervention alternatives described above. Because of the long time
horizon over which impacts from climate change will emerge, the choice of discount rate
is critical for the cost-benefit calculus. In these calculations, the rate used to translate the
benefits of avoided damages in the distant future to a present value is the same as the rate
describing the return on a risk-free investment in the economic model, that is, the
marginal productivity of capital. This symmetry implies that we are indifferent between
incurring $1 million worth of damages in 2100 and losing an amount today that if
invested instead is guaranteed to be worth $1 million in 2100. However, arguments may
be made in support of a variety of alternative perspectives on the appropriate discounting
approach for climate change. For a review of these arguments, see Portney and Weyant
(1999) or Stern, et al. (2007). The discount rate used here starts at 5% in 2007, falling to
4% by the end of the century. This choice is consistent with observed and anticipated
market rates of return, where the decline reflects investors becoming more “patient” over
longer time horizons. Note that this discount rate is used for reporting as well as for
computing optimal investments (in energy technologies in MERGE, and in adaptation in
FUND); therefore, changing the discount rate would change the reference scenario as
well as the policy scenarios. It is important to note explicitly that our calculations do not
depend on assuming the low pure rate of time preference employed both by Cline (2004)
and Stern, et al. (2007).
Figure 4.1 displays the underlying trajectories of climate damages, including the
“Business as Usual” option, in terms of percentage of global GDP. Figure 4.2 converts
these estimates into benefits (damages foregone) for the three intervention alternatives.
Notice that Figure 4.1 displays the potential for beneficial climate change, at least as
measured by global aggregate economic activity, through the first half of this century.
This observation is one explanation for why the benefit-cost ratio reported in Table 4.1
for “Mitigation only” can be less than unity (though the ratio climbs above unity for
“ATP cost-effective” case from Table 2.1; this point will be discussed in Section 5).
Conversely, the fact that our modeling allows for the possibility that modest climate
change could be beneficial early in this century adds credibility to benefit-cost ratios of
the three other interventions, especially the two which involve R&D enhanced mitigation.
24
global warming
Challenge Paper
Table 4.1: Policies, Costs, Benefits, and Benefit-Cost Ratios.
Scenario Description NPV NPV BCR

costs benefits
(2) Mitigation only Spend $18 bln per year $800 $685 bln 0.9
(annual with partial (rising with economic bln
“where flexibility”) growth) on mitigation
(3) R&D + mitigation Accelerated phase-in of $800 $1717 2.1
(annual with partial carbon-extensive energy bln bln
“where flexibility”) technologies, followed by
mitigation with a fixed
annual budget
(4) Adaptation + R&D As above plus purchase $800 $2129 2.7
+ Mitigation (annual bednets and oral bln
with partial “where rehydration therapy for
flexibility”) children in least developed
countries affected by
climate change
Figure 4.1: Trajectories of Global Damages for the Five Alternatives
3.5 R&D + mitigation

Mitigation only
3.0 Adaptation only
Adaptation + R&D + mitigation
Business as usual
2.5
2.0
percent GDP
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
2000 2050 2100 2150 2200 2250 2300
-0.5
25
global warming
Challenge Paper
Figure 4.2: Trajectories of Global Benefits for the Four Intervention Policies
through 2300

Mitigation only
Adaptation only
2.0
1.5
percent GDP
1.0
0.5
0.0
2000 2050 2100 2150 2200 2250 2300
-0.5
Turning now to options (3), and (4) [“R&D + mitigation (annual)” and
“Adaptation + R&D + mitigation (annual)”, respectively], it is important to note that
coupling mitigation constrained by an annual expenditure with early investment in R&D
for enhanced carbon saving and carbon sequestering technology brings the benefit-cost
ratio for mitigation up to 2.1 even with a discount rate set to mimic the return to private
capital. The policy portfolio described in option (4) brings the power of enhanced R&D
and expanded investment in adaptation together to raise the benefit-cost ratio of annual
mitigation to 2.7. Both adaptation and R&D complement constrained mitigation efforts
to such a degree that the associated benefit-cost ratio increases by a factor of 3 without
spending an additional dime.4
4
Notice that we do not consider adaptation alone as a response option, essentially because doing only
adaptation addresses only the “symptoms” and not the “disease”. We do, though, concentrate on the
separable value of adaptation in the next section on caveats. We also do not address R&D as a stand-
alone response, because mitigation policy and R&D go hand in hand. The smaller the cost differential
between the carbon-free technology and the carbon-venting technology, the smaller the tax (either
implicit or explicit) needed to bring climate-friendly into the marketplace. Put another way, R&D is
most effective as a tool that complements mitigation efforts. It follows that the value of R&D cannot be
calculated by manipulating the values recorded in Table 4.1 for the policy portfolios recorded there.
26
global warming
Challenge Paper
5. Discussion and Caveats
We offer, in this section, brief discussions of three extensions to our analysis. In

the first, we examine the implications of allowing mitigation policy designed in 2008 to
be allocated over time so that it maximizes the efficacy of covering the deadweight loss
of climate policy with a fund whose discounted value amounts to $800 billion. This
compensation over time is assumed to be financed by an annuity that derives its backing
from annual contributions that are consistent with the Copenhagen Consensus budget
constraint. Adding this “when flexibility” raises the benefit-cost ratio of “Mitigation
only” to 3.3. A second subsection depicts some regional implications of all of the
options; and the third subsection adds uncertainty about climate sensitivity to the mix. In
this case, the ratio of the expected net benefits of “Mitigation only” with “when
flexibility” more than doubles to an extremely respectable 6.9.
Improved Cost Effectiveness with “When Flexibility”.
All of the alternatives discussed above recognize, at least implicitly, the difficulty
in imposing policies that would allocate mitigation efforts efficiently over time – “when
flexibility” in the vernacular of the climate literature that is designed to minimize the
discounted cost of achieving a given stabilization target. Achieving a concentration
target imposes, at least to a first approximation, a limit on cumulative emissions over the
very long term. Intuition born of the economics of exhaustible resources can, therefore,
be applied to envision emissions trajectories that would minimize the discounted cost of
achieving the target and thereby set an efficiency benchmark against which other, second
best approaches, can be judged. Again to a first approximation, the shadow price of
carbon in this intertemporally optimal framework would be determined by an initial
“scarcity rent” that increases roughly at the rate of interest over time.
Figure 5.1 offers insight into the significance of the optimal time path by adding
the trajectory of global benefits for a “Mitigation only” option that allows for “when
flexibility”. As shown in the first row of Table 5.1, cost-minimizing “when flexibility”
financed over time by an $800 billion annuity, funded by the same expenditure pattern as
in the budget-constrained case, would increase the benefit-cost ratio of “Mitigation only”
from 0.9 to 3.3. Table 2.1 suggests how this dramatic effect is possible. Adding “when
flexibility” to the policy design means reducing emissions from 67 gigatons of CO2 to 20
gigatons per year in 2100 (as compared with 55 gigatons for “Mitigation only” without
inter-temporal flexibility). This more stringent control late in the century is “financed”
by savings generated from curtailed emissions reductions through the middle of the
century (43 gigatons per year in 2050 is only a 2% reduction from 44 gigatons along the
“Business as Usual” alternative, while the 38 gigaton target for “Mitigation only
(annual)” represents an almost 20% reduction).
27
global warming
Challenge Paper
While an optimal allocation of mitigation effort over time may be unrealistic, we

emphasize that a mitigation scenario in which essentially no incremental effort is taken
on over time is also unlikely. In order to achieve the stated UN goal of stabilizing GHG
concentrations, at any meaningful level, emissions reductions far beyond those depicted
in our annual expenditure budget scenarios must be realized. Moreover, as further
mitigation becomes necessary, costs over time will inevitably rise, and it will become
increasingly important to include the participation of developing countries.
Figure 5.1: Trajectories of Global Benefits of Alternative Approaches
3.0
Mitigation only (when flexibility)
R&D + mitigation (annual)
2.5 Mitigation only (annual)
Adaptation only
Adaptation + R&D + mitigation (annual)
2.0 R&D only
percent GDP
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
2000 2050 2100 2150 2200 2250 2300
-0.5
Table 5.1: Costs, Benefits, and Benefit-Cost Ratios for Dynamically Flexible
Mitigation.
Mitigation only Spend an annuity of $18 bln $800 $2676 3.3

(when flexibility (rising with economic growth) bln bln
added) on mitigation
Mitigation only As above, but with uncertainty $800 $5483 6.9
(when flexibility about the climate sensitivity bln bln
added with
uncertainty)
28
global warming
Challenge Paper
Regional diversity.
It is important to note that the impacts of climate change, and thus the benefits of
any policy approach, are not evenly distributed across the globe. Figure 5.2 shows that
market damages for four regional aggregates: the OECD, Eastern Europe and the Former
Soviet Union, China, and the world’s Least Developed Countries. Notice that market
damages are actually negative (i.e., modest climate change is beneficial) across much of
the world early in this century for this level of regional disaggregation, at least. This does
not mean that the market impacts of small increases in temperature are positive
everywhere, of course. Moreover, if the country by country impacts within each region
were aggregated using population-based equity weights, then the positive aggregates
would shrink quickly and turn negative earlier. Finally, it is also important to note that
the trajectories of market impacts for our five policy options do not deviate significantly
from one another until late in this century.
Non-market damages displayed in Figure 5.3 for the same four regions show a
decidedly different pattern. All begin with positive values (i.e., negative impacts). They
continue higher almost immediately for China and the OECD, but they fall precipitously
for Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union and LDC’s. This is again because
development can diminish many non-market impacts (e.g., health impacts) by improving
adaptive capacity. Notice, as well, that the implications for non-market impacts of our
five alternative policies deviate from one other much earlier than for market impacts.
Adaptation.
Our fourth option includes limited but proactive investment in adaptation

designed to confront the marginal increase in vulnerability to infectious disease that could
result from climate change. We do not, however, include adaptation as a stand-alone
policy, however, because its scope is too limited. It does nothing to slow the pace of
climate change, and so it does nothing to address the myriad of non-health impacts noted
in Section 1. Indeed, we included it in the final portfolio primarily to illustrate the cost
(in terms of another topic of the Copenhagen Consensus exercise) of ignoring climate
change.
Recall that Figure 4.2 displayed the underlying trajectories of benefits (damages
foregone) for the three intervention alternatives plus adaptation alone. Because
adaptation has no effect on climate change, however, the trajectories for the options that
include adaptation are difficult to distinguish from their baselines. Figure 5.4 shows that
this observation is an artifact of the scale that defines the vertical axes of the earlier
figures. Since the benefits for adaptation appear almost immediately (though they
depreciate quickly over time as development overtakes the need for these specific
adaptations in the health sector), focusing on a shorter time frame allows some
differentiation of the cases with and without mitigation to emerge.
29
global warming
Challenge Paper
We calculated that efforts to promote global health would, if that course of

inaction were chosen, see something on the order of $409 billion in additional disease-
related cost and the alternative of spending additional $1 billion expenditure on bednets
and oral rehydration therapy. We did, however, calculate the benefits of adaptation alone
intervention. Finding that spending $1 billion on bednets and oral rehydration therapy
Figure 5.2: Trajectories of Estimated Market Damages
1.4 5.0
BaU BaU
Adaptation only Adaptation only
1.2 Mitigation only (when flexibility) Mitigation only (when flexibility)
1.0 R&D only R&D only
Adaptation + R&D + mitigation (annual) Adaptation + R&D + mitigation (annual)
0.8 3.0
percent GDP
percent GDP
0.6
2.0
0.4
0.2 1.0
0.0
2000 2050 2100 2150 2200 2250 2300 0.0
-0.2 2000 2050 2100 2150 2200 2250 2300
-0.4 -1.0
Panel A: OECD Panel B: EEFSU
6
BaU
Adaptation only
Mitigation only (when flexibility) 2.0
4 BaU
Adaptation only
R&D only Mitigation only (when flexibility)
Adaptation + R&D + mitigation (annual) 1.5 Mitigation only (annual)
2 R&D only
percent GDP
1.0
0
percent GDP
2000 2050 2100 2150 2200 2250 2300 0.5
-2
0.0
2000 2050 2100 2150 2200 2250 2300
-4
-0.5
-6 -1.0
Panel C: China Panel D: LDC’s
30
global warming
Challenge Paper
Figure 5.3: Trajectories of Estimated Non-Market Damages
0.30
1.0
BaU
0.9 Adaptation only
0.25 Mitigation only (when flexibility)
R&D only
0.20 0.7 Adaptation + R&D + mitigation (annual)
percent GDP
0.6
percent GDP
0.15 0.5
0.4
0.10
BaU 0.3
Adaptation only
R&D only 0.1
0.00 0.0
2000 2050 2100 2150 2200 2250 2300 2000 2050 2100 2150 2200 2250 2300
Panel A: OECD Panel B: EEFSU
0.30
0.9 BaU
Adaptation only
0.25 0.8 Mitigation only (when flexibility)
0.7 R&D only
0.20 Adaptation + R&D + mitigation (annual)
0.6
percent GDP
percent GDP
0.5
0.15
0.4
0.10
BaU 0.3
Adaptation only
0.05
R&D only 0.1
0.00 0
2000 2050 2100 2150 2200 2250 2300 2000 2050 2100 2150 2200 2250 2300
Panel C: China Panel D: LDC’s
would produce $409 billion, we produced a benefit-cost ratio that was an order of
magnitude higher than that of Jamison et al. (this volume).5 This in itself is evidence that
5
In their Table 7, an investment of $500 mln per annum in malaria control would save 7.5 mln DALYs.
This amounts to $67/DALY, even though their Table A1 has a $2-24/DALY ratio. We used $17/DALY,
so we are in the latter range. We assume that a $10 bednet protects a family of four (two adults and two
children) for four years (http://www.nothingbutnets.net), and that there are 15 DALYs per malaria death.
If we had used $67/DALY, our benefit-cost ratio would fall from 300 to 200, because diarrhea dominates
malaria in our analysis. Diarrhea kills more children (http://www.who.int/healthinfo/bod/en/index.html),
and its worst consequences can be prevented with cheap, low-tech interventions (Laxminirayan et al.,
2006). Note that Jamison et al. (this volume) do not consider diarrhea. The difference between the high
31
global warming
Challenge Paper
Figure 5.4: Trajectories of Global Benefits for the Four Intervention Policies
through 2100

Mitigation only
0.14
Adaptation only
0.12
0.10
percent GDP
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
-0.02
efforts to improve health worldwide in the absence of climate policy would, essentially,
be swimming upstream against a current that was accelerating as the pace climate change
accelerated.
More to the point of the portfolio approach described in Option (4), however, it is
important to note from Table 4.1 that total net present benefits of mitigation, R&D
investment and this limited adaptation is $2129 billion while the comparable discounted
sum for mitigation and R&D is only $1717 billion. Even this limited adaptation adopted
in the context of a complete portfolio adds more than it would taken alone. Put another
way, the sum of the present values of mitigation, R&D, and limited adaptation taken
benefit-cost ratio of Jamison et al. (this volume) and our very high benefit-cost ratio is therefore
explained by the valuation of the benefits rather than the estimate of the costs. Jamison et al. (this
volume) assume a benefit of $1,000/DALY, or $15,000 per malaria death. In FUND, mortality is valued
by the value of a statistical life rather than by the value of a year of life lost. The assumed value is 200
times per capita income, which in Sub-Saharan Africa implies $100,000 per malaria death. The survey of
Viscusi and Aldy (2003) suggests that our US value of a statistical life is on the low side, while our
income elasticity is too high; together, this argues for a value of statistical life in Africa that is decidedly
higher than $100,000. Viscusi and Aldy (2003) also show that the value of a statistical life is not at all
proportional to age (even when controlling for wealth differences) as implicitly assumed by putting a
value on a DALY.
32
global warming
Challenge Paper
individually is smaller than the present value of all three taken together even when
subjected to the constraints of the Copenhagen Consensus spending rules.
Uncertainty
All of our analysis was built upon the foundation of a deterministic baseline, and
so it misses the uncertainties that cloud our ability to foresee precisely the consequences
of climate change and climate policy. While we did not conduct a full investigation of
the implications of all of the profound sources of uncertainty, we did examine the
implications of one of the most important – the value assumed for climate sensitivity.
Figure 5.5 provides an indication of the significance of this uncertainty by displaying a
cumulative distribution of net present value for the “Mitigation only” alternative with
“when flexibility” (the TAU Cost Effective Mitigation case in Table 2.1) for climate
Figure 5.5: Cumulative Distribution of Net Present Value of Mitigation Only for the
“When Flexibility” Benchmark.
1 .0
0 .9
0 .8
0 .7
0 .6
probability
0 .5
0 .4
0 .3
0 .2
0 .1
0 .0
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
net present va lue of b enefits (trillion dolla r)
sensitivities ranging from 0.5oC to 7.5oC. The probabilities assigned across this range are
consistent with published estimates.6
6
The probabilities assigned to climate sensitivities 0.5oC, 1.5oC, 2.5oC, 3.5oC, 4.5oC, 5.5oC, 6.5oC, and
7.5oC were 0.5%, 26.7%, 32%, 20.4%, 10.8%, 5.5%, 2.7% and 1.4%, respectively. They are consistent
with estimates drawn from IPCC (2007a) by Weitzman (2007) and characterized by a lognormal
distribution with µ = 1.0 and σ = 0.5.
33
global warming
Challenge Paper
It is clear that low sensitivities can produce negative net present values for
mitigation (i.e., the $800 billion discounted cost is higher than the discounted value of
damages avoided) even assuming a cost minimizing allocation over time in the
implementation of climate policy. It is equally clear, though, that high climate
sensitivities produce high damages (catastrophic damages for some regions at 7.5oC) and
thus high benefits for the $800 billion investment in mitigation alone. The second row of
Table 5.1 shows that the expected present value of this option climbs to more than $5
trillion to support a benefit-cost ratio of nearly 7. Figure 5.6 displays the inter-temporal
distribution of benefits by depicting cumulative distributions of benefit estimates for
selected periods across the range of climate sensitivities; the positive ranges essentially
disappear as the future unfolds.
Figure 5.6: Cumulative Distributions of the Benefits of Mitigation Only for the
“When Flexibility” Benchmark over Time.
1 .0
0 .9
0 .8
0 .7
0 .6
probability
0 .5
0 .4
2050
0 .3 2100
2150
0 .2 2200
0 .1 2250
2300
0 .0
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
b e n e fits ( p e r c e n t G D P )
Geo-engineering
As noted earlier, scientists and policymakers are beginning to appreciate that

responding to climate change will require a portfolio of actions. The portfolio typically
includes mitigation to slow the rate of climate change, adaptation, to limit the damages
that do occur, research and development on new and improved low carbon energy
technologies to manage the costs of the transition to a low carbon world, and reducing
scientific uncertainty so we can make better informed decisions in the future. This paper
has focused on the first three. An oft ignored albeit controversial alternative is geo-
engineering, for example changing the albedo of the atmosphere to reflect incoming light
34
global warming
Challenge Paper
back into space to offset potential warming. This occurs naturally through volcanic
eruptions or anthropogenically through the release of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere
when burning coal to generate electricity. Before policy-makers can decide if geo-
engineering should play a role along with other alternatives (for instance, if global
warming occurs even more rapidly than the high-end of the IPCC scenarios), a major
research effort is needed to understand the efficacy, costs, and potential consequences
and risks of the various geo-engineering strategies that have been proposed, and to
identify other potential alternative strategies.
While there is a danger that some may interpret geo-engineering research as a “quick fix”
to the climate problem that obviates critical adaptation and mitigation efforts, a failure to
conduct careful research into different alternatives would be an even bigger risk. At
present, it appears that geo-engineering could be simple, cheap and effective, and that it
could be unilaterally deployed by a medium-sized country. There is, however, the chance
of unintended consequences which, if the geo-engineering project were designed to
“make a dent” in the climate problem, could occur on very large scales. For instance,
geo-engineering could reverse global or regional warming, but leave ocean acidification
unaffected and accelerate changes in precipitation patterns. Articles on geo-engineering
by well-respected researchers are beginning to appear in the literature, but a more
extensive research program in this area is needed.
35
global warming
Challenge Paper
6. Concluding Remarks
Table 4.1 reports our summary results, and all but the “Mitigation only (annual)”
option show benefit-cost ratios in excess of one. In our assessment of the options, we
conclude that the portfolio approach – option (5) that combines annual mitigation,
investment in carbon-saving and carbon sequestering technology, and additional
adaptation measures to combat potential increases in the incidence of some infectious
disease – is the best choice. It has the highest benefit-cost ratio (a respectable 2.7), and it
takes advantage of the complementarity noted in IPCC (2007b). To be more specific,
calculations of the benefits derived from investing in R&D alone suggest that the total
benefits of the portfolio approach that expends $50 billion on R&D (in present value) and
“investment” in mitigation to $750 billion (also in present value) exceeds the sum of
“Mitigation only” and “R&D only” by a discounted value of $50 billion. In other words,
the complementarity works to allow R&D essentially to pay for itself when it is
embedded (as it would be) in a more extensive mitigation program. Moreover, adding
adaptation to the portfolio increases its discounted value (relative to adaptation alone) by
another $3 billion. Clearly, each option makes the other options more effective; i.e., the
benefits of implementing the portfolio approach exceed the sum of their individual
benefits.
Table 5.1 meanwhile shows that exploiting “when flexibility” and recognizing the
uncertainty in our understanding of the climate system both significantly increase the
value of climate policy. As noted above, implementing “when flexibility” is difficult. It
implies committing future generations to intertemporal allocations in ways that could be
very difficult to enforce. On the other hand, though, uncertainty about the climate system
is profound, and the risk-reducing value of climate policy should not be ignored. Since
Table 5.1 suggests that the expected benefit of policy would double even if only current
uncertainty about the climate sensitivity were included, we conclude that the true benefit
cost ratio of the portfolio approach described in option (5) is easily above 5
While we certainly acknowledge that climate policy is a very long term enterprise
for which a four year time horizon is virtually meaningless, it is important to recognize
that our results are different from those reported to the 2004 Copenhagen Consensus
exercise by Cline (2004) in many ways. We do not, for example, conduct an
optimization exercise; i.e., we do not rely on “when flexibility” and we model only
partial “where flexibility” in allocating expenditures that are fixed annually by the
prescribed budget. Our mitigation policies do not, therefore, imply increasingly stringent
interventions with carbon taxes that begin in the hundreds of dollars per ton and climb
from there; ours climb quickly to a level near $20 per ton of CO2 and stay there (in real
terms) almost indefinitely. This is, of course, a manifestation of our interpretation of the
Copenhagen Consensus budget constraint and our characterization of anticipated annual
decisions to mitigate – i.e., the specific second-best world within which we chose to
operate.
36
global warming
Challenge Paper
It is also important to emphasize that we did not employ a very low discount rate
in an effort to produce acceptable benefit-cost ratios. Much like Stern et al. (2006), Cline
(2004) used a pure rate of time preference that approximates zero. Both analyses thereby
adopted a prescriptive approach that elevates the discounted value of future benefits
significantly. Yohe (2006) reports that, as a result, almost 50% of the climate damages
reported by Stern et al. (2006) lie in the post 2200 residual; and Nordhaus (2006)
confirms the concerns raised by Manne (2004) when he demonstrates that applying such
a discount rate across the economy would lead to a 10 percentage point increase in the
saving rate (almost 50% increase) and reduce present consumption by about 13 % (or $4
trillion). There are, of course, sound economic reasons for adopting a low discount rate
for public investment when the private return to capital is taxed and public investment
complements private investment (see Ogura and Yohe (1977), for example). Perhaps a
case can be made that public investment in mitigation would complement private
investment across a global economy, but that is beside the point here. By adopting a
more conventional approach to discounting, we avoid all of this controversy.
We must admit, though, that none of our policies “solve the climate problem” in
the sense of moving temperature increases significantly to the left in Tables 1.3 and 1.4.
Indeed, Figure 3.2 shows that our portfolio option lowers the temperature increase from
roughly 3.5oC to something slightly below 3.0oC in 2100. We do not, therefore, achieve
the results reported for long-term stabilization at the top of Table 1.3. Nor do we reduce
significantly the risk of some profound impacts across all sectors and in all regions that
many might consider “dangerous” in the parlance of the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change. Cast in that light, especially given uneven distributions
of impacts across regions and within specific populations, therefore, our portfolio
proposal must be viewed more as a start that defines near-term policy in the context of a
long-term discussion within which the expected benefits exceed tolerable costs by more
than a factor of five. It is, therefore, reassuring that the shadow price for carbon in the
mitigation component of our portfolio is in line with estimates of expected cost-
minimizing hedging policies reported in, for example, Yohe, et al. (2004). There, an
initial global carbon tax of roughly $10 per ton of CO2 that would grow predictably and
persistently at the rate of interest minimized the expected cost of achieving an as yet
undetermined temperature target given a distribution over climate sensitivities of the sort
described in Section 5. Our tax is twice that, but it remains constant over time; the
hedging tax reaches $20 per ton within 15 years and continues to rise.
In closing, therefore, our results are born of a mainstream economic analysis.

They support climate policy with benefit-cost ratios in excess of unity, and they are
consistent with responses supported alternative risk-based approaches.
37
global warming
Challenge Paper
References
ACIA (Arctic Climate Impact Assessment), 2004: Impacts of a Warming Arctic –

Synthesis report of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, Policy Document prepared
by the Arctic Council and presented at the Fourth Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting,
Reykjavik, 24 November 2004, 140pp.
Batima, P., 2003: Climate change: Pasture-Livestock, Synthesis report – Potential
Impacts of Climate Change, Vulnerability and Adaptation Assessment for Grassland
Ecosystem and Livestock Sector in Mongolia, ADMON publishing Ulaanbaatar,
pp.36-47.
Batjes, J.J. and C.G.M.Goldewijk (1994), The IMAGE 2 Hundred Year (1890-1990)
Database of the Global Environment (HYDE), RIVM, Bilthoven, 410100082.
Bhadra, B., 2002: Regional cooperation for sustainable development of Hindu Kush
Himalaya region: Opportunities and challenges, Keynote paper presented at the
Alpine Experience – An Approach for other Mountain Regions, Berchtesgaden,
Germany, June 26-29. Blaikie, P.M., Cannon R.; Davies I., and Wisner B., 1994: At
Risk: Natural Hazards, People's Vulnerability, and Disasters. Routledge, New York.
Boer, R., and A. Faqih, 2004: Current and future rainfall variability in Indonesia, AIACC
Technical Report 021. Boo, K. O., W. T. Kwon and J. K. Kim, 2005: Vegetation
changes in regional surface climate over east Asia due to Global Warming using
BIOME 4II, Nuovo Cimento (submitted ?).
Chandrapala, L. and T.K. Fernando, 1995: Climate variability in Sri Lanka - a study of
air temperature, rainfall and thunder activity. In: Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Climate and Life in the Asia-Pacific, University of Brunei,
Darussalam, 10–13 April, 1995.
Characteristics in Korea during the Late 1970s, Int. J. Climatol., 23, 117-128.
Chen, J., An, Z. S. and Liu, L. W., 2001: Variations in Chemical Compositions of the
Aeolian Dust in Chinese Loess Plateau over the past 2.5 Ma and Chemical
Weathering in the Asian Inland, Science in China (Series D), 44(5), 403-413.
Cline, W.R. (1992), The Economics of Global Warming Institute for International
Economics, Washington, D.C.
Cline, W.R. (2004), “The Challenge Paper on Climate Change”,
http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Default.aspx?ID=165
Cruz, R.V.O., R.D. Lasco, J.M. Pulhin, F. B. Pulhin and K. B. Garcia, 2005: Climate
change impact on water resources in Pantabangan Watershed, Philippines, AIACC
Technical Report. CWC (Central Water Commission), 2001: Water and related
statistics, Report of the Ministry of Water Resources, New Delhi.
38
global warming
Challenge Paper
Ding, Z.Q. and Pan H.S., 2002: The causes and prediction of flood disaster in
Heilongjiang Provinces. Heilongjiang Science and Technology of Water
Conservancy, 3, 5-7.
Du, J. and Y. C. Ma, 2004: Climatic trend of rainfall over Tibetan Plateau from 1971 to
2000. ACTA GEOGRAPHICA SINICA, 59(3), 375-382. Duedall, I.W. and Maul
G.A., 2005: Demography of coastal populations. In M. L. Schwartz (ed.),
Encyclopedia of coastal science, Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 368-374.
Duong, Lien Chau, 2000: Lessons from severe tropical storm Linda, Workshop report:
"The Impact of El Niño and La Niña on Southeast Asia", 21-23 February, Hanoi. 16
Durkin, M.S., N. Khan, L.L. Davidson, S.S. Zaman and Z.A. Stein, 1993: The effects of a
natural disaster on child behaviour: Evidence for post-traumatic stress, American
Journal of Public Health, 83(11), 1522-1524.
Environment, News Service, 2002: Hungry Cambodians at the Mercy of Climate Change,
PhnomPenh, 26 November, posted at fttp://ens_news.xom/ens/nov2002/2002-11-26-
02.
Electric Power Research Institute (2007). “The Power to Reduce CO2 Emissions: The
Full Portfolio,” Discussion Paper.
Fan, D.D. and Li C. X., 2005: Complexities of Chinese Coast in Response to Climate
Change. Advance in Research on Climate Change, (in Chinese with an English
abstract) (in press).
Fankhauser, S. (1994), 'Protection vs. Retreat -- The Economic Costs of Sea Level Rise',
Environment and Planning A, 27, 299-319.
Fankhauser, S. and R.S.J.Tol (2005), 'On climate change and economic growth',
Resource and Energy Economics, 27, 1-17.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) / WFP (World Food Programme), 2000:
‘FAO/WFP Crop and Food Supply Assessment Mission to Cambodia’, Special
Report, 29 December 2000, FAO Global Information and Early Warning System on
Food and Agriculture/World Food Programme. FAO (Food and Agriculture
Organization), 2000: The State of Food and Agriculture 2000, Rome.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization), 2004b: Yearbook of Fishery Statistics 2002,
Aquaculture production, Vol. 94/2, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, Rome, Italy, 206 pp. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization), 2004c: Data
Base, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
Farooq, A. B. and A. H. Khan, 2004: Climate change perspective in Pakistan, Proc.
Capacity Building APN Workshop on global change research, Islamabad, Pakistan,
June 8-10, 2004, 39-46.
Glantz, M.H. (Ed.) 2001: Once Burned, Twice Shy? Lessons Learned from the 1997-98
El Niño, United Nations University, 294 pp. 20
39
global warming
Challenge Paper
Golubev, G., and N. Dronin, 2003: Geography of droughts and food problems in Russia
of the Twentieth Century, Research Monograph of the Center for Environmental
Systems Research, University of Kassel and Department of Geography, Moscow
State University, pp. 25. 28
Gruza, G. and E. Rankova, 2004: Detection of changes in climate state, climate
variability and climate extremity, in Proc. World Climate Change Conference, 29
September – 3 October, 2003, Moscow, pp.90-93.
Hai, P. M., A. Sun, F. Ren, X. Liu, B. Gao and Q. Zhang, 1999: Changes of Climate
Extremes in China. Climatic Change, 42, 203-218.
Hammitt, J.K., R.J.Lempert, and M.E.Schlesinger (1992), 'A Sequential-Decision
Strategy for Abating Climate Change', Nature, 357, 315-318.
Ho, C.H., J.Y. Lee, M.H. Ahn and H.S. Lee, 2003: A Sudden Change in Summer Rainfall
Hu, Z. Z., S. Yang and R. Wu, 2003: Long-term climate variations in China and global
warming signals. Jr Geophys Research, 108.
Intergovenmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 1995, IPCC Second Assessment
Synthesis of Scientific-Technical Information Relevant to Interpreting Article 2 of the
UNFCCC, Cambridge University Press.
Intergovenmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2000, Emissions Scenarios, 2000,
Cambridge University Press, pp. 570.
Intergovenmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2001, Climate Change 2001:
Synthesis Report, Cambridge University Press, pp 398.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2007a, Climate Change 2007: The
Science. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2007b, Climate Change 2007:
Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the
Fourth Assessment Report Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2007c, Climate Change 2007:
Synthesis Report, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Isobe, H., 2002: Trends in precipitation over Japan, Proceedings of the 6th Symposium on
water resources, 585-590.
Izrael, Yu. A. and Anokhin Yu. A. 2000: Monitoring and assessment of the environment
in the Lake Baikal region, Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management, vol. 3, p.199-
202.
Izrael, Yu. A., Sirotenko O. D. 2003, Modeling climate change impact on agriculture of
Russia. Meteorology and Hydrology. No. 6, 5-17.
40
global warming
Challenge Paper
Jamison, D.T., P. Jha and D. Bloom, 2008, "Disease Control", Copenhagen Consensus
2008 paper, this volume.
Japan Meteorological Agency, 2005: Global Warming Projection, Vol.6 - with the
RCM20 and with the UCM, 58pp. (In Japanese).
Jung, H.S., Y. Choi, J.-H. Oh, and G.H. Lim, 2002: Recent trends in temperature and
precipitation over South Korea. International Journal of Climatology, 22, 1327-1337.
Kajiwara, M., T. Oki and J. Matsumoto, 2003: Inter-annual variability of the frequency of
severe rainfall in the past 100 years over Japan, Extended abstract (in Japanese) for a
bi-annual meeting of the Meteorological Society of Japan.
Kanai, S., T. Oki and A. Kashida, 2004: Changes in Hourly Precipitation at Tokyo from
1890 to 1999. J. Meteor. Soc. Japan, 82, 241-247.
Kattenberg, A., F.Giorgi, H.Grassl, G.A.Meehl, J.F.B.Mitchell, R.J.Stouffer, T.Tokioka,
A.J.Weaver, and T.M.L.Wigley (1996), 'Climate Models - Projections of Future
Climate', in Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change -- Contribution of
Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, 1 edn, J.T. Houghton et al. (eds.), Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, pp. 285-357.
Kawahara, M. and N. Yamazaki, 1999: Long-term trend of incidences of extreme high or
low temperatures in Japan, Extended abstract (in Japanese) for a bi-annual meeting of
the
Kelly, P.M. and Adger, W.N., 2000: Theory and Practice in Assessing Vulnerability to
Climate Change and Facilitating Adaptation, Climate Change, 47, 325-352.
Khan, Tariq Masood Ali, O. P. Singh and Md. Sazedur Rahman (2000) Recent Sea Level
and Sea Surface Temperature Trends Along the Bangladesh Coast in Relation to the
Frequency of Intense Cyclones, Marine Geodesy, 23 (2), 103-116.
Kripalani, R.H., S.R. Inamdar, and N.A. Sontakke, 1996: Rainfall variability over
Bangladesh and Nepal: comparison and connection with features over India.
International Journal of Climatology, 16, 689–703.
Lal, M., 2003: Global Climate Change: India’s monsoon and its variability, Journal of
Environmental Studies and Policy, 6 (1), 1-34. Lal, M., 2005: Implications of climate
change on agricultural productivity and food security in South Asia, In “Key
vulnerable regions and climate change” - Identifying thresholds for impacts and
adaptation in relation to Article 2 of the UNFCCC”, European Climate Forum (In
press).
Lal, M., T. Nozawa, S. Emori, H. Harasawa, K. Takahashi, M. Kimoto, A. Abe-Ouchi, T.
Nakajima, T. Takemura and A. Numaguti, 2001: Future Climate Change:
Implications for Indian Summer Monsoon and its Variability, Current Science, 81(9),
1196-1207.
41
global warming
Challenge Paper
Laxminarayan, R., A.J.Mills, J.G.Breman, A.R.Measham, G.Alleyne, M.Claeson, P.Jha,

P.Musgrove, J.Chow, S.Shahid-Salles, and D.T.Jamison (2006), 'Advancement of
Global Health: Key Messages from the Disease Control Priorities Project', Lancet,
367, 1193-1208.
Liu, C. M. and Chen, Z. K., 2001: Assessment on Water Resources Status and Analysis
on Supply and Demand Growth in China, China Water Conservancy and Hydropower
Press, Beijing.
Liu, S.R., Guo, Q.S. and Wang, B., 1998: Prediction of net primary productivity of
forests in China in response to climate change. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 18(5), 478-
483.
Maier-Reimer, E. and K.Hasselmann (1987), 'Transport and Storage of Carbon Dioxide
in the Ocean: An Inorganic Ocean Circulation Carbon Cycle Model', Climate
Dynamics, 2, 63-90.
Manne, A. (1999), “The implications of prescriptive discounting” in Portney, P.R. and
J.P. Weyant (1999). Discounting and Intergenerational Equity, Resources for the
Future, Washington, DC. {title not quite correct}
Manne, A. (2004), Response to the Challenge Paper on Climate Change,
http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Default.aspx?ID=165.
Manton, M.J., P.M. Della-marta, M.R. Haylock, K.J. Hennessy, N. Nicholls, L.E.
Chambers, D.A. Collins, Gdaw, A. Finet, D. Gunawan, K. Inape, H. Isobe, T.S.
Kestin, P. Lefale, C.H. Leyu, T. Lwin, L.Maitrepierre, N. Ouprasitwong, C.M. Page,
J. Pahalad, N. Plummer, M.J. Salinger, R. Suppiah, V.L. Tran, B. Trewin, I. Tibig,
and D. Lee, 2001: Trends in Extreme daily rainfall and temperature in Southeast Asia
and the South Pacific; 1961–1998, Int. J. Climatol., 21, 269–284.
Mendelsohn, R.O., M.E.Schlesinger, and L.J.Williams (2000), 'Comparing Impacts
across Climate Models', Integrated Assessment, 1, 37-48.
MERGE references to be selected to support Appendix A.
Mirza, M.Q. and A. Dixit, 1997: Climate change and water management in the GBM
Basins, Water Nepal, 5, 71–100.
Mirza, M.Q., 2002: Global warming and changes in the probability of occurrence of
floods in Bangladesh and implications, Global Environmental Change, 12, 127–138.
Nordhaus, W.D. (2006), The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change,
http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/SternReviewD2.pdf
Ogura, S. and Yohe, G. (1977), "The complementarity of public and private capital and
the optimal rate of return to government investment", Quarterly Journal of
Economics 91: 651-662.
PAGASA (Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services
Administration), 2001: Documentation and analysis of impacts of and responses to
42
global warming
Challenge Paper
extreme climate events, Climatology & Agrometeorology Branch Technical Paper

No. 2001-2, 55pp.
Parry, M., Rosenzweig, C., and Livermore, M. (2005), "Climate change, global food
supply and risk of hunger", Philosophical Transitions of the Royal Society 360: 2125-
2138.
Peterson, B. J., Holmes R. M., McClelland J. W., Vorosmarty C. J., Lammers R. B.,
Shiklomanov A. I., Shiklomanov I. A., Rahmstorf S., 2002, Increasing River
Discharge to the Arctic Ocean. Science, 298, 137-143.
Portney, P.R. and J.P. Weyant (1999). Discounting and Intergenerational Equity,
Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
Rahimzadeh, F. (2006) Study of precipitation variability in Iran, Research Climatology
Institute, IRIMO.
Ramaswamy, V., O.Boucher, J.Haigh, D.Hauglustaine, J.Haywood, G.Myhre,
T.Nakajima, G.Y.Shi, and S.Solomon (2001), 'Radiative Forcing of Climate Change',
in Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis -- Contribution of Working Group I to
the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, J.T.
Houghton and Y. Ding (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 349-416.
Ruosteenoja, K., T.R. Carter, K. Jylha and H. Tuomenvirta, 2003: Future climate in
world regions: An intercomparison of model based projections for the new IPCC
emission scenarios, The Finnish Environment Report 644, Finnish Environment
Institute, Helsinki, 83 pp.
Savelieva, I.P., Semiletov, L.N. Vasilevskaya and S.P. Pugach, 2000: A climate shift in
seasonal values of meteorological and hydrological parameters for Northeastern Asia,
Progress Oceanography, 47, 279–297. 34
Shi L. Q., Li J.F., Ying M., Li W.H., Chen S.L., Zhang G.A., 2005, Advances in
researches on the modern Huanghe Delta development and evolution. Advance in
Marine Science, 23 (1): 96-104.
Shrestha, A.B., CP Wake, JE Dibb, PA Mayewski (2000) Precipitation fluctuations in the
Nepal Himalaya and its vincinity and relationship with some large scale
climatological parameters, International Journal of Climatology, 20: 317–327.
Singh, N. and N.A. Sontakke, 2002: On climatic fluctuations and environmental changes
of the Indo-Gangetic plains, India, Climatic Change, 52, 287-313.
Stern, N. 2006. Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change. Cambridge
University Press. The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK.
http://www.hm-
treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern
review_report.cfm
43
global warming
Challenge Paper
Tol, R.S.J. (1995), 'The Damage Costs of Climate Change Toward More Comprehensive
Calculations', Environmental and Resource Economics, 5, 353-374.
Tol, R.S.J. (1999), 'The Marginal Costs of Greenhouse Gas Emissions', Energy Journal,
20, (1), 61-81.
Tol, R.S.J. (2001), 'Equitable Cost-Benefit Analysis of Climate Change', Ecological
Economics, 36, (1), 71-85.
Tol, R.S.J. (2002a), 'Welfare specifications and optimal control of climate change: an
application of fund', Energy Economics, 24, 367-376.
Tol, R.S.J. (2002b), 'Estimates of the Damage Costs of Climate Change - Part 1:
Benchmark Estimates', Environmental and Resource Economics, 21, 47-73.
Tol, R.S.J. (2002c), 'Estimates of the Damage Costs of Climate Change - Part II:
Dynamic Estimates', Environmental and Resource Economics, 21, 135-160.
Tran, Viet Lien, 2002: Climate change scenario for Red River Catchments, University of
Twente, The Northlands, 23pp.
UNFCCC webpage. http://unfccc.int/methods_and_science/lulucf/items/1084.php.
Viscusi, W.K. and J. Aldey (2003), “The Value of a Statistical Life: A Critical Review of
Market Estimates Throughout the World”, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 27:5-76.
Webster, P. J., V.O. Magana, T.N. Palmer, J. Shukla, R.A. Tomas, M. Yanagi and T.
Yasunari (1998), "Monsoons: Processes, predictability and the prospects for
prediction", Journal of Geophysical. Research 103: 14451-14510.
Weitzman, M. (2007), “The role of uncertainty in the economics of catastrophic climate
change”, Harvard University Working Paper, Cambridge, MA.
Yohe, G. (2006), “Some Thoughts on the Estimates Presented in the Stern Review – An
Editorial”, Integrated Assessment Journal 6: 66-72, 2006.
Yohe, G. , Andronova, N. and Schlesinger, M. (2004), “To Hedge or Not Against an
Uncertain Climate Future”, Science, 306: 415-417, October 15.
Yohe, G., Malone, E., Brenkert, A., Schlesinger, M.E., Meij, H., Xing, X., and Lee, D.
(2006), Global distributions of vulnerability to climate change, Integrated Assessment
Journal 6: 35-44.
Yoshino, M. 2002: Kosa (Asian dust) related to Asian Monsoon System. Korean J.
Atmos., Sci., 5(S), 93-100.
Yoshino, M., 2000: Problems in climatology of dust storm and its relation to human
activities in Northwest China. J. Arid Land Stud., 10, 171-181.
Zhai P., X. Pan, 2003, Trends in temperature extremes during 1951–1999 in China,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 30 (17), 1913, doi:10.1029/2003GL018004
44
global warming
Challenge Paper
Zhai, P. M., 2004, Climate change and meteorological disasters. Science and Technology
Review, 193(7), 11-14.
Zhao, L., C.L. Ping, D. Yang, G. Cheng, Y. Ding, and S. Liu, 2004: Changes of climate
and seasonally frozen ground over the past 30 years in Qinghai–Xizang (Tibetan)
Plateau, China. Global and Planetary Change 43, 19–31.
Zhou, Y. H., 2003: Characteristics of weather and climate during drought periods in
South China. Journal of Applied Meteorological Science, 14, Supplement, 118-125.
45
global warming
Challenge Paper
Appendix A: The MERGE Model
The analysis is based in part on the MERGE model (a model for evaluating the
regional and global effects of greenhouse gas reduction policies). MERGE is an
intertemporal general equilibrium model. Like its predecessors, the current version is
designed to be sufficiently transparent so that one can explore the implications of
alternative viewpoints in the greenhouse debate. The current analysis utilizes those
submodels that provide a reduced-form description of the economy, the energy sector,
and related emissions of carbon dioxide; the “handoff” to FUND occurs here.
MERGE provides a bottom-up representation of the energy supply sector. For a

particular scenario, a choice is made among specific activities for the generation of
electricity and for the production of non-electric energy. Oil and gas are viewed as
exhaustible resources. There are introduction constraints on new technologies and
decline constraints on existing technologies. Mitigation effort can be simulated by
applying constraints on annual emissions levels from participating countries, or by
allowing optimal emissions reductions with respect to a long-term stabilization target.
Geographically, the world is divided into nine geopolitical regions: 1) the USA, 2)
WEUR (Western Europe), 3) Japan, 4) CANZ (Canada, Australia and New Zealand), 5)
EEFSU (Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union), 6) China, 7) India, 8) OILX (oil
exporting will be captured countries, and 9) ROW (the rest of world). Note the OECD
(regions 1-4) together with EEFSU constitute Annex B of the UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change. The remaining four regions comprise non-Annex B.
MERGE is calibrated to the year 2000. Future periods are modeled in 10-year intervals.
Hence, the Kyoto Protocol’s first commitment period (2008-2012) is represented as
2010.7 All economic values, included technology costs, are reported in U.S. dollars of
constant 2000 purchasing power.
Table A2 identifies the alternative technologies available for future electricity

supply.8 We assume two electric generation technology scenarios. The first is a
“technology as usual” (TAU) development path where investment in new technologies
continues to follow the reduced funding path observed over the past three decades. The
second scenario involves an accelerated technology path (ATP) where an increased
commitment to energy R&D leads to earlier breakthroughs, so that the introduction of
advanced technologies occurs decades earlier than it would otherwise.
7
Conference of the Parties, “Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change”, Report of the Conference of the Parties, Third Session Kyoto, 1-10 December,
FCCC/CP/1997/L.7/Add1. http://www.unfccc.de.
8
Technology assumptions refer specifically to the U.S. Assumptions for other regions are similar but vary
in some cases.
46
global warming
Challenge Paper
We assume that existing coal and nuclear power plants are retired during the first
half of the 21st century according to a schedule consistent with 60-year plant lifetimes.
Existing natural gas assets are assumed to have 20-year lifetimes, and hydroelectric
power is constrained to existing levels. With respect to new fossil-based generation, the
model does not distinguish between technologies within a given category, such as
between different coal feedstocks, pulverized vs. gasified processes, or the means by
which CO2 is captured in carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technologies. We
assume that the cost of new nuclear generation has both a market and non-market
component (see Table A2). The latter, which is calibrated to current usage, rises
proportionally to market share and is intended to represent public concerns about
environmental risks in the technology and associated nuclear fuel cycle.
Table A2: Electric Generation Technology Assumptions
Technology ATP Description TAU Description

Coal (without CCS) LCOE* = $57 - $41 / MWh Same as ATP
Efficiency = 38% - 46%
Coal with CCS First available in 2020 Not available until 2060
LCOE* = $70 - $55 / MWh
Efficiency = 36% - 42% Cost and performance as in ATP
Capture rate = 90%
Natural Gas (without CCS) LCOE* = $50 - $70 / MWh** Same as ATP
Efficiency = 49% - 60%
Natural Gas with CCS First available in 2020 Not available until 2060
LCOE* = $84 - $110 / MWh**
Efficiency = 39% - 42% Cost and performance as in ATP
Capture rate = 90%
Nuclear (new ALWR***) First available in 2020 Limited to existing nuclear
LCOE* = $40 - $37 / MWh production levels until 2060
Non-market cost = $10 / MWh*** Cost and availability as in ATP
Hydroelectric LCOE* = $40 / MWh Same as ATP
Wind LCOE* = $86 / MWh in 2010 LCOE* = $86 / MWh in 2010
LCOE* = $62 / MWh in 2050 LCOE* = $62 / MWh in 2100
Biomass LCOE* = $86 / MWh in 2010 LCOE* = $86 / MWh in 2010
Solar (thermal) LCOE* = $144 / MWh in 2010 LCOE* = $144 / MWh in 2010
Solar (photovoltaic) LCOE* = $225 / MWh in 2010 LCOE* = $225 / MWh in 2010
* LCOE refers to full levelized cost of electricity.
** Assumes reference path for natural gas fuel price. Actual price varies by scenario within the model.
*** ALWR refers to advanced light water reactor. Non-market cost rises with generation share.
47
global warming
Challenge Paper
MERGE includes three categories of renewable technologies: wind, biomass, and

solar (thermal and photovoltaic). The final category of renewables represents the electric
backstop technology. The distinguishing characteristics of the backstop category are 1) a
zero GHG emissions rate and 2) that once introduced, it is available at a constant
marginal cost. It is intended to represent the fact that we will not run out of energy, but
as conventional sources are exhausted there will be more expensive sources waiting in
the wings.
Table A3 identifies alternative sources of nonelectric energy within the model. Oil
and gas supplies for each region are divided into 10 cost categories, where the higher cost
groups reflect the potential use of nonconventional sources. Coal may be used directly or
converted into synthetic fuel liquids (at a large energy and emissions premium). In
addition, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) may be used to offset non-electric
energy production for transportation with electric generation. With regard to carbon-free
alternatives, the choices have been divided into two broad categories: biofuels refer to
low-cost sources such as ethanol from biomass, while the backstop technology represents
a high cost option, for example, hydrogen produced via electrolysis using solar
photovoltaics or hydrogen from thermonuclear dissociation. The key distinction is that
biofuels are in limited supply, but the backstop is available in unlimited quantities at a
constant but considerably higher marginal cost.
Table A3: Non-Electric Energy Technology Assumptions
Technology ATP Description TAU Description

Coal (for direct use) Cost = $2.50 / GJ Same as ATP
Petroleum (10 cost categories) Cost = $5 - $7.25 / GJ Same as ATP
Natural Gas (10 cost categories) Cost = $6 - $8.25 / GJ Same as ATP
Synthetic (coal-based) Liquids Cost = $8.33 / GJ Same as ATP
Biofuels Cost = $10 / GJ Same as ATP
Non-Electric Backstop Cost = $25 / GJ Same as ATP
Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles First available in 2010 First available in 2050
Cost = $6 - $0 / GJ
(equivalent to $4000 - $0 per Cost and performance as in
vehicle premium) ATP
Efficiency = 69 KWh/GJ
(equivalent to 300 Wh / 0.03
gallons per mile)
48
global warming
Challenge Paper
Typically, the energy producing and consuming capital stock is long lived. In MERGE, introduction and
decline constraints are placed on new technologies. We assume that the production from new technologies
in each region is constrained to 1% of total production in the year in which it is initially introduced and can
increase by a factor of three for each decade thereafter. The decline rate is limited to 3.5% per year for new
technologies, but there is no decline rate limit for existing technologies. This is to allow for the possibility
that some emission ceilings may be sufficiently low to force premature retirement of the existing capital
stock.
Turning from the supply to the demand side of the model, we use nested
production functions to determine how aggregate economic output depends upon the
inputs of capital, labor, electric and non-electric energy. In this way, the model allows
for both price-induced and autonomous (non-price) energy conservation and for interfuel
substitution. Since there is a “putty-clay” formulation, short-run elasticities are smaller
than long-run elasticities. This increases the costs of rapid short-run adjustments. The
model also allows for macroeconomic feedbacks. Higher energy and/or environmental
costs will lead to fewer resources available for current consumption and for investment in
the accumulation of capital stocks.
Where international trade in emission rights is permitted, regions with high

marginal abatement costs can purchase emission rights from regions with low marginal
abatement costs.9 There is also trade in oil and natural gas. Each of the model’s nine
regions maximizes the discounted utility of its consumption subject to an intertemporal
budget constraint. Each region’s wealth includes not only capital, labor and exhaustible
resources, but also its negotiated international share in global emission rights.
9
In MERGE, emissions can be limited either directly in each region or by a carbon tax with “lump sum”
recycling of revenue. When the carbon taxes resulting from a particular cap and trade scheme are used as
inputs to control emissions, they produce identical regional emissions that were inputs under cap and
trade.
49
global warming
Challenge Paper
Appendix B: The FUND Model

This paper uses version 2.9 of the Climate Framework for Uncertainty,
Negotiation and Distribution (FUND). Version 2.9 of FUND corresponds to version 1.6,
described and applied by Tol (1999, 2001, 2002a), except for the impact module, which
is described by Tol (2002b,c) and updated by Link and Tol (2004). A further difference is
that the current version of the model distinguishes 16 instead of 9 regions. The model
considers emission reduction of methane and nitrous oxide as well as carbon dioxide, as
described by Tol (2006a). Finally, the model now has sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) and a
newly calibrated radiative forcing code. A full list of papers, the source code and the
technical documentation for the model can be found on line at http://ww.uni-
hamburg.de/Wiss/FB/15/Sustainability/fund.html.
Essentially, FUND consists of a set of exogenous scenarios and endogenous
perturbations. The model distinguishes 16 major regions of the world, viz. the United
States of America, Canada, Western Europe, Japan and South Korea, Australia and New
Zealand, Central and Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, the Middle East, Central
America, South America, South Asia, Southeast Asia, China, North Africa, Sub-Saharan
Africa, and Small Island States. The model runs from 1950 to 2300 in time steps of one
year. The prime reason for starting in 1950 is to initialize the climate change impact
module. In FUND, the impacts of climate change are assumed to depend on the impact of
the previous year, this way reflecting the process of adjustment to climate change.
Because the initial values to be used for the year 1950 cannot be approximated very well,
both physical and monetized impacts of climate change tend to be misrepresented in the
first few decades of the model runs. The 22nd and 23rd centuries are included to assess the
long-term implications of climate change. Previous versions of the model stopped at
2200.
The period of 1950-2000 is used for the calibration of the model, which is based
on the IMAGE 100-year database (Batjes & Goldewijk, 1994). The scenario for the
period 2010-2100 is based on MERGE scenario. The 2000-2010 period is interpolated
from the immediate past (http://earthtrends.wri.org), and the period 2100-2300
extrapolated.
The scenarios are defined by the rates of population growth, economic growth,
autonomous energy efficiency improvements as well as the rate of decarbonization of the
energy use (autonomous carbon efficiency improvements), and emissions of carbon
dioxide from land use change, methane and nitrous oxide.
The scenarios of economic and population growth are perturbed by the impact of
climatic change. Population decreases with increasing climate change related deaths that
result from changes in heat stress, cold stress, malaria, and tropical cyclones. Heat and
cold stress are assumed to have an effect only on the elderly, non-reproductive
population. In contrast, the other sources of mortality also affect the number of births.
Heat stress only affects the urban population. The share of the urban population among
the total population is based on the World Resources Databases
50
global warming
Challenge Paper
(http://earthtrends.wri.org). It is extrapolated based on the statistical relationship between

urbanization and per-capita income, which are estimated from a cross-section of countries
in 1995. Climate-induced migration between the regions of the world also causes the
population sizes to change. Immigrants are assumed to assimilate immediately and
completely with the respective host population.
The tangible impacts are dead-weight losses to the economy (cf. Fankhauser and
Tol, 2005). Consumption and investment are reduced without changing the savings rate.
As a result, climate change reduces long-term economic growth, although consumption is
particularly affected in the short-term. Economic growth is also reduced by carbon
dioxide abatement measures. The energy intensity of the economy and the carbon
intensity of the energy supply autonomously decrease over time. This process can be
accelerated by abatement policies, an option not considered in this paper.
The endogenous parts of FUND consist of the atmospheric concentrations of
carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and sulphur hexafluoride, the global mean
temperature, the impact of carbon dioxide emission reductions on the economy and on
emissions, and the impact of the damages to the economy and the population caused by
climate change. Methane and nitrous oxide are taken up in the atmosphere, and then
geometrically depleted. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, measured in
parts per million by volume, is represented by the five-box model of Maier-Reimer and
Hasselmann (1987). Its parameters are taken from Hammitt et al. (1992). The model also
contains sulphur emissions (Tol, 2006a)
The radiative forcing of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur
hexafluoride and sulphur aerosols is determined based on Ramaswamy et al. (2001). The
global mean temperature T is governed by a geometric build-up to its equilibrium
(determined by the radiative forcing RF), with a half-life of 50 years. In the base case, the
global mean temperature rises in equilibrium by 2.5°C for a doubling of carbon dioxide
equivalents. Regional temperature follows from multiplying the global mean temperature
by a fixed factor, which corresponds to the spatial climate change pattern averaged over
14 GCMs (Mendelsohn et al., 2000). The global mean sea level is also geometric, with its
equilibrium level determined by the temperature and a half-life of 50 years. Both
temperature and sea level are calibrated to correspond to the best guess temperature and
sea level for the IS92a scenario of Kattenberg et al. (1996).
The climate impact module, based on Tol (2002b,c) includes the following
categories: agriculture, forestry, sea level rise, cardiovascular and respiratory disorders
related to cold and heat stress, malaria, dengue fever, schistosomiasis, diarrhoea, energy
consumption, water resources, and unmanaged ecosystems. Climate change related
damages can be attributed to either the rate of change (benchmarked at 0.04°C/yr) or the
level of change (benchmarked at 1.0°C). Damages from the rate of temperature change
slowly fade, reflecting adaptation (cf. Tol, 2002c).
People can die prematurely due to temperature stress or vector-borne diseases, or
they can migrate because of sea level rise. Like all impacts of climate change, these
51
global warming
Challenge Paper
effects are monetized. The value of a statistical life is set to be 200 times the annual per
capita income. The resulting value of a statistical life lies in the middle of the observed
range of values in the literature (cf. Cline, 1992). The value of emigration is set to be 3
times the per capita income (Tol, 1995), the value of immigration is 40 per cent of the per
capita income in the host region (Cline, 1992). Losses of dryland and wetlands due to sea
level rise are modelled explicitly. The monetary value of a loss of one square kilometre of
dryland was on average $4 million in OECD countries in 1990 (cf. Fankhauser, 1994).
Dryland value is assumed to be proportional to GDP per square kilometre. Wetland losses
are valued at $2 million per square kilometre on average in the OECD in 1990 (cf.
Fankhauser, 1994). The wetland value is assumed to have logistic relation to per capita
income. Coastal protection is based on cost-benefit analysis, including the value of
additional wetland lost due to the construction of dikes and subsequent coastal squeeze.
Other impact categories, such as agriculture, forestry, energy, water, and
ecosystems, are directly expressed in monetary values without an intermediate layer of
impacts measured in their ‘natural’ units (cf. Tol, 2002b). Impacts of climate change on
energy consumption, agriculture, and cardiovascular and respiratory diseases explicitly
recognize that there is a climatic optimum, which is determined by a variety of factors,
including plant physiology and the behaviour of farmers. Impacts are positive or negative
depending on whether the actual climate conditions are moving closer to or away from
that optimum climate. Impacts are larger if the initial climate conditions are further away
from the optimum climate. The optimum climate is of importance with regard to the
potential impacts. The actual impacts lag behind the potential impacts, depending on the
speed of adaptation. The impacts of not being fully adapted to new climate conditions are
always negative (cf. Tol, 2002c).
The impacts of climate change on coastal zones, forestry, unmanaged ecosystems,
water resources, diarrhoea malaria, dengue fever, and schistosomiasis are modelled as
simple power functions. Impacts are either negative or positive, and they do not change
sign (cf. Tol, 2002c).
Vulnerability to climate change changes with population growth, economic
growth, and technological progress. Some systems are expected to become more
vulnerable, such as water resources (with population growth), heat-related disorders (with
urbanization), and ecosystems and health (with higher per capita incomes). Other systems
are projected to become less vulnerable, such as energy consumption (with technological
progress), agriculture (with economic growth) and vector- and water-borne diseases (with
improved health care) (cf. Tol, 2002c).
52

Copenhagen Consensus 2008 Yohe

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Copenhagen Consensus 2008 Yohe

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Copenhagen Consensus 2008 Yohe

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

copenhagen consensus 2008

Copenhagen Consensus 2008 Challenge Paper

Multiple changes are occurring simultaneously around the globe at an increasing

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in its recently released

We begin in Section 1 by offering a brief overview of the state of knowledge

enhanced investment in R&D for emissions saving and carbon sequestration

1. Scoping the Problem

Section 1 summarizes briefly the state of knowledge about observed and

Observed Climate Change through 2007.

A robust signal of anthropogenic climate change (particularly warming) has now

Figure 1.1: Identifying the Signal of Anthropogenic Warming on Continental Scales

Table 1.1 continued

Anticipated Climate Change Impacts.

Warming is generally anticipated across the globe, but it will be unevenly

Anticipated Climate Change Impacts on Agriculture.

Figure 1.3: Potential Changes in Cereal Yields in the 2080’s

Comparing Adaptation and Mitigation.

Table 1.3: Examples of Projected Impacts by Sector

Table 1.4: Examples of Projected Impacts by Region

Table 1.5: Global Scale Climate Impacts by 2080

Table 1.6: Regional Scale Climate Impacts by 2080

Figure 1.4: Geographical Distribution of Vulnerability in 2050 (A2

Figure 1.5: Geographical Distribution of Vulnerability in 2100 (A2 emissions; high

2. Modeling Emissions and Climate Impact Scenarios

Two mitigation scenarios were considered in which policy constraints place an

constraint on total greenhouse forcing in the atmosphere. Because this idealized

In light of the Copenhagen Consensus project goal of measuring the benefits of a

Table 2.1: MERGE Emissions Scenarios

TAU Reference No Policy 24 44 67

ATP Reference No Policy 24 32 48

adaptation designed to confront specific health impacts more aggressively and

3. Scoping the Proposed Responses

As suggested in Section 2, we explore four responses within a synthesis of two

(1) “Business as usual” – the TAU Reference case in Table 2.1.

Inaction on the climate front is certainly an option that must be taken

Allocate the full budget to covering the economic deadweight loss of

are employed to reduce annual emissions of greenhouse gases up to the point

Invest immediately in R&D to make new technologies for emission

(4) Adaptation + R&D + mitigation (annual)” – a portfolio approach.

This approach will be a combination of approach (3) with an

Table 4.1: Policies, Costs, Benefits, and Benefit-Cost Ratios.

Scenario Description NPV NPV BCR

Figure 4.1: Trajectories of Global Damages for the Five Alternatives

3.5 R&D + mitigation

2.5 R&D + mitigation

5. Discussion and Caveats

We offer, in this section, brief discussions of three extensions to our analysis. In

Improved Cost Effectiveness with “When Flexibility”.

While an optimal allocation of mitigation effort over time may be unrealistic, we

Figure 5.1: Trajectories of Global Benefits of Alternative Approaches

Mitigation only Spend an annuity of $18 bln $800 $2676 3.3

Our fourth option includes limited but proactive investment in adaptation

We calculated that efforts to promote global health would, if that course of

Panel A: OECD Panel B: EEFSU

2000 2050 2100 2150 2200 2250 2300 0.5

Panel C: China Panel D: LDC’s

Figure 5.3: Trajectories of Estimated Non-Market Damages

Panel A: OECD Panel B: EEFSU

Panel C: China Panel D: LDC’s

0.16 R&D + mitigation