WARNING:
JavaScript is turned OFF. None of the links on this concept map will
work until it is reactivated.
If you need help turning JavaScript On, click here.
This Concept Map, created with IHMC CmapTools, has information related to: Stern-review-Climate-economics, we should apply a growth rate of 1.3% per capita consumption therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU: Stern) we should apply a discount rate of 1.4%, "The risks of the worst impacts of climate change can be substantially reduced if greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere can be stabilised between 450 and 550ppm CO2 equivalent (CO2e)" therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU: Stern, vii) "the costs of action – reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change – can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year" if we start to take strong action now and if we target a stabilisation between 500 and 550ppm CO2e, "PAGE2002 in effect summarises the range of underlying research studies." supports (Stern 2006e, 153) "The parameter ranges used as model inputs are calibrated to the scientific and economic literatures on climate change", "The elasticity parameter is casually discussed, with no justification in the original report" (694) questions (Nordhaus 2007) we should use an elasticity parameter of 1, damages calculated by the PAGE2002 model are not equity weighted defines equity weighting "Each model’s results depend heavily on how it aggregates the impacts across regions, and in particular how it values costs in poor regions relative to those in rich ones. The prices of marketed goods and services, as well as the hypothetical values assigned to health and the environment, are typically higher in rich countries than in poor countries. Thus, in these models, a 10% loss in the volume of production of an economic sector is worth more in a rich country than in a poor country. Similarly, a 5% increase in mortality, if ‘values of life’ are based on willingness to pay, is worth more in purely monetary terms in a rich country than a poor country, because incomes are higher in the former. Many ethical observers would reject both of these state- ments. Thus some of the authors have used welfare or ‘equity’ weighting. Explicit functions to capture distribu- tional judgements are also used in this Review – see Chapter 2 and Appendix. In summary, if aggre- gation is done purely on the basis of adding incomes or GDP, then very large physical impacts in poor countries will tend to be overshadowed by small impacts in rich countries." (148), if not acting implies that "the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever," and if "the costs of action – reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change – can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year" if we start to take strong action now, then "the benefits of strong and early action far outweigh the economic costs of not acting" therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU: Stern 2006a, vi) "the benefits of strong and early action far outweigh the economic costs of not acting", this principle is "related to the idea of the rights of future generations" note (Stern 2006c) "future generations should have a right to a standard of living no lower than the current one." (42), Key and LAM conventions see click on the small icon under this text box, business as usual will lead to climate change "between 2001 and 2200" whose costs will be equivalent to 5 to 14.4% "loss in per-capita consumption, now and forever" therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU: Stern 2006e) business as usual will lead to costs of 5 to 20% "of the value of global per-capita consumption, now and forever" (144), "It is, of course, possible that people actually do place less value on the welfare of future generations, simply on the grounds that they are more distant in time. But it is hard to see any ethical justification for this." (31) supports (Stern 2006b) "the welfare of future generations should be treated on a par with our own" (5), PAGE2002 IAM "meets this requirement by producing estimates based on ‘Monte Carlo’ simulation" supports we use the PAGE2002 IAM (Stern 2006e, 153), if "the benefits of strong and early action far outweigh the economic costs of not acting," then "prompt and strong action is clearly warranted" ... "to avoid the worst impacts of climate change" therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU: Stern 2006a, vi) "prompt and strong action is clearly warranted" ... "to avoid the worst impacts of climate change", "Central estimates of the annual costs of achieving stabilisation between 500 and 550ppm CO2e are around 1% of global GDP, if we start to take strong action now" therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU: Stern, vii) "the costs of action – reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change – can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year" if we start to take strong action now and if we target a stabilisation between 500 and 550ppm CO2e, if "the welfare of future generations should be treated on a par with our own" (5), then we should apply a low discount rate of pure time preference of 0.1% therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU: Stern 2006d we should apply a low discount rate of pure time preference of 0.1%, we should use an elasticity parameter of 1 therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU: Stern) we should apply a discount rate of 1.4%, besides threatening the "homelands and cultures of indigenous peoples and ecosystems that harbor species which are uniquely adapted to this environment" (Sum- mary p.1), the first attempt ever to estimate the dollar cost of global warming brought about by a reduction of sea and land albedo (reflectivity) and methane emissions on the Arctic alone--based on melting sea ice and the snow cover on land, plus the melting of the permafrost-- led to the following result: "the current evaluation predicts that the melting of the frozen Arctic occurring this year alone could cost the world in the range of US$61 billion to $371 billion in climate regulation services over time. By 2050, those costs are projected to add up to US$2.4 trillion to $24.1 trillion; by 2100, the report predicts cumulative costs could be US$4.8 trillion to $91.3 trillion" (Summary, p.3; Feb 5, 2010) The Pew Environment Group supports "if we don't act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more" (2006a, vi), Key and LAM conventions start here with the main claim "prompt and strong action is clearly warranted" ... "to avoid the worst impacts of climate change", we need "a modelling approach based on probabilities (that is, a ‘stochastic’ approach)" (Stern 2006e, 153) supports we use the PAGE2002 IAM (Stern 2006e, 153), "if we don't act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more" (2006a, vi) therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU: Stern 2006a, vi) "the benefits of strong and early action far outweigh the economic costs of not acting", "Even though the real interest rate is crucial to balancing present and future, there is no apparent reference to any of this in the Review." (694) questions (Nordhaus 2007) we should apply a growth rate of 1.3% per capita consumption