Climate Change Economics

It has become commonly accepted that a successful climate strategy should compound mitigation and adaptation. The accurate combination between adaptation and mitigation that can best address climate change is still an open question. This paper proposes a framework that integrates mitigation, adaptation, and climate change residual damages into an optimisation model. This set-up is used to provide some insights on the welfare maximising resource allocation between mitigation and adaptation, on their optimal timing, and on their marginal contribution to reducing vulnerability to climate change. The optimal mix between three different adaptation modes (reactive adaptation, anticipatory adaptation, and investment in innovation for adaptation purposes) within the adaptation bundle is also identified. Results suggest that the joint implementation of mitigation and adaptation is welfare improving. Mitigation should start immediately, whereas adaptation somewhat later. It is also shown that in a world where the probability of climate-related catastrophic events is small and where decision makers have a high discount rate, adaptation is unambiguously the preferred option. Adaptation needs, both in developed and developing countries, will be massive, especially during the second half of the century. Most of the adaptation burden will be on developing countries. International cooperation is thus required to equally distribute the costs of adaptation.

This paper identifies factors that explain the large variability in the price of voluntary carbon offsets. We estimate hedonic price functions using a variety of provider- and project-level characteristics as explanatory variables. We find that providers located in Europe sell offsets at prices that are approximately 30% higher than providers located in either North America or Australasia. Contrary to what one might expect, offset prices are generally higher, by roughly 20%, when projects are located in developing or least-developed nations. But this result does not hold for forestry-based projects. We find evidence that forestry-based offsets sell at lower prices, and the result is particularly strong when projects are located in developing or least-developed nations. Offsets that are certified under the Clean Development Mechanism or the Gold Standard, and therefore qualify for emission reductions under the Kyoto Protocol, sell at a premium of more than 30%; however, third-party certification from the Voluntary Carbon Standard, one of the popular certifiers, is associated with a price discount. Variables that have no effect on offset prices are the number of projects that a provider manages and a provider's status as for-profit or not-for-profit.

This paper provides an estimate of short-term abatement of CO₂ emissions through fuel switching in the European power sector in response to the CO₂ price imposed by the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) in 2005 and 2006. The estimate is based on the use of a highly detailed simulation model of the European power sector in which abatement is the difference between simulations of actual conditions with and without the observed CO₂ price. We estimate that the cumulative abatement over this period was about 53 million metric tons. The paper also explains the complex relationship between abatement and daily, weekly, and seasonal variations in load, relative fuel prices, and the price of CO₂ allowances.