Cargando…

Declining CO(2) price paths

Pricing greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions involves making trade-offs between consumption today and unknown damages in the (distant) future. While decision making under risk and uncertainty is the forte of financial economics, important insights from pricing financial assets do not typically inform stan...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Daniel, Kent D., Litterman, Robert B., Wagner, Gernot
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: National Academy of Sciences 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6800385/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31575747
http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1817444116
Descripción
Sumario:Pricing greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions involves making trade-offs between consumption today and unknown damages in the (distant) future. While decision making under risk and uncertainty is the forte of financial economics, important insights from pricing financial assets do not typically inform standard climate–economy models. Here, we introduce EZ-Climate, a simple recursive dynamic asset pricing model that allows for a calibration of the carbon dioxide ([Formula: see text]) price path based on probabilistic assumptions around climate damages. Atmospheric [Formula: see text] is the “asset” with a negative expected return. The economic model focuses on society’s willingness to substitute consumption across time and across uncertain states of nature, enabled by an Epstein–Zin (EZ) specification that delinks preferences over risk from intertemporal substitution. In contrast to most modeled [Formula: see text] price paths, EZ-Climate suggests a high price today that is expected to decline over time as the “insurance” value of mitigation declines and technological change makes emissions cuts cheaper. Second, higher risk aversion increases both the [Formula: see text] price and the risk premium relative to expected damages. Lastly, our model suggests large costs associated with delays in pricing [Formula: see text] emissions. In our base case, delaying implementation by 1 y leads to annual consumption losses of over 2%, a cost that roughly increases with the square of time per additional year of delay. The model also makes clear how sensitive results are to key inputs.