Scientists should pursue a strategic approach to research, focusing on the accumulation of evidence via designed sequences of studies.
Image credit: Dave Cutler (artist).
New Research In
Physical Sciences
Featured Portals
Articles by Topic
Biological Sciences
Featured Portals
Articles by Topic
Contributed by William D. Nordhaus, November 21, 2016 (sent for review June 8, 2016; reviewed by James K. Hammitt, Al McGartland, and Gary W. Yohe)
Article Figures & SI
Figures
- Fig. 1.
Projected industrial CO2 emissions in baseline scenario. The figure compares the projections of the most recent DICE models and two model comparison exercises. The estimates from the MUP project are from ref. 5, and the EMF-22 estimates are from ref. 14.
- Fig. 2.
Global mean temperature increase as projected by IPCC scenarios and integrated assessment economic models. The figure compares the projections of the most recent DICE models, the IPCC RCP high scenario (RCP 8.5), and two model comparison exercises.
- Fig. 3.
Social cost of carbon and growth-corrected discount rate in DICE model. The growth-corrected discount rate equals the discount rate on goods minus the growth rate of consumption. The solid line shows the central role of the growth-corrected discount rate on goods in determining the SCC in the DICE model. The square is the SCC from the full DICE model, and the triangle uses the assumptions of The Stern Review (10). A further discussion and derivation of the growth-corrected discount rate is given in Supporting Information.
Tables
Scenario Assumption 2015 2020 2025 2030 2050 Base parameters Baseline* 31.2 37.3 44.0 51.6 102.5 Optimal controls† 30.7 36.7 43.5 51.2 103.6 2.5 degree maximum Maximum† 184.4 229.1 284.1 351.0 1,006.2 Max for 100 y† 106.7 133.1 165.1 203.7 543.3 The Stern Review discounting Uncalibrated† 197.4 266.5 324.6 376.2 629.2 Alternative discount rates* 2.5% 128.5 140.0 152.0 164.6 235.7 3% 79.1 87.3 95.9 104.9 156.6 4% 36.3 40.9 45.8 51.1 81.7 5% 19.7 22.6 25.7 29.1 49.2 Region SCC 2015, $/tCO2, 2010 $ RICE 2010, % global FUND 2013, % global PAGE 2011, % global This study, % global United States 4.78 10 17 7 15 EU 4.79 12 24 9 15 Japan 1.07 2 3 na 3 Russia 0.91 1 10 na 3 Eurasia 1.56 1 na na 5 China 6.61 16 8 11 21 India 2.93 12 5 22 9 Middle East 2.16 10 na na 7 Africa 1.03 11 6 26 3 Latin America 1.87 7 na 11 6 Other high income 1.00 4 na na 3 Other 2.50 12 [28] [16] 8 Global 31.21 100 100 100 100 This table distributes the global SCC from Table 1 by region. The first and last columns assume that the SCC is proportional to the discounted value of output in each region over the 2020–2050 period, discounted at a discount rate of 5% per year. na, not available in the source document; tCO2, metric tons of CO2. Brackets around estimates are total of omitted regions.
- Table 3.
Estimates of SCC for 2020 from US Interagency Working Group and comparison with DICE model in 2010 US$
Model and scenario 5% per year discount rate on goods DICE 4% per year discount rate on goods 3% per year discount rate on goods 2.5% per year discount rate on goods Estimates of 2020 SCC from US Working Group, 2013 (2010$) DICE-2010 12 na na 40 59 PAGE 23 na na 74 105 FUND 3 na na 22 37 Average 13 na na 45 67 Estimates for different DICE model versions (2010$) DICE-2013R 15 24 26 50 74 DICE-2016R 23 37 41 87 140 Upper rows show estimates of the 2020 SCC from the IAWG. The three models have harmonized outputs, emissions, populations, and ETS distribution and use constant discount rates. Lower rows show the results of the estimates from the two latest versions of the DICE model for the baseline (Table 1) and using constant discount rates.
Version Model SCC (2015), 2010 $ Change, % 1 Dice-2016 31.23 2 1 + old damages 35.63 14 3 2 + old population 33.36 −6 4 3 + old temp sensitivity 30.58 −8 5 4 + old economics 21.25 −31 6 5 + old carbon cycle 16.01 −25 7 DICE-2013R 17.03 6 The table shows the impact of introducing model changes starting with the 2016 model and ending with the 2013 model in a step fashion. The last column shows the change moving from a later specification to an earlier one. A negative number in the last column is a decrease from 2016 to 2013. For example, introducing “old economics” in version 5 lowers the SCC by 25% relative to DICE-2016. The two major changes are economic assumptions and the carbon cycle (see Accounting for the SCC Changes Since DICE-2013R for a discussion).
Data supplements
Supporting Information
Social cost of carbon in DICE model
Sign up for Article Alerts
Article Classifications
- Social Sciences
- Sustainability Science
- Physical Sciences
- Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences
Jump to section
- Article
- Abstract
- Structure of the DICE-2016R Model
- Major Results for DICE-2016R
- Estimates of the SCC
- Uncertainty About the SCC
- Accounting for the SCC Changes Since DICE-2013R
- Conclusion
- Model Version
- Federal Regulations Using the SCC
- Growth-Corrected Discounting
- Damage Function Revision
- Decomposition of the Change in SCC
- Regional Estimates of SCC
- Uncertainty Estimates
- Acknowledgments
- Footnotes
- References
- Figures & SI
- Info & Metrics
You May Also be Interested in
Despite myriad challenges, clinicians see room for progress.
Image credit: Shutterstock/David Tadevosian.
Sneaky intracellular bacteria know when to defend themselves and multiply.
Image credit: Camilla Ciolli Mattioli.
Mara Reed and Michael Manga explore why Yellowstone's Steamboat Geyser resumed erupting in 2018.
A study demonstrates how two enzymes—MHETase and PETase—work synergistically to depolymerize the plastic pollutant PET.
Image credit: Aaron McGeehan (artist).