The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change (2006)
The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, a 2006 report by economist Nicholas Stern, assessed a wide range of scientific evidence on climate change impacts alongside a detailed analysis of the economic costs. [1] Its primary conclusion is that the benefits of strong, early action significantly outweigh the costs of inaction. [1, 3] The Review's analysis was based on a specific discounting approach to value future generations. It applied a total discount rate of 1.4%, which comprised a 1.3% annual discount to account for future generations likely being richer due to economic growth, and a 0.1% annual discount for the small risk that future generations might not exist. Based on this low discount rate, Stern advocated for immediate and substantial policy changes by governments and businesses to invest in limiting CO2 emissions to safeguard the future environment.
0
1
Tags
SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19)
Biomedical Sciences
Economics
Economy
Introduction to Microeconomics Course
Social Science
Empirical Science
Science
CORE Econ
Ch.4 Strategic interactions and social dilemmas - The Economy 2.0 Microeconomics @ CORE Econ
Ch.9 Lenders and borrowers and differences in wealth - The Economy 2.0 Microeconomics @ CORE Econ
The Economy 2.0 Microeconomics @ CORE Econ
Related
Doubtful Consensus Messaging and Climate Change
The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change (2006)
Nicholas Stern
A government is reviewing a proposal for a new, costly environmental regulation. A report is presented that establishes an overwhelming consensus among climate scientists that human activity is the primary cause of significant environmental changes. However, the report also acknowledges that a very small number of scientists disagree with this conclusion. From a risk management perspective, what is the most logical interpretation of this situation for the policymakers?
The existence of a small number of peer-reviewed studies that question the primary role of human activity in recent climate shifts is sufficient to invalidate the claim of a scientific consensus on the matter.
Evaluating Arguments on Environmental Policy
Significance of Scientific Consensus for Economic Policy
Interpreting Scientific Agreement
Match each term related to the nature of scientific findings with its most accurate description, particularly in the context of large-scale environmental issues.
Critiquing Media Representation of Scientific Consensus
The existence of an overwhelming scientific consensus that human activity is the primary driver of climate change means that, for the purpose of formulating economic policy, the debate shifts from whether the problem exists to how to _______ it.
Arrange the following stages in the correct chronological order to illustrate how a scientific idea about a global phenomenon, such as human-induced climate change, typically evolves from an initial proposal to an established consensus.
A city council is deciding whether to invest in expensive flood-prevention infrastructure. They are presented with four different sources of information regarding the risk of future flooding. Based on the principles of establishing a reliable scientific foundation for policy, which source should be given the most weight in their decision-making?
The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change (2006)
Debate Over the Appropriate Intergenerational Discount Rate
The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change (2006)
A policymaker is evaluating a long-term environmental protection project. The project requires a significant investment today but is projected to yield substantial benefits for society 100 years from now. The policymaker argues that the value of these future benefits should be 'discounted' when compared to the present-day costs. Which of the following statements provides the most economically and ethically sound justification for this type of discounting in a public policy context?
Evaluating Climate Policy Proposals
Justification for Discounting
When economists recommend applying a discount rate to the future benefits of a climate change mitigation policy, the primary justification is that people are inherently impatient and prefer to receive benefits sooner rather than later.
Critique of a Proposed Intergenerational Discount Rate
The social discount rate used in evaluating long-term environmental policies is often broken down into distinct components. Match each component or related concept to its correct justification.
When policymakers evaluate the costs and benefits of long-term environmental projects, the social discount rate they use is based on factors like expected future prosperity and existential risks. This approach is fundamentally distinct from the concept of __________, which refers to an individual's personal preference for consuming goods now rather than later.
A policymaker is establishing a framework for evaluating long-term environmental projects. Arrange the following steps in the logical order that one would follow to justify and determine the social discount rate for benefits accruing to future generations.
A government is deciding whether to invest in a major project to build sea walls to protect coastal cities from sea-level rise expected in 100 years. The project has very high upfront costs but provides massive benefits in the distant future. If the government uses a very high discount rate in its cost-benefit analysis, what will be the most likely outcome of their evaluation and why?
Analyzing Economic Arguments on Climate Policy
Learn After
Reinforcement of Stern Review's Conclusions by the IPCC (2014)
Early Action Strategies for Climate Change Mitigation
The 'Business as Usual' Scenario in the Stern Review
Discount Rate Calculation in the Stern Review
Criticism of the Stern Review's Low Discount Rate
The Employment Distribution Paradox
A landmark 2006 report on the economics of climate change concluded that the benefits of strong, early action to reduce emissions significantly outweigh the costs of inaction. This conclusion was heavily influenced by the use of a very low discount rate, which values the welfare of future generations at nearly the same level as the current generation. Which of the following statements represents the most significant economic criticism of this methodology?
Evaluating Long-Term Environmental Policy
A major 2006 economic report on climate change advocated for immediate, large-scale investment to prevent future environmental damage. Its cost-benefit analysis was based on a low discount rate, which gave significant weight to the welfare of future generations. Which of the following best describes the two primary justifications for the specific discount rate used in this report?
An economic analysis is conducted to evaluate a large-scale, long-term environmental protection project. The project requires significant upfront investment but is expected to yield substantial benefits for society 100 years in the future. Two different approaches are considered for the analysis:
- Approach 1: Uses a low discount rate to calculate the present value of future benefits.
- Approach 2: Uses a high discount rate to calculate the present value of future benefits.
Which of the following outcomes is the most likely result of these different approaches?
Evaluating Climate Policy Proposals
A landmark 2006 economic report on climate change presented a powerful argument for immediate action based on a specific cost-benefit analysis. Match each element of the report's methodology and findings to its correct description.
The Economic Rationale for Climate Action
A government is debating a new policy that would impose significant, immediate costs on the economy to fund large-scale projects aimed at reducing carbon emissions over the next century. A critic argues, 'It is economically irresponsible to spend so much now to prevent problems that are far in the future. We should focus on more immediate economic needs.' Based on the central conclusion of a landmark 2006 economic analysis of climate change, which of the following statements provides the strongest counter-argument?
A landmark 2006 economic analysis of climate change justified discounting the value of future environmental benefits, in part, by assuming that future generations will be significantly wealthier and thus a marginal dollar will be worth less to them. An opponent of this view argues that this specific justification is ethically flawed when applied to irreversible climate impacts. Which of the following statements best supports the opponent's ethical argument?
A major 2006 economic report on climate change advocated for immediate, large-scale investment to prevent future environmental damage. Its cost-benefit analysis was based on a low discount rate, which gave significant weight to the welfare of future generations. Which of the following best describes the two primary justifications for the specific discount rate used in this report?