The DJO`s estimates have accelerated research on how to model the impact of growth on climate policy assessment. There are many channels that allow climate change to influence economic development. In addition to direct reductions in output, which will produce greater effects such as reduced investment and hence strong economic growth, climate change can also influence research progress and slow growth in overall factor productivity (TFP) or accelerate the devaluation of capital stock. We take back the data population series and keep the population constant after 2100. While this hypothesis is certainly far from realistic, it serves to distinguish the different scenarios with regard to different population sizes. We follow Leimbach et al.57 by adopting a capital elasticity of 0.35 for SSP1 and SSP2 and a higher value of 0.45 for SSP5. We also accept their capital price level (gross asset rate of return) of 0.12 for all SSPs for the calculation of the initial capital level (see Leimbach et al.57). With the basic GDP series, we use this new setting to deduce a suitable TFP series in the Ramsey model without climate change. We then use this time series to adjust the parameters that describe the evolution of TFP in DICE (Fig. 6b). In addition, we recalise DICE mitigation parameters using the mitigation costs of SSP scenarios.
THE mitigation costs of REMIND-MAgpie correspond to the reduction in GDP compared to the base case58. The carbon intensity required for this adjustment and scenario results from the division of core emissions from core GDP. Unlike the original damping function in DICE, the resulting mitigation functions are calibrated for a detailed process model (fig. 6c). This special edition calls for contributions to the assessment of the total costs associated with the implementation of the obligations defined by the NdCs, which are an integral part of the Paris Agreement. In addition, the interest is also to assess the cost of achieving the temperature target of 2 degrees Celsius, both in the event of full participation in the agreement and partial participation, as illustrated by the withdrawal of the United States under the Trump administration. Pindyck, S.R. The social cost of carbon has been taken up. J. About. Econ.
Mr. Manag. 94, 140–160 (2019). Those calling for action to combat climate change are the ones who should be most upset by the appearance of the Paris Agreement. We note that the Paris Agreement is also optimal for the management of these three cost-cutting functions (Figure 7). The dispersion of results for each PNP is rather small, which shows that potential errors in adjustment are negligible for the results. The 2015 Paris Agreement required participating countries to limit and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in order to keep global temperature rise „well below“ 2 degrees Celsius since pre-industrial times. Below, we submit our results to numerous robustness tests. First, we add to the climate change sensitivity analysis in the main text by taking into account a total probability density function for ECS values.