WARNING:
JavaScript is turned OFF. None of the links on this concept map will
work until it is reactivated.
If you need help turning JavaScript On, click here.
This Concept Map, created with IHMC CmapTools, has information related to: PAGE2002-model, "Stern repeatedly tell us that there is considerable uncertainty over cause–effect relationships, that these will be outside empirical observation (Stern, 2006: 293 ft nt7), that their model relies upon “non- existent data” (Stern, 2006: 153), and that ethics and social values are crucial to the decision. However they then squeeze all issues to fit within an existing theoretical model which is totally inadequate for addressing the problems they themselves have outlined." (Spash 210) objects we use the PAGE2002 IAM (Stern 2006e, 153), "such models must make drastic, often heroic, simplifications along all stages of the climate- change chain. What is more, large uncertainties are associated with each element in the cycle. Nevertheless, the IAMs remain the best tool available for estimating aggregate quantitative global costs and risks of climate change." (Stern 2006e, 145) objects the standard practice in applied economics to first transform "both consumption (proportional to future GDP) and welfare losses (from climate harm) ... into utility," and then further aggregate, discount, and compare this utility at the margin, does not have a "straightforward link to anything real in the world. Rather, it represents a hypothetical valuation of possible future worlds associated with some policy scenario, integrating the perceived likelihood of different possibilities with the presumed desirability of those possibilities. As such, it is a kind of judgment that can reasonably be expected to differ among different persons, and indeed the SR discusses the kinds of disagreements that might be expected to lead to different estimations of the value (expected utility) of a particular scenario. The idea that even a single individual could have a well-defined view of the expected utility of an uncertain future is open to serious question. As discussed, such projections involve addressing not merely processes that are well understood but uncertain (in a probabilistic sense), but processes about which we are at least partially ignorant, or which are indeterminate due to human choice. ... Thus, strong uncertainty must be reduced to weak uncertainty but such a move simultaneously undercuts the robustness of the resulting calculations." (Baer-Spash, 182-3, "At the same time, PAGE2002 shares many of the limitations of other formal models. It must rely on sparse or non-existent data and understanding at high temperatures and in developing regions, and it faces difficulties in valuing direct impacts on health and the environment. Moreover, ... the PAGE2002 model does not fully cover the ‘socially contingent’ impacts. As a result, the estimates of catastrophic impacts may be conservative, given the damage likely at temperatures as high as 6 - 8°C above pre-industrial levels. Thus the results presented below should be viewed as indicative only and interpreted with great caution. Given what is excluded, they should be regarded as rather conservative estimates of costs, relative to the ability of these models to produce reliable guidance." (Stern 2006e, 153) supports "such models must make drastic, often heroic, simplifications along all stages of the climate- change chain. What is more, large uncertainties are associated with each element in the cycle. Nevertheless, the IAMs remain the best tool available for estimating aggregate quantitative global costs and risks of climate change." (Stern 2006e, 145), The Debate about the Stern-Review and the Economics of Climate Change visualized according to the rules and conventions of Logical Argument Mapping (LAM), "such models must make drastic, often heroic, simplifications along all stages of the climate- change chain. What is more, large uncertainties are associated with each element in the cycle. Nevertheless, the IAMs remain the best tool available for estimating aggregate quantitative global costs and risks of climate change." (Stern 2006e, 145) objects "Stern repeatedly tell us that there is considerable uncertainty over cause–effect relationships, that these will be outside empirical observation (Stern, 2006: 293 ft nt7), that their model relies upon “non- existent data” (Stern, 2006: 153), and that ethics and social values are crucial to the decision. However they then squeeze all issues to fit within an existing theoretical model which is totally inadequate for addressing the problems they themselves have outlined." (Spash 210), click on the small, bent arrow at the bottom right of this text box to get back to the Stern Review's main argumentation start here we use the PAGE2002 IAM (Stern 2006e, 153), Policy Analysis of the Greenhouse Effect 2002, as developed by Hope, 2003 defines PAGE2002 we use the PAGE2002 IAM (Stern 2006e, 153), the standard practice in applied economics to first transform "both consumption (proportional to future GDP) and welfare losses (from climate harm) ... into utility," and then further aggregate, discount, and compare this utility at the margin, does not have a "straightforward link to anything real in the world. Rather, it represents a hypothetical valuation of possible future worlds associated with some policy scenario, integrating the perceived likelihood of different possibilities with the presumed desirability of those possibilities. As such, it is a kind of judgment that can reasonably be expected to differ among different persons, and indeed the SR discusses the kinds of disagreements that might be expected to lead to different estimations of the value (expected utility) of a particular scenario. The idea that even a single individual could have a well-defined view of the expected utility of an uncertain future is open to serious question. As discussed, such projections involve addressing not merely processes that are well understood but uncertain (in a probabilistic sense), but processes about which we are at least partially ignorant, or which are indeterminate due to human choice. ... Thus, strong uncertainty must be reduced to weak uncertainty but such a move simultaneously undercuts the robustness of the resulting calculations." (Baer-Spash, 182-3 objects we use the PAGE2002 IAM (Stern 2006e, 153), Integrated Assessment Model "IAMs simulate the process of human-induced climate change, from emissions of GHGs to the socio-economic impacts of climate change" (Stern 2006e, 145) defines IAM we use the PAGE2002 IAM (Stern 2006e, 153), there is a contradiction between this caveat and the reason in the main argument (top left): While this reason is formulated as a factual statement, it could only be justified as a possibility based on the caution formulted here. objects (M.H.) "such models must make drastic, often heroic, simplifications along all stages of the climate- change chain. What is more, large uncertainties are associated with each element in the cycle. Nevertheless, the IAMs remain the best tool available for estimating aggregate quantitative global costs and risks of climate change." (Stern 2006e, 145)