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: Debate-Stern-review-Climate-economics, we should apply a growth rate of 1.3% per capita consumption therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU: Stern) we should apply a discount rate of 1.4%, "The risks of the worst impacts of climate change can be substantially reduced if greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere can be stabilised between 450 and 550ppm CO2 equivalent (CO2e)" therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU: Stern, vii) "the costs of action – reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change – can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year" if we start to take strong action now and if we target a stabilisation between 500 and 550ppm CO2e, "The elasticity parameter is casually discussed, with no justification in the original report" (694) objects (Nordhaus 2007) we should use an elasticity parameter of 1, "PAGE2002 in effect summarises the range of underlying research studies." supports (Stern 2006e, 153) "The parameter ranges used as model inputs are calibrated to the scientific and economic literatures on climate change", if not acting implies that "the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever," and if "the costs of action – reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change – can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year" if we start to take strong action now, then "the benefits of strong and early action far outweigh the economic costs of not acting" therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU: Stern 2006a, vi) "the benefits of strong and early action far outweigh the economic costs of not acting", we use the PAGE2002 IAM (Stern 2006e, 153) therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU: Stern 2006e) "if we don't act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more" (2006a, vi), this principle is "related to the idea of the rights of future generations" note (Stern 2006c) "future generations should have a right to a standard of living no lower than the current one." (42), Key and LAM conventions see click on the small icon under this text box, PAGE2002 IAM "meets this requirement by producing estimates based on ‘Monte Carlo’ simulation" supports we use the PAGE2002 IAM (Stern 2006e, 153), "It is, of course, possible that people actually do place less value on the welfare of future generations, simply on the grounds that they are more distant in time. But it is hard to see any ethical justification for this." (31) supports (Stern 2006b) "the welfare of future generations should be treated on a par with our own" (5), "Central estimates of the annual costs of achieving stabilisation between 500 and 550ppm CO2e are around 1% of global GDP, if we start to take strong action now" therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU: Stern, vii) "the costs of action – reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change – can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year" if we start to take strong action now and if we target a stabilisation between 500 and 550ppm CO2e, if "the benefits of strong and early action far outweigh the economic costs of not acting," then "prompt and strong action is clearly warranted" ... "to avoid the worst impacts of climate change" therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU: Stern 2006a, vi) "prompt and strong action is clearly warranted" ... "to avoid the worst impacts of climate change", if "the welfare of future generations should be treated on a par with our own" (5), then we should apply a low discount rate of pure time preference of 0.1% therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU: Stern 2006d we should apply a low discount rate of pure time preference of 0.1%, we should use an elasticity parameter of 1 therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU: Stern) we should apply a discount rate of 1.4%, Key and LAM conventions start here with the main claim "prompt and strong action is clearly warranted" ... "to avoid the worst impacts of climate change", we need "a modelling approach based on probabilities (that is, a ‘stochastic’ approach)" (Stern 2006e, 153) supports we use the PAGE2002 IAM (Stern 2006e, 153), "This means that it runs each scenario many times (e.g. 1000 times), each time choosing a set of uncertain parameters randomly from pre-determined ranges of possible values. In this way, the model generates a probability distribution of results rather than just a single point estimate. Specifically, it yields a probability distribution of future income under climate change, where climate-driven damage and the cost of adapting to climate change are subtracted from a baseline GDP growth projection" (Stern 2006e, 153) defines PAGE2002 IAM "meets this requirement by producing estimates based on ‘Monte Carlo’ simulation", "Even though the real interest rate is crucial to balancing present and future, there is no apparent reference to any of this in the Review." (694) objects (Nordhaus 2007) we should apply a growth rate of 1.3% per capita consumption, "if we don't act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more" (2006a, vi) therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU: Stern 2006a, vi) "the benefits of strong and early action far outweigh the economic costs of not acting", we should apply a discount rate of 1.4% therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU: Stern 2006e) "if we don't act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more" (2006a, vi)