Skip Navigation


Review of Environmental Economics and Policy Advance Access originally published online on April 23, 2008
Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 2008 2(1):77-93; doi:10.1093/reep/rem022
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
2/1/77    most recent
rem022v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Weyant, J. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

A Critique of the Stern Review's Mitigation Cost Analyses and Integrated Assessment

John P. Weyant*

This article is an assessment of the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, a major climate policy study done for the UK government by a group led by Sir Nicholas Stern. In this article, I examine both the mitigation cost and integrated assessment aspects of the Review. Although the Review makes many significant contributions, I believe that the framework the Review adopted to formulate policy recommendations is difficult to understand, and probably not well matched to the problem being addressed, and that the Review's specific recommendation for large emission reductions in the short run to facilitate stabilization of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere by mid-century is not justified by the analysis. This outcome was the result of using relatively high climate damage projections, relatively low GHG mitigation cost projections, and very low discount rate assumptions relative to current expert opinion and what is in the literature. Moreover, the Review's formulation appears to treat the climate policy problem as a deterministic "one shot" benefit-cost analysis rather than a problem of sequential decision-making under uncertainty.

* The author is a professor of management science and engineering and the director of the Energy Modeling Forum at Stanford University. He is grateful to William Nordhaus, William Pizer, Richard Richels, Alan Sanstad, Francisco de la Chesnaye, Rob Stavins, Suzy Leonard, and two anonymous referees for comments and discussions.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Rev Environ Econ PolicyHome page
G. Heal
Climate Economics: A Meta-Review and Some Suggestions for Future Research
Rev Environ Econ Policy, December 1, 2009; 3(1): 4 - 21.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Rev Environ Econ PolicyHome page
R. Mendelsohn, T. Sterner, U. M. Persson, and J. P. Weyant
Comments on Simon Dietz and Nicholas Stern's Why Economic Analysis Supports Strong Action on Climate Change: A Response to the Stern Review's Critics
Rev Environ Econ Policy, July 8, 2008; (2008) ren012v1.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.