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*

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.


   Introduction
 
Early in 2006, former US Vice President Al Gore released the documentary An Inconvenient Truth, about the potential perils of global climate change. It was immensely popular. Its premiere attracted a "who's who" from the entertainment industry and beyond, and it even won an Academy Award. Then in late 2006, in advance of (perhaps strategically) the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2007a, b, and c), the government of the United Kingdom released with great fanfare (Blair 2006) a comprehensive new study, the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change (Stern 2006) (hereafter, the Review). The release of these two publications and the scientific research upon which they allegedly drew has attracted political, media, and public attention to climate change that has not been seen before. Since these two major works did not emerge through the normal scientific . . . [Full Text of this Article]


   Literature on Mitigation Costs
 
Uncertainty of Projections
Assumptions About Government Policies
Bounds on the Estimates
General Principles for Decreasing Mitigation Costs
A Simple Illustration

   The Review's Approach to Mitigation Costs
 
Bottom-Up Cost Projections
Top-Down Cost Projections
Critique of Top-Down Mitigation Cost Projections

   Putting the Review's Mitigation Cost Estimates in Perspective
 
Treatment of Technology
Why the Cost Projections in the Review are Lower Than in the Literature
A More Useful Perspective on Mitigation Costs?

   The Review's Integration of the Costs and Benefits of Climate Policies
 
Critique of the Review's Integration of Costs and Benefits
Critique of the Review's Approach to Discounting

   Conclusions
 

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
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]