Skip Navigation



Review of Environmental Economics and Policy Advance Access published online on April 23, 2008
Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, doi:10.1093/reep/ren001
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
2/1/94    most recent
ren001v1
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 Dietz, S.
Right arrow Articles by Stern, N.
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 e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Why Economic Analysis Supports Strong Action on Climate Change: A Response to the Stern Review's Critics

Simon Dietz* and Nicholas Stern**

* Department of Geography and Environment and Centre for Environmental Policy and Governance, London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, UK
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia (UEA), Norwich, UK
** London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK

e-mail: s.dietz@lse.ac.uk

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


   Introduction and Summary
 
Economic research that opposes the strategy of strong and urgent reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, such as the articles in this symposium by Robert Mendelsohn (2008) and by John Weyant (2008), usually makes a distinction between scientists, environmentalists, politicians, and others who favor strong action, and economists, who apparently do not. Drawing on the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change (Stern 2007), this article shows that strong and urgent action is in fact good economics. Much of the previous economic literature on climate change has failed to grasp the necessary scale and timing of action (notable exceptions include Cline 1992; and Azar and Sterner 1996), because it has failed to simultaneously assign the necessary importance to issues of risk and ethics. The case for strong and urgent action set out in the Review is based, first, on the severe . . . [Full Text of this Article]


   Economic Analysis of Climate Change Policy
 

   The Cost of Mitigation and Its Uncertainties
 

   The Cost of Climate Change and Its Uncertainties
 
Risk in Integrated Assessment Models
Ethics and Discounting
Risk and Ethics Together

   Conclusions: Act Now or Wait and See?
 

   Appendix 1
 

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]

Home page
 OXF REV ECON POLICYHome page
K. A. Brekke and O. Johansson-Stenman
The behavioural economics of climate change
Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy, June 1, 2008; 24(2): 280 - 297.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]