The Social Cost of Carbon and its Policy Implications

By D. Pearce. 2003

449 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change, Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/09b9f1a31204d92c86f4be77389abb2555d70f23

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Global and Planetary Change

In Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment

Citations in the corpus

Cost of reactive nitrogen release from human activities to the environment in the United States (2015, methodology): “Frameworks developed to analyze the social cost of carbon (Pearce 2003) and ecosystem services (Boyd and Banzhaf 2007) provide ways to conduct such analyses and have been used to guide policy decisions (Rose 2012).”
On International Equity Weights and National Decision Making on Climate Change (2010, background): “Introduction Equity weights, in one form or other, are now frequently used to aggregate the monetized impacts of climate change that would befall different countries (Azar, 1999; Azar and Sterner, 1996; Fankhauser et al., 1997, 1998; Pearce, 2003; Tol, 1999).”
Estimating the value of carbon sequestration ecosystem services in the Mediterranean Sea: An ecological economics approach (2015, background): “Following Pearce (2003),”
The marginal damage costs of carbon-dioxide emissions’ (2005, background): “Most estimates are in the lower part of that range, and higher estimates only occur through the combination of a high vulnerability with a low discount rate (see Pearce et al., 1996). Tol et al. (2001) review more recent studies as well.”
Environmental policy, government, and the market (2010, background): “In the context of evaluating UK policy on estimating the social cost of carbon, Pearce (2003) argues that climate change is not ‘special’, in the sense that it should not be analysed inconsistently with other policy areas.”
Does Britain or the United States Have the Right Gasoline Tax (2005, background): “1 For example, John Peirson et al. (1995), Inge Mayeres et al. (1996), European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) (1998, ch. 3), Richard C. Porter (1999), Werner Rothengatter (2000), and various papers in David L. Greene et al. (1997).”
Environmental Externalities, Market Distortions and the Economics of Renewable Energy Technologies1 (2004, background): “Based upon a constant discount rate and without equity weighting, Pearce (2003) quotes a range of $4-9/tC.”
Optimal Transition to Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles in Ontario, Canada, Considering the Electricity-Grid Limitations (2010, methodology): “Various values of EC in the 10–110 $CAD range were considered, based on typical social-cost values of CO2 emissions [50], [51] and the annual amount of CO2 cut by one PHEV30 in Ontario.”
What determines urban households' willingness to pay for CO2 emission reductions in Turkey: A contingent valuation survey (2011, background): “…quite sensitive to the assumptions set out (such as the intensification rate of extreme weather events, the rate of sea level increase, and the discount rate), it is commonly acknowledged that these costs will be rather significant even under optimistic scenarios (Pearce, 2003; Stern, 2006, 2009).”
“A convenient truth”: air travel passengers’ willingness to pay to offset their CO2 emissions (2008, background): “the choice of discount rate, equity weighting, corrections for risk aversion and adaptive behaviour), various reviews demonstrate the substantial expected economic costs related to climate change (e.g. Tol 1999; Pearce 2003; Stern 2006).”
The Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change: A Comment (2006, unknown): “The earlier report has been criticized for being out of step with the peer-reviewed literature (Pearce, 2003; Tol, 2005).”
Equity Weighting and the Marginal Damage Costs of Climate Change (2009, unknown): “Pearce (2003) suggested values between 0.5 to 1.2 for the inequality aversion parameter in the context of climate change and those are contrasted with the base line results that were obtained by using inequality aversion of 1.”