Equity Weighting and the Marginal Damage Costs of Climate Change

By David Anthoff, Cameron Hepburn, Richard S. J. Tol. 2009

299 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1afaf99083867b61e8ec42c13415284a28f640a2

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

Citations in the corpus

Developing a Social Cost of Carbon for US Regulatory Analysis: A Methodology and Interpretation (2013, methodology): “Anthoff, Hepburn, and Tol (2009) conclude that “the assumed rate of risk aversion is at least as important as the assumed rate of time preference (a component of the discount rate) in determining the social cost of carbon.””
The Social Cost of Co2 from the Page09 Model (2011, unknown): “7 Discounting and equity weighting of impacts PAGE09 uses the equity weighting scheme proposed by Anthoff et al (2009) which converts changes in consumption to utility, and amounts to multiplying the changes in consumption by E(r,t) = (G(fr,0)/G(r,t))^ EMUC where G(fr,0) is today’s GDP per capita…”
Targets for global climate policy: an overview (2013, background): “Anthoff et al. (2009a) and Anthoff and Tol (2010b) explore equity weights in the context of a regional decision maker.”
Critical issues for the calculation of the social cost of CO2: why the estimates from PAGE09 are higher than those from PAGE2002 (2013, methodology): “In PAGE09, the equity weighting in Anthoff et al. (2009) is used, such that impacts are increased in regions whose GDP per capita is lower than the GDP per capita in the focus region of the model, the European Union (EU), and vice versa (Hope 2011a).”
The social cost of carbon in U.S. regulatory impact analyses: an introduction and critique (2012, methodology): “30 See, for example, Nordhaus (2011), Stern (2007), Hope (2008), and Anthoff et al. (2009). 31 As discussed in the Appendix, while our equity weighting increases the Working Group SCCs, alternative values for eta could produce both higher and lower equity weighted estimates than those presented here”
Cost-benefit analysis in the context of ecosystem services for human well-being: A multidisciplinary critique (2011, background): “Distributionally weighted cost and benefit calculations (e.g. higher weights on costs and benefits occurring to socially disadvantaged groups) have been advocated as a potential way to address equity distortions in cost-benefit analysis (e.g. Anthoff et al., 2009; Pascual et al., 2010).”
The behavioural economics of climate change (2008, unknown): “Azar and Sterner, 1996; Anthoff et al., forthcoming ).”
The uncertainty about the social cost of carbon: A decomposition analysis using fund (2013, methodology): “12 See Anthoff et al. (2009b) for a comprehensive sensitivity analysis with respect to different values for the pure rate of time preference rate and the rate of risk aversion.”
Discounting for Climate Change (2009, unknown): “It is important to emphasize, however, that the evidence presented here and elsewhere in these efforts suggests that, to 10 Anthoff et al. (2009) argue that one should equity weight not only SCC estimates but also any other cost estimate before comparing them.”