Economic models of climate change

142 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

The need for national deep decarbonization pathways for effective climate policy (2016, methodology): “To begin, it must be recognized that ‘the long term predictive power of economic models is limited . . . and that their primary purpose is to explore alternative assumptions’ (DeCanio, 2003).”
The macroeconomic rebound effect and the world economy (2009, result): “1 This is in contrast to the mainstream equilibrium approach (see DeCanio, 2003 for a critique) adopted in most economic models of climate stabilisation costs.”
The appallingly bad neoclassical economics of climate change (2020, unknown): “…estimated by scientists (Hickel, 2018), and that a full critique of his work would require explaining why an equilibrium-based Neoclassical model like DICE 12 was the wrong tool to analyse something as uncertain, dynamic and far-from-equilibrium as climate change (Blatt, 1979; DeCanio, 2003).”
Mitigation from a cross-sectoral perspective (2007, unknown): “, 2006a; Stern, 2006), about which there is little agreement (DeCanio, 2003).”
Two sides of the same coin: consequential life cycle assessment based on the attributional framework (2016, background): “On theotherhand, they are also grounded on restrictive, unrealistic assumptions (e.g., rational expectation) that undermine the relevance and accuracy of their estimates (see, e.g., (Barker, 2004;DeCanio, 2003; Thaler, 2015) for detailed critique).”