The Use and Misuse of Models for Climate Policy

By Robert S. Pindyck. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 2015

320 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8ea1028bcb358a93f8af766f0b5f7d672d4997b6

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

Citations in the corpus

A Third Wave in the Economics of Climate Change (2015, background): “9 Speech at the ECB Annual Central Banking Conference, November 2010. on different aspects of climate change policy (Rezai and van der Ploeg 2014; Bretschger and Vinogradova 2014; Golosov et al. 2014; Pindyck 2015).”
The Economic Impacts of Climate Change (2018, background): “In a later paper, Pindyck (2017) argues for transparency and simplicity, extrapolating into the far future, and deep tails without any detail on the processes involved.”
A social cost of carbon for (almost) every country (2019, background): “There have been a number of reviews of the social cost of carbon (Guivarch et al., 2016; Metcalf and Stock, 2017; Pindyck, 2017a,b; Pizer et al., 2014; Revesz et al., 2017) and its application (Greenstone et al., 2013; Hahn and Ritz, 2015; Heyes et al., 2013; Rose, 2012; Sunstein, 2014), as well as…”
The appallingly bad neoclassical economics of climate change (2020, unknown): “This practice was replicated, rather than challenged, by subsequent Neoclassical economists – with some honourable exceptions, notably Pindyck (2017), Weitzman (2011a, 2011b), DeCanio (2003), Cline (1996), Darwin (1999), Kaufmann (1997, 1998), and Quiggin and Horowitz (1999).”
Tackling Climate Change with Machine Learning (2019, background): “ibution of these potential harms. The ﬁeld of Integrated Assessment Modeling [602, 603] aims to map the outputs of a climate model to societal impacts, but such approaches have signiﬁcant limitations [604] and suffer from the ever-present problem of “garbage in, garbage out.” As such, opportunities ”
Some Contributions of Integrated Assessment Models of Global Climate Change (2017, methodology): “…which introduces the symposium and examines the role of IAMs in estimating the social cost of carbon for use in U.S. regulatory analyses, and Pindyck (2017), which examines the uncertainty that characterizes IAMs and proposes an alternative to an IAM-based social cost of carbon. composition…”
The social cost of carbon revisited (2016, unknown): “See Pindyck (2017a) for details. of knowledge) is another advantage.”