The marginal impact of CO2 from PAGE2002: An integrated assessment model incorporating the IPCC's five reasons for concern

By Chris Hope. 2006

610 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9889ef1a778a5ba1a49a8c405b3d7384eb7bf966

How researchers see this paper

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

Citations in the corpus

Climate change attribution and the economic costs of extreme weather events: a study on damages from extreme rainfall and drought (2020, background): “In many IAMs, damages are parameterized or characterized as a low-order polynomial function of temperature (Nordhaus 1993; Nordhaus and Boyer 1999; Hope 2006).”
Faraway, So Close: Coupled Climate and Economic Dynamics in an Agent-based Integrated Assessment Model (2018, methodology): “…and mitigation policies is commonly performed in climate economics by relying on integrated assessment models (IAMs), 3 which add a simple carbon cycle module to a computable general equilibrium barebone (e.g. Nordhaus, 1992; Tol, 1997; Hope, 2006; Bosetti et al., 2006; Golosov et al., 2014).”
Optimal climate change mitigation under long-term growth uncertainty: Stochastic integrated assessment and analytic findings (2014, background): “The integrated assessment literature predominantly addresses uncertainty by averaging deterministic Monte-Carlo runs (Richels et al. 2004, Hope 2006, Nordhaus 2008, Dietz 2009, Anthoff et al. 2009, Anthoff & Tol 2009, Ackerman et al. 2010, Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon 2010,…”
The role of patent protection in (clean/green) technology transfer (2010, unknown): “ The differences in welfare losses between developed and developing countries among the estimates reported in Tol (2009) vary between 2.9 percentage points (Hope, …”
The Influence of the Specification of Climate Change Damages on the Social Cost of Carbon (2012, unknown): “In the context of multi-region models like PAGE and FUND, other authors (e.g., Hope, 2008; Anthoff et al., 2009) have dealt with questions related to how to combine social costs experienced in different regions with different levels of vulnerability; addressing these issues in the context of this pa”
Climate Impacts on Economic Growth as Drivers of Uncertainty in the Social Cost of Carbon (2014, unknown): “(FUND and PAGE are both partial equilibrium models in which economic growth is exogenously specified.)”
The Costs to Developing Countries of Adapting to Climate Change. New Methods and Estimates. (2010, methodology): “To ensure consistency with emissions projections, the GDP trajectory is based on the average of the GDP growth projections of the three major integrated assessment models of global emissions growth— Climate Framework for Uncertainty, Negotiation, and Distribution (FUND; Anthoff and Tol 2008); PAGE20”
The Economics of Climate Change in Southeast Asia: A Regional Review (2009, methodology): “B. Model and Scenario Assumptions The Stern Review used the PAGE2002 model, as described in Hope (2006), to evaluate the long-term global impact of climate change.”
Critical issues for the calculation of the social cost of CO2: why the estimates from PAGE09 are higher than those from PAGE2002 (2013, methodology): “The PAGE2002 integrated assessment model (Hope 2006a) was used in the Stern review (Stern 2007) to value the impacts from climate change, and calculate the amount by which the Net Present Value (NPV) of impacts, aggregated over the whole time period to 2,200, increases if one more tonne of CO2 is…”
Equity Weighting and the Marginal Damage Costs of Climate Change (2009, unknown): “More recently Johansson-Stenman (2005) concluded that the question whether distributional weights ought to be used in cost-benefit analysis cannot be answered in general, but should rather be informed by the specific circumstances of the proposed project or policy instrument.”
Quantifying the economic risks of climate change (2017, background): “We introduce a comparable dynamic vulnerability effect into DICE and PAGE, with an aggregate income elasticity equivalent to the implied total response in FUND (Fig.”
A Review of the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change (2007, background): “…assumed assumptions and discount rates, the mean social cost of carbon was $43 per ton C. Simply substituting the 0.1 percent per year discount rate into the PAGE model raises the mean social cost of carbon from $43 per ton C to $364 per ton C, which is close to the ratio found here (Hope 2006).”
Why Worry about Climate Change? A Research Agenda (2008, unknown): “Also within each impact category, the assessment is incomplete.”
Poverty and climate change: introduction (2018, background): “The distribution of impacts across countries is heterogeneous, and using global GDP as a metric to measure the cost of climate change may hide disproportionally large impacts on poor countries or regions (Mendelsohn et al., 2000; Tol, 2002, 2009; Hope, 2006; Mendelsohn et al., 2006; Stern, 2006; Nor”