Environmental policy and convexity of climate change damage functions: an experiment with New Keynesian DSGE model
Tóm tắt
The paper seeks out to investigate how varying degree of convexity of climate change damage function affect economic output and the dynamic response of macroeconomic variables to shocks under different environmental policy regimes. In an economy featuring nominal rigidities and monopolistically competitive firms together with climate change mitigation policy and firm abatement effort, the results show that the choice of damage function affects long-term growth of the economy and the performance of climate mitigation policy. A highly convex climate damage function has a significant contractionary effect on economic output and by extension consumption and private investment. This result stands irrespective of the environmental policy put in place. The impact of exogenous shocks on the macroeconomic variables is higher than the degree of convexity of the damage function. Cap-and-trade policy compresses the response of macroeconomic variables to these shocks, irrespective of curvature of the damage function. The results are robust to different calibrations of the climate damage functions.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Ackerman F, Stanton E (2012) Climate risks and carbon prices: revising the social cost of carbon. Economics The Open-Access Open-Assessment E-Journal 6:10
Adjemian, S., Bastani, H., Juillard, M., Mihoubi, F., Perendia, G., Ratto, M., & Villemot, S. (2011). Dynare: Reference manual, version 4.
Annicchiarico B, Di Dio F (2015) Environmental policy and macroeconomic dynamics in a new Keynesian model. J Environ Econ Manag 69:1–21
Barros, V. R., & Field, C. B. (2014). Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part B: regional aspects. In: Cambridge University Press.
Bretschger L, Pattakou A (2019) As bad as it gets: how climate damage functions affect growth and the social cost of carbon. Environ Resource Econ 72(1):5–26
Dafermos Y, Nikolaidi M, Galanis G (2018) Climate change, financial stability and monetary policy. Ecol Econ 152:219–234
Dietz S, Stern N (2015) Endogenous growth, convexity of damage and climate risk: how Nordhaus’ framework supports deep cuts in carbon emissions. Econ J 125(583):574–620
Economides, G., & Xepapadeas, A. (2018). Monetary policy under climate change.
Fischer C, Heutel G (2013) Environmental macroeconomics: environmental policy, business cycles, and directed technical change. Annu Rev Resour Econ 5(1):197–210
Galí J, Rabanal P (2004) Technology shocks and aggregate fluctuations: how well does the real business cycle model fit postwar US data? NBER Macroecon Annu 19:225–288
Golosov M, Hassler J, Krusell P, Tsyvinski A (2014) Optimal taxes on fossil fuel in general equilibrium. Econometrica 82(1):41–88
Heutel G (2012) How should environmental policy respond to business cycles? Optimal policy under persistent productivity shocks. Rev Econ Dyn 15(2):244–264
Moyer EJ, Woolley MD, Matteson NJ, Glotter MJ, Weisbach DA (2014) Climate impacts on economic growth as drivers of uncertainty in the social cost of carbon. J Leg Stud 43(2):401–425
Nordhaus WD (1993) Rolling the ‘DICE’: an optimal transition path for controlling greenhouse gases. Res Energy Econ 15(1):27–50
Nordhaus, W. D. (1994). Managing the global commons: the economics of climate change (Vol. 31). MIT press Cambridge, MA.
Nordhaus, W. (2007). Accompanying Notes and Documentation on Development of DICE-2007 Model: Notes on DICE-2007. delta. v8 as of September 21, 2007. Miscellaneous publication, Yale University, New Haven, NE.
Nordhaus, W. D., & Boyer, J. (2000). Warming the world: economic models of global warming. MIT press.
Pindyck RS (2013) Climate change policy: what do the models tell us? J Econ Lit 51(3):860–872
Rotemberg JJ (1982) Monopolistic price adjustment and aggregate output. Rev Econ Stud 49(4):517–531
Smets F, Wouters R (2007) Shocks and frictions in US business cycles: a Bayesian DSGE approach. Am Econ Rev 97(3):586–606
Stern N (2008) The economics of climate change. Am Econ Rev 98(2):1–37
Van den Bijgaart I, Gerlagh R, Liski M (2016) A simple formula for the social cost of carbon. J Environ Econ Manag 77:75–94
Weitzman ML (2010) What is the “damages function” for global warming—and what difference might it make? Clim Change Econ 1(01):57–69
Weitzman ML (2012) GHG targets as insurance against catastrophic climate damages. J Public Econ Theory 14(2):221–244