Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (22)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Pearce, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Related Collections
Right arrow Q51 - Valuation of Environmental Effects
Right arrow Q53 - Air Pollution; Water Pollution; Noise; Hazardous Waste; Solid Waste; Recycling
Right arrow Q54 - Climate; Natural Disasters; Global Warming
Right arrow Q58 - Government Policy
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

OXFORD REVIEW OF ECONOMIC POLICY, VOL. 19, NO. 3, PP. 362-384
© 2003 Oxford University Press and the Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited

The Social Cost of Carbon and its Policy Implications

David Pearce
Department of Economics and CSERGE, University College London, and Environmental Science and Technology, Imperial College London1

Abstract

The shadow price, or ‘social cost’, of carbon is an important indicator of the global incremental damage done by emitting greenhouse gases today. Cost–benefit analysis would set the optimal amount of greenhouse-gas-emission reduction at the point where this social cost just equals the incremental cost of controlling emissions. The higher the value for the social cost of carbon, the more control is warranted. This comparison assumes that cost–benefit analysis is the correct way of determining climate-change policy, and many believe this is not the case because of the very long-term, irreversible, and potentially catastrophic nature of global warming. But, in the short run at least, a comparison of cost and benefits is required, and, in any event, all decisions imply costs and benefits. But what is the ‘right’ figure for the social cost of carbon? This paper reviews the UK government's assessment of the cost and concludes that it has been set far too high because of a misreading of the integrated assessment models used to balance costs and benefits. Moreover, adoption of the UK government's shadow price would have formidable implications for energy policy in the UK, and for policies on afforestation.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.