10.02.2013 Views

The Anatomy of A Silent Crisis The Anatomy of A Silent Crisis

The Anatomy of A Silent Crisis The Anatomy of A Silent Crisis

The Anatomy of A Silent Crisis The Anatomy of A Silent Crisis

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Notes on report methodolog<br />

<strong>The</strong> PAGE 2002 model is based on a top-down approach with the following key components:<br />

• It relies on aggregate data on population and on economic growth for 8 regions in the world.<br />

• <strong>The</strong> basic inputs include emissions policy, adaptation and mitigation scenarios.<br />

• <strong>The</strong>re is not a break-down per economic sector: <strong>The</strong> model does not give results for water or<br />

agriculture or other independent sectors.<br />

• Impact in the model is the sum <strong>of</strong> three components: Economic loss, non-economic loss and cost<br />

<strong>of</strong> discontinuous events (i.e. tipping point events).<br />

Key indicators<br />

• Economic losses — i.e. benefits minus costs <strong>of</strong> climate change.<br />

• Social cost <strong>of</strong> carbon — i.e. the monetary indicator <strong>of</strong> the global damage done over time by the<br />

emission <strong>of</strong> one extra ton <strong>of</strong> carbon today.<br />

• Reduced growth rate — i.e. how much lower is GDP growth because <strong>of</strong> climate change.<br />

Assumptions defined under expert guidance<br />

For the purpose <strong>of</strong> the estimates for the Human Impact Report, a number <strong>of</strong> assumptions<br />

have been updated to reflect recent research findings. <strong>The</strong> original model dates back to 2002. <strong>The</strong><br />

updating <strong>of</strong> assumptions has been carried out under the guidance <strong>of</strong> the expert who is in charge <strong>of</strong><br />

PAGE 2002. <strong>The</strong> key assumptions include:<br />

• Discount rate increased to [0, 0.75, 1.5] from a constant <strong>of</strong> 0.1 to lower discount impact (in line<br />

with recommendations by Pr<strong>of</strong>. Hope).<br />

• Increased equity weights to correct for income difference in developing countries. <strong>The</strong>refore<br />

changed marginal utility to [0.5;1.25;2] from a constant <strong>of</strong> 1 (in line with recommendations by<br />

Pr<strong>of</strong>. Hope, see Hepburn and Cameron).<br />

• Updated tipping point scenarios to account for more realistic values: Threshold lowered to<br />

[1;3;6] degrees (from [2;5;8]). Risk increased to [10;20;30] percent (from [1;10;20]), Loss<br />

lowered to [1;5;10] <strong>of</strong> GDP (from [5;10, 20]) (in line with recommendations by Lenton and other<br />

tipping point experts).<br />

• Assumed that no adaptation takes place before 2010 — changed value to 0 (in line with<br />

recommendations by Pr<strong>of</strong> Hope).<br />

• Weather-related disasters attributable to climate change are underrepresented in the model. We<br />

therefore changed the mean value <strong>of</strong> the impact <strong>of</strong> a 2.5 degree increase in temperature from 1.3<br />

percent <strong>of</strong> GDP to 2.53 percent <strong>of</strong> GDP and set the Min value at 0.5 percent <strong>of</strong> GDP and the max at<br />

2.53 percent. (Based on experts indications that the Min value was too low, and that extreme events<br />

were underrepresented in the model, found no indication that the Max value in the model was too<br />

high). See calculation below.<br />

91

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!