Content deleted Content added
m Removed erroneous space and general fixes (task 1) |
m Open access bot: doi added to citation with #oabot. |
||
Line 75:
The Nobel Foundation described Nordhaus's work as follows: "William Nordhaus’s findings deal with interactions between society, the economy and climate change. In the mid-1990s, he created a quantitative model that describes the global interplay between the economy and the climate. Nordhaus’s model is used to examine the consequences of climate policy interventions, for example carbon taxes." Additionally, the Nobel Prize announcement commented that Nordhaus had “significantly broadened the scope of economic analysis by constructing models that explain how the market economy interacts with nature."<ref>{{Cite web|title=The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2018|url=https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2018/nordhaus/facts/|access-date=2021-06-17|website=NobelPrize.org|language=en-US}}</ref> In an evaluation of the work, Lint Barrage summarizes its impact, stating that the "body of work also represents science at its best: integrative across disciplines, visionary in scope yet incremental in progress, transparent, and producing knowledge for the benefit of humankind."<ref>{{Cite web|title=The Scandinavian Journal of Economics|url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/14679442|access-date=2021-06-17|website=Wiley Online Library|doi=10.1111/(ISSN)1467-9442|language=en}}</ref>
Critics of Nordhaus's DICE model focus on several aspects. One of the most important, incorporating political and moral philosophy, is the use of discounting, with an early study by William Cline.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Cline|first=William|title=The economics of global warming|publisher=Institute for International Economics.|year=1992}}</ref> Another branch, represented by [[Robert Pindyck]], holds that integrated assessment models cannot capture the complexity of the climate-economy nexus.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Pindyck|first=Robert S.|date=May 2012|title=Uncertain outcomes and climate change policy|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2011.12.001|journal=Journal of Environmental Economics and Management|volume=63|issue=3|pages=289–303|doi=10.1016/j.jeem.2011.12.001|issn=0095-0696|hdl=1721.1/66946|hdl-access=free}}</ref> Nicholas Stern argued that the damage function does not capture many of the most important risks to society.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Stern|first=Nicholas|date=2008-04-01|title=The Economics of Climate Change|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.98.2.1|journal=American Economic Review|volume=98|issue=2|pages=1–37|doi=10.1257/aer.98.2.1|s2cid=59019533 |issn=0002-8282|doi-access=free}}</ref> A particularly important critique, developed by Martin Weitzman, is that the economy-climate system may have "fat tails" and therefore inadequately deal with low probability, high consequence outcomes.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Weitzman|first=Martin L.|date=2011-07-01|title=Fat-Tailed Uncertainty in the Economics of Catastrophic Climate Change|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/reep/rer006|journal=Review of Environmental Economics and Policy|volume=5|issue=2|pages=275–292|doi=10.1080/14747731.2020.1807856|s2cid=225300874|issn=1750-6816}}</ref>
Post-Keynesian economist [[Steve Keen]] criticises the economics of climate change generally and the 2018 work by Nordhaus in particular:
| |||