Nicholas Stern argues that today's integrated assessment models for quantifying the economic and societal impacts of climate change are inadequate (Nature 530, 407–409; 2016). We disagree with his view on the superiority of more complex models such as DSGE (dynamic stochastic computable general equilibrium) models, which purport to account for a larger class of uncertain future events.
In our view, DSGE models have proved to be ineffective for policymaking, even in simple, short-term settings of pure economics, by failing to anticipate the onset of the recent recession (see P. Mirowski Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste 275–286; Verso, 2013). Three decades of social-sciences research on science and politics make it clear that cost–benefit models cannot tame policy-relevant uncertainties or promote political agreement (see, for example, D. Collingridge and C. Reeve Science Speaks to Power 3–4, 59–60; Pinter, 1986).
Models that predict higher costs of climate change might make political intervention more palatable. But prescribing models that generate more precisely quantified estimates of a desired output is a political programme, not a scientific one. Responsible research requires responsible quantification and responsible acknowledgement of uncertainty.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Saltelli, A. Climate costing is politics not science. Nature 532, 177 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/532177a
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/532177a