Perspective | Published:

Risk management and climate change

Nature Climate Change volume 3, pages 447450 (2013) | Download Citation

This article has been updated

Abstract

The selection of climate policies should be an exercise in risk management reflecting the many relevant sources of uncertainty. Studies of climate change and its impacts rarely yield consensus on the distribution of exposure, vulnerability or possible outcomes. Hence policy analysis cannot effectively evaluate alternatives using standard approaches, such as expected utility theory and benefit-cost analysis. This Perspective highlights the value of robust decision-making tools designed for situations such as evaluating climate policies, where consensus on probability distributions is not available and stakeholders differ in their degree of risk tolerance. A broader risk-management approach enables a range of possible outcomes to be examined, as well as the uncertainty surrounding their likelihoods.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Change history

  • 28 March 2013

    In the version of this Perspective originally published online, in the equation in the caption of Figure 1, '–ln(2)' should have read 'ln(2)'. This error has now been corrected in all versions of the Perspective.

References

  1. 1.

    What is 'dangerous' climate change? Nature 411, 17–19 (2001).

  2. 2.

    On modeling and interpreting the economics of catastrophic climate change. Rev. Econ. Stat. 91 1–19 (2009).

  3. 3.

    High impact, low probability? An empirical analysis of risk in the economics of climate change. Climatic Change 103 519–541 (2011).

  4. 4.

    , & To hedge or not against an uncertain climate, Science 306, 415–417 (2004).

  5. 5.

    , , & Constraints on climate change from a multi-thousand member ensemble of simulations. Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L23825 (2005).

  6. 6.

    et al. Broad range of 2050 warming from an observationally constrained large climate model ensemble. Nature Geosci. 5, 256–260 (2012).

  7. 7.

    et al. Perturbed physics ensemble using the MIROC5 coupled atmosphere–ocean GCM without flux corrections: Experimental design and results. Clim. Dynam. 39, 3041–3056 (2012).

  8. 8.

    et al. Reliability of multi-model and structurally different single-model ensembles. Clim. Dynam. 39, 599–616 (2012).

  9. 9.

    Fundamental irreversibilities in stock externalities. J. Public Econ. 60, 221–233 (1996).

  10. 10.

    & Global warming, endogenous risk and irreversibility. Environ. Resour. Econ. 25, 395–416 (2003).

  11. 11.

    & Uncertainty and climate change. Environ. Resour. Econ. 22, 3–39 (2002).

  12. 12.

    & Evaluation, characterization, and communication of uncertainty by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—An introductory essay. Climatic Change 108, 629–639 (2011).

  13. 13.

    IPCC Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report (eds Pachauri, R. K. & Reisinger, A.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2012).

  14. 14.

    IPCC Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (eds Field, C. B. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2012).

  15. 15.

    , & Insurance and Behavioral Economics: Improving Decisions in the Most Misunderstood Industry (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

  16. 16.

    Safety first and the holding of assets. Econometrica 20, 431–450 (1952).

  17. 17.

    Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. Q. J. Econ. 75, 643–669 (1961).

  18. 18.

    , , & Ambiguity and underwriter decision processes. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 26, 337–352 (1995).

  19. 19.

    , , & Is imprecise knowledge better than conflicting expertise? Evidence from insurers' decisions in the United States. J. Risk Uncertainty 42, 211–232 (2011).

  20. 20.

    et al. Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 °C. Nature 458, 1158–1162 (2009).

  21. 21.

    , & Ambiguity and Climate Policy Working Paper No. 16050 (NBER, 2010).

  22. 22.

    & Call off the quest. Science, 318, 582–583 (2007).

  23. 23.

    Theories of Decision under Uncertainty (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2009).

  24. 24.

    , & A smooth model of decision making under ambiguity. Econometrica 73, 1849–1892 (2005).

  25. 25.

    The theory of statistical decision. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 46, 55–67 (1951).

  26. 26.

    Note on the consistency of the maximum likelihood estimate. Ann. Math. Stat. 20, 595–601 (1949).

  27. 27.

    , , & A general, analytic method for generating robust strategies and narrative scenarios. Manage. Sci. 52, 514–528 (2006).

  28. 28.

  29. 29.

    et al. Robust climate policies under uncertainty: A comparison of Info-Gap and RDM methods. Risk Anal. 32, 1657–1672 (2012).

  30. 30.

    Report of the Conference of the Parties on its sixteenth session, held in Cancun from 29 November to 10 December 2010 (UNFCCC, 2011).

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Linus Mattauch for research assistance and to Malte Meinshausen for the data used in Fig. 1. Simon Dietz, Kristie Ebi, Christian Gollier, Robin Gregory, Benjamin Horton, Elmar Kriegler, Katharine Mach, Michael Mastrandrea, Anthony Millner, Michael Oppenheimer and Christian Träger provided comments on earlier versions of the paper. Partial support for this research came from the Wharton Risk Management and Decision Processes Center's Extreme Events project, the National Science Foundation (SES-1062039 and 1048716), the Travelers Foundation, the Center for Climate and Energy Decision Making (NSF Cooperative Agreement SES-0949710 with Carnegie Mellon University), the Center for Research on Environmental Decisions (CRED; NSF Cooperative Agreement SES-0345840 to Columbia University) and CREATE at the University of Southern California.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. 3730 Walnut Street, Room 563 Huntsman Hall, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104-6340, USA

    • Howard Kunreuther
  2. Columbia Business School, 3022 Broadway, New York 10027, USA

    • Geoffrey Heal
  3. School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK

    • Myles Allen
  4. Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, PO Box 601203, D-14412 Potsdam, Germany

    • Ottmar Edenhofer
  5. Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change, Torgauer Straße 12–15, D-10829 Berlin, Germany

    • Ottmar Edenhofer
  6. Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution for Science, 260 Panama Street, Stanford, California 94305, USA

    • Christopher B. Field
  7. Wesleyan University, 238 Church Street, Middletown, Connecticut 06459, USA

    • Gary Yohe

Authors

  1. Search for Howard Kunreuther in:

  2. Search for Geoffrey Heal in:

  3. Search for Myles Allen in:

  4. Search for Ottmar Edenhofer in:

  5. Search for Christopher B. Field in:

  6. Search for Gary Yohe in:

Contributions

H.K. and G.H. provided the conceptual framework for this Perspective. After sharing a preliminary draft with M.A., O.E. C.F. and G.Y., all authors contributed equally.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Howard Kunreuther.

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1740

Further reading