Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Risk management and climate change

This article has been updated


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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it


Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Estimated probability distributions for ECS (bottom axis) from various published studies collated by ref. 20, and corresponding concentrations of CO2 (top axis) consistent with a long-term CO2-induced warming Tmax of 2 °C (ref. 30), given by the expression C2k = Cpreindustrial exp(ln(2)Tmax/ECS).

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.


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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Yohe, G., Andronova, N. & Schlesinger, M. To hedge or not against an uncertain climate, Science 306, 415–417 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Piani, C., Frame, D. J., Stainforth, D. A. & Allen, M. R. Constraints on climate change from a multi-thousand member ensemble of simulations. Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L23825 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Shiogama, H. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Fisher, A. C. & Narain, U. Global warming, endogenous risk and irreversibility. Environ. Resour. Econ. 25, 395–416 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Heal, G. & Kristrom, B. Uncertainty and climate change. Environ. Resour. Econ. 22, 3–39 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

  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. Kunreuther, H., Pauly, M. & McMorrow, S. Insurance and Behavioral Economics: Improving Decisions in the Most Misunderstood Industry (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kunreuther, H., Meszaros, J., Hogarth, R. M. & Spranca, M. Ambiguity and underwriter decision processes. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 26, 337–352 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Cabantous, L., Hilton, D., Kunreuther, H. & Michel-Kerjan, E. Is imprecise knowledge better than conflicting expertise? Evidence from insurers' decisions in the United States. J. Risk Uncertainty 42, 211–232 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Millner, A., Dietz, S. & Heal, G. Ambiguity and Climate Policy Working Paper No. 16050 (NBER, 2010).

  22. Allen, M. R. & Frame, D. J. Call off the quest. Science, 318, 582–583 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

  24. Klibanoff, P., Marinacci, M. & Mukerji, S. A smooth model of decision making under ambiguity. Econometrica 73, 1849–1892 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Lempert, R. J., Groves, D. G., Popper, S. W. & Bankes, S. C. A general, analytic method for generating robust strategies and narrative scenarios. Manage. Sci. 52, 514–528 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 


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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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


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

Authors and Affiliations



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.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Howard Kunreuther.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kunreuther, H., Heal, G., Allen, M. et al. Risk management and climate change. Nature Clim Change 3, 447–450 (2013).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing