Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. 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.

Stochastic integrated assessment of climate tipping points indicates the need for strict climate policy

Abstract

Perhaps the most ‘dangerous’ aspect of future climate change is the possibility that human activities will push parts of the climate system past tipping points, leading to irreversible impacts1. The likelihood of such large-scale singular events2 is expected to increase with global warming1,2,3, but is fundamentally uncertain4. A key question is how should the uncertainty surrounding tipping events1,5 affect climate policy? We address this using a stochastic integrated assessment model6, based on the widely used deterministic DICE model7. The temperature-dependent likelihood of tipping is calibrated using expert opinions3, which we find to be internally consistent. The irreversible impacts of tipping events are assumed to accumulate steadily over time (rather than instantaneously8,9,10,11), consistent with scientific understanding1,5. Even with conservative assumptions about the rate and impacts of a stochastic tipping event, today’s optimal carbon tax is increased by 50%. For a plausibly rapid, high-impact tipping event, today’s optimal carbon tax is increased by >200%. The additional carbon tax to delay climate tipping grows at only about half the rate of the baseline carbon tax. This implies that the effective discount rate for the costs of stochastic climate tipping is much lower than the discount rate7,12,13 for deterministic climate damages. Our results support recent suggestions that the costs of carbon emission used to inform policy12,13 are being underestimated14,15,16, and that uncertain future climate damages should be discounted at a low rate17,18,19,20.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Schematic of the DSICE model.
Figure 2: Optimal carbon tax path.
Figure 3: Growth rates of carbon tax.
Figure 4: Sensitivity analysis.

References

  1. 1

    Lenton, T. M. et al. Tipping elements in the Earth’s climate system. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 1786–1793 (2008).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    IPCC Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (eds Field, C. B. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Kriegler, E., Hall, J. W., Held, H., Dawson, R. & Schellnhuber, H. J. Imprecise probability assessment of tipping points in the climate system. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 5041–5046 (2009).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Lenton, T. M. Early warning of climate tipping points. Nature Clim. Change 1, 201–209 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Lenton, T. M. & Ciscar, J-C. Integrating tipping points into climate impact assessments. Climatic Change 117, 585–597 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Cai, Y., Judd, K. L. & Lontzek, T. S. The Social Cost of Stochastic and Irreversible Climate Change (National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series No. 18704, NBER, 2013).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Nordhaus, W. D. A Question of Balance: Weighing the Options on Global Warming Policies (Yale Univ. Press, 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Mastrandrea, M. D. & Schneider, S. H. Integrated assessment of abrupt climatic changes. Clim. Policy 1, 433–449 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Kosugi, T. Integrated assessment for setting greenhouse gas emission targets under the condition of great uncertainty about the probability and impact of abrupt climate change. J. Environ. Inform. 14, 89–99 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Gjerde, J., Grepperud, S. & Kverndokk, S. Optimal climate policy under the possibility of a catastrophe. Resour. Energy Econ. 21, 289–317 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Castelnuovo, E., Moretto, M. & Vergalli, S. Global warming, uncertainty and endogenous technical change. Environ. Model. Assess. 8, 291–301 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis—Under Executive Order 12866 (United States Government, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis (United States Government, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Ackerman, F. & Stanton, E. A. Climate risks and carbon prices: Revising the social cost of carbon. Economics 6, 1–25 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Van den Bergh, J. C. J. M. & Botzen, W. J.W. A lower bound to the social cost of CO2 emissions. Nature Clim. Change 4, 253–258 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Revesz, R. L. et al. Improve economic models of climate change. Nature 508, 173–175 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Arrow, K. et al. Determining benefits and costs for future generations. Science 341, 349–350 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Barro, R. J. Rare disasters, asset prices, and welfare costs. Am. Econ. Rev. 99, 243–264 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Gollier, C. Pricing the Planet’s Future: The Economics of Discounting in an Uncertain World (Princeton Univ. Press, 2012).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Pindyck, R. S. & Wang, N. The economic and policy consequences of catastrophes. Am. Econ. J. 5, 306–339 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Stern, N. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Dasgupta, P. Commentary: The Stern Review’s economics of climate change. National Inst. Econ. Rev. 199, 4–7 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Nordhaus, W. D. A review of the Stern Review on the economics of climate change. J. Econ. Lit. 45, 686–702 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    Weitzman, M. L. A review of the Stern Review on the economics of climate change. J. Econ. Lit. 45, 703–724 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    Weitzman, M. L. GHG targets as insurance against catastrophic climate damages. J. Public Econ. Theory 14, 221–244 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26

    Ackerman, F., Stanton, E. A. & Bueno, R. Fat tails, exponents, extreme uncertainty: Simulating catastrophe in DICE. Ecol. Econ. 69, 1657–1665 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27

    Lemoine, D. & Traeger, C. Watch your step: Optimal policy in a tipping climate. Am. Econ. J. 6, 137–166 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28

    Nordhaus, W. The Climate Casino: Risk, Uncertainty, and Economics for a Warming World (Yale Univ. Press, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29

    Nordhaus, W. D. An Analysis of the Dismal Theorem (Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale Univ., 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30

    McCollum, D. et al. Climate policies can help resolve energy security and air pollution challenges. Climatic Change 119, 479–494 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank K. Arrow, B. Brock, L. Goulder and participants of the 2014 Workshop on the Economics of Complex Systems at the Beijer Institute of Ecological Economics for comments. Y.C., K.L.J. and T.S.L. were supported by NSF (SES-0951576). T.S.L. was also supported by the Züricher Universitätsverein, the University of Zurich and the Ecosciencia Foundation. T.M.L. was supported by a Royal Society Wolfson Research Merit Award and the European Commission (ENV.2013.6.1-3) HELIX Project. Part of this study was done while T.S.L. was visiting the Hoover Institution. Supercomputer support was provided by Blue Waters (NSF awards OCI-0725070 and ACI-1238993, and the state of Illinois) and by NIH (1S10OD018495-01).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Y.C., K.L.J. and T.S.L. developed the model with input from T.M.L. Y.C. and K.L.J. developed the computational method and Y.C. developed the code. All authors analysed the results. T.S.L. and T.M.L. took the lead in writing the paper with inputs from Y.C. and K.L.J.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Thomas S. Lontzek or Timothy M. Lenton.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lontzek, T., Cai, Y., Judd, K. et al. Stochastic integrated assessment of climate tipping points indicates the need for strict climate policy. Nature Clim Change 5, 441–444 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2570

Download citation

Further reading

Search

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