Do we need a zero pure time preference or the risk of climate catastrophes to justify a 2C global warming target ?

This paper confronts the wide political support for the 2C objective of global increase in temperature, reaffirmed in Copenhagen, with the consistent set of hypotheses on which it relies. It explains why neither an almost zero pure time preference nor concerns about catastrophic damages in case of uncontrolled global warming are prerequisites for policy decisions preserving the possibility of meeting a 2C target. It rests on an optimal stochastic control model balancing the costs and benefits of climate policies resolved sequentially in order to account for the arrival of new information (the RESPONSE model). This model describes the optimal abatement pathways for 2,304 worldviews, combining hypotheses about growth rates, baseline emissions, abatement costs, pure time preference, damages, and climate sensitivity. It shows that 26 percent of the worldviews selecting the 2C target are not characterized by one of the extreme assumptions about pure time preference or climate change damages.Climate Change Mitigation and Green House Gases,Climate Change Economics,Science of Climate Change,Global Environment Facility,Environment and Energy Efficiency

Estudio experimental de procesos de calentamiento y enfriamiento. Resultados e implicaciones didácticas

A detailed experimental study on different processes of heating and cooling allows to deduce that temperature variation, in these processes, in the course of time is not always the same, but it depends, to a great extent, on how the process is carried out. So to confuse the T-Q relations (always lineal) wirth T-t relations (dependent on the process) is a mistake that is necessary to avoid in our classes

Technological Change in Economic Models of Environmental Policy: A Survey

This paper provides an overview of the treatment of technological change in economic models of environmental policy. Numerous economic modeling studies have confirmed the sensitivity of mid- and long-run climate change mitigation cost and benefit projections to assumptions about technology costs. In general, technical progress is considered to be a noneconomic, exogenous variable in global climate change modeling. However, there is overwhelming evidence that technological change is not an exogenous variable but to an important degree endogenous, induced by needs and pressures. Hence, some environmenteconomy models treat technological change as endogenous, responding to socio-economic variables. Three main elements in models of technological innovation are: (i) corporate investment in research and development, (ii) spillovers from R&D, and (iii) technology learning, especially learning-by-doing. The incorporation of induced technological change in different types of environmental-economic models tends to reduce the costs of environmental policy, accelerates abatement and may lead to positive spillover and negative leakage