Variability is one of the most salient features of the earth's climate, yet quantitative policy studies have generally ignored the impact of variability on society's best choice of climate-change policy. This omission is troubling because an adaptive emissions-reduction strategy that adjusts abatement rates over time based on observations of damages and abatement costs should perform much better than static, best-estimate policies. However, climate variability can strongly affect the success of such a strategy by masking adverse trends or fooling society into taking too strong an action. This study compares the performance of a wide variety of greenhouse-gas-abatement strategies against a broad range of plausible climate-change scenarios. The authors find that (1) adaptive strategies remain preferable to static, best-estimate policies, even with high levels of climate variability; (2) the most robust strategies adjust future emissions reduction rates on the basis of small changes in observed abatement costs but only for large changes in observed damages; and (3) information about the size of the variability is about a third to an eighth as valuable as information determining the value of the key parameters that represent the long-term, future climate-change state of the world.
Originally published in: Climatic Change, v. 45, no. 1, April 2000, pp. 129-161.
This report is part of the RAND Corporation Reprint series. The Reprint was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1992 to 2011 that represented previously published journal articles, book chapters, and reports with the permission of the publisher. RAND reprints were formally reviewed in accordance with the publisher's editorial policy and compliant with RAND's rigorous quality assurance standards for quality and objectivity. For select current RAND journal articles, see External Publications.
Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit www.rand.org/about/research-integrity.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.