Addressing climate change requires both quantitative analysis and ethical reasoning. But the character of many climate-related decisions — in particular deep uncertainty, competing values, and complex relationships among actions and consequences — can make it difficult to use the most common types of quantitative analysis to support appropriate ethical reasoning. This essay will describe Robust Decision Making (RDM), one of a new class of methods for quantitative analysis that can help resolve some of these difficulties, and situate RDM in the framework for ethical reasoning and deliberation laid out in Amartya Sen's Idea of Justice. Two example applications will illustrate these ideas: one examining how greenhouse gas mitigation policies might appropriately address the threat of abrupt climate change and the other addressing management of the Colorado River in the face of climate change and other changing conditions.
The research described in this report was prepared for the National Science Foundation by RAND Justice, Infrastructure, and Environment.
This report is part of the RAND Corporation working paper series. RAND working papers are intended to share researchers' latest findings and to solicit informal peer review. They have been approved for circulation by RAND but may not have been formally edited or peer reviewed.
Permission is given to duplicate this electronic document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes. Unauthorized posting of RAND PDFs to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND PDFs are protected under copyright law. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit the RAND Permissions page.
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.