Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorNesje, F
dc.contributor.authorDrupp, MA
dc.contributor.authorFreeman, MC
dc.contributor.authorGroom, B
dc.date.accessioned2023-08-16T09:21:11Z
dc.date.issued2023-05-25
dc.date.updated2023-08-16T08:50:30Z
dc.description.abstractThe estimated value to society from climate change mitigation is highly sensitive to the long-term social discount rate. Governmental discounting guidance has almost exclusively been influenced by economists, although it is not clear that they possess any special expertise on intergenerational ethics. Here, by contrast, we report the views of philosophers, who are the most trained in ethical matters. We show that, as a group, these experts offer strong support for a real social discount rate of 2%, a value that is also predominantly backed by economists. We find multidisciplinary support for climate policy paths in line with the United Nations climate targets when views on discounting determinants are applied within a recent update of the DICE integrated assessment model. However, this apparent agreement hides important differences in views on how the ethics of intergenerational welfare can be better incorporated into climate policy evaluation.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipNorwegian Research Councilen_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipEuropean Research Council (ERC)en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG)en_GB
dc.format.extent515-522
dc.identifier.citationVol. 13, No. 6, pp. 515-522en_GB
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-023-01681-w
dc.identifier.grantnumber209698en_GB
dc.identifier.grantnumber678049en_GB
dc.identifier.grantnumber390683824en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/133786
dc.identifierORCID: 0000-0003-0729-143X (Groom, Ben)
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherNature Researchen_GB
dc.relation.urlhttps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7920803en_GB
dc.rights.embargoreasonUnder embargo until 25 November 2023 in compliance with publisher policyen_GB
dc.rights© 2023, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limiteden_GB
dc.subjectClimate-change mitigationen_GB
dc.subjectEthicsen_GB
dc.titlePhilosophers and economists agree on climate policy paths but for different reasonsen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2023-08-16T09:21:11Z
dc.identifier.issn1758-678X
dc.descriptionThis is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Nature Research via the DOI in this record en_GB
dc.descriptionThe data that support the plots in this paper and other findings of this study are available at the following repository: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7920803en_GB
dc.descriptionAll code used to produce the analysis is available at the following repository: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7920803. The details of implementation can be found in Methods.en_GB
dc.identifier.eissn1758-6798
dc.identifier.journalNature Climate Changeen_GB
dc.rights.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserveden_GB
dcterms.dateAccepted2023-04-24
rioxxterms.versionAMen_GB
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2023-05-25
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_GB
refterms.dateFCD2023-08-16T09:09:44Z
refterms.versionFCDAM
refterms.panelCen_GB
refterms.dateFirstOnline2023-05-25


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record