dc.contributor.author | Nesje, F | |
dc.contributor.author | Drupp, MA | |
dc.contributor.author | Freeman, MC | |
dc.contributor.author | Groom, B | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2023-08-16T09:21:11Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2023-05-25 | |
dc.date.updated | 2023-08-16T08:50:30Z | |
dc.description.abstract | The 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.sponsorship | Norwegian Research Council | en_GB |
dc.description.sponsorship | European Research Council (ERC) | en_GB |
dc.description.sponsorship | Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) | en_GB |
dc.format.extent | 515-522 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Vol. 13, No. 6, pp. 515-522 | en_GB |
dc.identifier.doi | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-023-01681-w | |
dc.identifier.grantnumber | 209698 | en_GB |
dc.identifier.grantnumber | 678049 | en_GB |
dc.identifier.grantnumber | 390683824 | en_GB |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10871/133786 | |
dc.identifier | ORCID: 0000-0003-0729-143X (Groom, Ben) | |
dc.language.iso | en | en_GB |
dc.publisher | Nature Research | en_GB |
dc.relation.url | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7920803 | en_GB |
dc.rights.embargoreason | Under embargo until 25 November 2023 in compliance with publisher policy | en_GB |
dc.rights | © 2023, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited | en_GB |
dc.subject | Climate-change mitigation | en_GB |
dc.subject | Ethics | en_GB |
dc.title | Philosophers and economists agree on climate policy paths but for different reasons | en_GB |
dc.type | Article | en_GB |
dc.date.available | 2023-08-16T09:21:11Z | |
dc.identifier.issn | 1758-678X | |
dc.description | This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Nature Research via the DOI in this record | en_GB |
dc.description | The 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.7920803 | en_GB |
dc.description | All 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.eissn | 1758-6798 | |
dc.identifier.journal | Nature Climate Change | en_GB |
dc.rights.uri | http://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved | en_GB |
dcterms.dateAccepted | 2023-04-24 | |
rioxxterms.version | AM | en_GB |
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate | 2023-05-25 | |
rioxxterms.type | Journal Article/Review | en_GB |
refterms.dateFCD | 2023-08-16T09:09:44Z | |
refterms.versionFCD | AM | |
refterms.panel | C | en_GB |
refterms.dateFirstOnline | 2023-05-25 | |