Hogan, W. W. & Jorgenson, D. W. Productivity trends and the cost of reducing CO2 emissions. Energy J. 12, 67–85 (1991). Now, that future could be in jeopardy as President Donald Trump prepares to pull the U.S. out of the deal — a move he can only legally take after the next presidential election — as part of a broader effort to dismantle decades-old U.S.
environmental policies. Fortunately, instead of giving up the fight, leaders of cities, states, businesses, and citizens across the country and around the world are stepping up their efforts to advance the clean energy advances needed to meet the goals of the agreement and curb dangerous climate change — with or without the Trump administration. Based on DJO`s estimation method, Lemoine and Kapnick7 develop probability distributions for the regional economic impacts of future climate change by combining distributions for the historical temperature-growth association with the results of SSP25 and global climate models. Like Moore and Diaz47, they apply their estimates to DICE-2013 through an explicit TFP growth reduction model. The climate impact function φ(t) is not synonymous with damage functions commonly used in IAT. These damage functions typically describe reductions in GDP levels, which can be perceived as a reduction in the productivity of labor and capital. This is evident in the expansion of the standard Cobb-Douglas production function to include temperature-sensitive labour productivity (A^{mathrm{L}}left( {T^{{mathrm{ATM}}}left( t right)} right)) and temperature-sensitive capital productivity (A^{mathrm{K}}left( {T^{{mathrm{ATM}}}left( t right)} right)) as follows:6 In 1992, President George H.W. Bush joined 107 other heads of state at the Earth Summit in Rio, Brazil, to adopt a series of environmental agreements. including the UNFCCC framework, which is still in force today.
The international treaty aims to prevent dangerous human interference in Earth`s climate systems in the long term. The Pact does not set greenhouse gas emission limits for each country and does not include enforcement mechanisms, but rather creates a framework for international negotiations on future agreements or protocols to set binding emission targets. Participating countries meet annually at a Conference of the Parties (COP) to assess their progress and continue discussions on how best to tackle climate change. In DICE, these narratives are reflected in changes in population size, TFP, carbon intensity, mitigation costs, and capital elasticity that describe the distribution of income between capital and labor. Here, we limit our sensitivity study to a selected set of SSPs, namely SSP1 (Sustainability – Taking the Green Road), SSP2 (Middle of the Road) and SSP5 (Fossil Fuelled Development), in order to get a good idea of how alternative emission reduction challenges affect cost-benefit optimal outcomes. We ignore SSP3 (Regional Rivalry) and SSP4 (Inequality) because we believe that the problems caused by the increasing regional fragmentation described and the resulting barriers to adaptation deserve more explicit modelling than is currently the case in DICE. .
