DOCSLIB.ORG

Social Cost of Carbon: a Closer Look at Uncertainty

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Social Cost of Carbon: a Closer Look at Uncertainty SEI Oxford Office 266 Banbury Road, Suite 193 Oxford OX2 7DL Tel: 01865 426316 Fax: 01865 421898 [email protected] Social Cost of Carbon: A Closer Look at Uncertainty Final project report November 2005 Final revision August 2005 Authors Thomas E Downing Stockholm Environment Institute, Oxford Office David Anthoff Environmental Change Institute, Oxford Ruth Butterfield Stockholm Environment Institute Megan Ceronsky Environmental Change Institute, Oxford Michael Grubb Imperial College Jiehan Guo Environmental Change Institute, Oxford Cameron Hepburn University of Oxford Chris Hope University of Cambridge Alistair Hunt Metroeconomica, Bath Ada Li Environmental Change Institute, Oxford Anil Markandya Metroeconomica, Bath Scott Moss Centre for Policy Modelling, MMU Anthony Nyong University of Jos Richard S.J. Tol University of Hamburg Paul Watkiss AEA Technology Environment Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Nobel House 17 Smith Square London SW1P 3JR Telephone 020 7238 6000 Website: www.defra.gov.uk © Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2005 This document/publication is value added. If you wish to re-use, please apply for a Click-Use Licence for value added material at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/system/online/pLogin.asp. Alternatively applications can be sent to: Office of Public Sector Information Information Policy Team St Clements House 2-16 Colegate Norwich NR3 1BQ Fax: 01603 723000 e-mail: [email protected] Information about this publication and further copies are available from: Environment Policy Economics Defra Ashdown House 123 Victoria Street London SW1E 6DE Tel: 020 7082 8593 This document is also available on the Defra website. Published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Social Cost of Carbon: A Closer Look at Uncertainty Page iii November 2005 Social Cost of Carbon: A Closer Look at Uncertainty Uncertainty is inherent in estimates of the social cost of carbon (SCC). The UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) initiated this research to evaluate the sources of uncertainties, plausible ranges of estimates of the SCC and areas for further research and assessment. The analytical framework for the project is a risk assessment that brings together elements of uncertainty in climate change and its impacts with uncertainties in economic valuation; both are related to the context of decision making. This review of uncertainty in estimates of the social cost of carbon is summarised in key messages: Understanding of the social cost of carbon: • Our understanding of future climatic risks, spanning trends and surprises in the climate system, exposure to impacts, and adaptive capacity, is improving, but knowledge of the costs of climate change impacts is still poor. • The lack of adequate sectoral studies and understanding of local to regional interactions precludes establishing a central estimate of the social cost of carbon with any confidence. • The balance of benefits and damages in the social cost of carbon shifts markedly over time, with net damages increasing in later time periods. Estimates of the SCC are particularly sensitive to the choice of discount rates and the temporal profile of net damages • Vulnerability and adaptation to climate change impacts are dynamic processes responding to climatic signals, multiple stresses, and interactions among actors. Large scale impacts, such as migration, can be triggered by relatively modest climate changes in vulnerable regions. Uncertainty and risk: • Climate uncertainties and the climate sensitivity are key factors in larger estimates of the social cost of carbon. • Uncertainties in coverage, sectoral assessments and regional processes are likely to be significant, but are difficult to judge without further model development and inter-model comparison. • Decision variables such as the discount rate and equity weighting also are extremely important. The range of estimates of the social cost of carbon: • Estimates of the social cost of carbon span at least three orders of magnitude, from 0 to over 1000 £/tC, reflecting uncertainties in climate and impacts, coverage of sectors and extremes, and choices of decision variables. • A lower benchmark of 35 £/tC is reasonable for a global decision context committed to reducing the threat of dangerous climate change and includes a modest level of aversion to extreme risks, relatively low discount rates and equity weighting. • An upper benchmark of the SCC for global policy contexts is more difficult to deduce from the present state-of-the-art, but the risk of higher values for the social cost of carbon is significant. Uncertainty in the social cost of Discount rates, Equity weighting, risk ambiguity carbon: lines of evidence. Significant improvement in Meta-analysis of estimates of the SCC will require literature Expert well validated assessments at the knowledge Fund & Page regional scale of the dynamic elicitation processes of vulnerability and adaptation. Partnerships among researchers and stakeholders in Climate change Climate change Catastrophic Regional developing countries are essential. changes model Decision Framework Economic valuation Social Cost of Carbon: A Closer Look at Uncertainty Page iv November 2005 Social Cost of Carbon: A Closer Look at Uncertainty Page v November 2005 Contents 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 2 A methodology based on risk assessment ....................................................................................... 5 3 Understanding the social cost of carbon........................................................................................ 11 4 Uncertainty and risk ...................................................................................................................... 27 5 The range of estimates................................................................................................................... 33 6 Further research and next steps ..................................................................................................... 37 7 Conclusion..................................................................................................................................... 41 8 References and bibliography ......................................................................................................... 43 Annex: Description of integrated assessment models FUND and PAGE ............................................. 53 Annex: Sensitivity of the SCC to extreme events, equity weighting, discounting, and risk and ambiguity aversion ................................................................................................................................ 65 Annex: Understanding uncertainty through expert knowledge............................................................. 71 Annex: Regional studies of dynamic and multiple stresses .................................................................. 79 Social Cost of Carbon: A Closer Look at Uncertainty Page vi November 2005 Tables Table 1. Objectives and achievements of the scoping uncertainty project............................................. 2 Table 2. Measures of central tendency.................................................................................................. 10 Table 3. Locating the literature in a risk assessment framework ......................................................... 13 Table 4. Distribution of the SCC from a meta-analysis of the literature, GBP2000/tC ........................ 15 Table 5. Sensitivity of FUND estimates for different climate sensitivities.......................................... 29 Table 6. Summary of the probability that the SCC exceeds a given threshold in FUND .................... 34 Table 7. Summary of FUND results, GBP2000 /tC reference, averages and standard deviation ......... 34 Table 8. Selected estimates of the SCC from experts for a range of scenarios, £/tC ........................... 34 Table 9. Key messages .......................................................................................................................... 42 Figures Figure 1. An iterative framework for setting climate policy ................................................................... 3 Figure 2: Schematic mapping of multiple lines of evidence in understanding uncertainty in the social cost of carbon. ......................................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 3. A risk assessment framework ................................................................................................. 6 Figure 4. Expert confidence in estimates of the social cost of carbon for three groups of experts based on their overall expectation of the SCC ................................................................................................ 13 Figure 5. The composite cumulative density function of the marginal social cost of carbon. .............. 16 Figure 6. Probability distributions from FUND .................................................................................... 17 Figure 7. Distribution of the total climate damages ($2000) for the A2 reference scenario from the PAGE model ......................................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 8. Comparison of distributions of estimates
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Social Costs of Carbon (SCC) Review –
    The Social Cost of Carbon The Social Costs of Carbon (SCC) Review – Methodological Approaches for Using SCC Estimates in Policy Assessment Final Report December 2005 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Nobel House 17 Smith Square London SW1P 3JR Telephone 020 7238 6000 Website: www.defra.gov.uk © Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2006 This document/publication is value added. If you wish to re-use, please apply for a Click-Use Licence for value added material at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/system/online/pLogin.asp. Alternatively applications can be sent to: Office of Public Sector Information Information Policy Team St Clements House 2-16 Colegate Norwich NR3 1BQ Fax: 01603 723000 e-mail: [email protected] Information about this publication and further copies are available from: Environment Policy Economics Defra Ashdown House 123 Victoria Street London SW1E 6DE Tel: 020 7082 8593 This document is also available on the Defra website. Published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Research on behalf of Defra With support from: DfID (Department for International Development) DfT (Department for Transport) DTI (Department of Trade and Industry) OfGEM (The Office of Gas and Electricity Markets) The Scottish Executive Welsh Assembly Government by AEA Technology Environment, Stockholm Environment Institute (Oxford Office), Metroeconomica, University of Hamburg, Judge Institute of Management - University of Cambridge and the University of Oxford Authors: Paul Watkiss with contributions from David Anthoff, Tom Downing, Cameron Hepburn, Chris Hope, Alistair Hunt, and Richard Tol. Contact Details: Paul Watkiss AEA Technology Environment UK Telephone +44 (0)870-190-6592 [email protected] Social Costs Carbon Review - Using Estimates in Policy Assessment – Final Report Executive Summary The effects of global climate change from greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) are diverse and potentially very large.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Comments As Part of the Ongoing Interagency Process.” 2010 TSD, Supra Note 4, at 3
    February 26, 2014 Ms. Mabel Echols Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Office of Management and Budget New Executive Office Building, Room 10202 725 17th Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20503 Via electronic submission and e-mail Attn: Docket ID No. OMB-2013-0007, Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order No. 12,866. Comments submitted by: Environmental Defense Fund, Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Union of Concerned Scientists. Our organizations respectfully submit these comments regarding the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) request for comments on the Technical Support Document entitled Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order No. 12,866. We strongly affirm that the current Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) values are sufficiently robust and accurate to continue to be the basis for regulatory analysis going forward. As demonstrated below, if anything, current values are significant underestimates of the SCC. As economic and scientific research continues to develop in the future, the value should be revised, and we also offer recommendations for that future revision. Our comments are summarized in five sections: 1. Introduction: The SCC is an important policy tool. 2. The Interagency Working Group’s (IWG) analytic process was science-based, open, and transparent. 3. The SCC is an important and accepted tool for regulatory policy-making, based on well- established law and fundamental economics. 4. Recommendations on further refinements to the SCC.
    [Show full text]
  • The Political Economy of State-Level Social Cost of Carbon Policy
    The Political Economy of State-Level Social Cost of Carbon Policy Will Macheel* Applied Economics, B.S. University of Minnesota – Twin Cities [email protected] *Submitted under the faculty supervision of Professor Jay Coggins, Professor Pamela J. Smith, and Professor C. Ford Runge to the University Honors Program at the University of Minnesota – Twin Cities, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Bachelor of Science in Applied Economics, summa cum laude. MINNESOTA ECONOMIC ASSOCIATION 2020 Undergraduate Paper Competition Faculty Sponsor for Will Macheel: Dr. Pamela J. Smith Department of Applied Economics University of Minnesota 612-625-1712 [email protected] May 26, 2020 1 Table of Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................. 2 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 3 Review of the Interagency Working Group’s Social Cost of Carbon ............................................................... 3 How Are States Valuing Climate Damages? .................................................................................................. 5 State SCC Policy Profiles .............................................................................................................................. 8 Why Have Certain States Adopted the SCC in Energy Policy? ..................................................................... 13 Methodology .......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing the Costs and Benefits of the Green New Deal's Energy Policies
    BACKGROUNDER No. 3427 | JULY 24, 2019 CENTER FOR DATA ANALYSIS Assessing the Costs and Benefits of the Green New Deal’s Energy Policies Kevin D. Dayaratna, PhD, and Nicolas D. Loris n February 7, 2019, Representative Alexan- KEY TAKEAWAYS dria Ocasio-Cortez (D–NY) and Senator Ed The Green New Deal’s govern- OMarkey (D–MA) released their plan for a ment-managed energy plan poses the Green New Deal in a non-binding resolution. Two of risk of expansive, disastrous damage the main goals of the Green New Deal are to achieve to the economy—hitting working global reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions of 40 Americans the hardest. percent to 60 percent (from 2010 levels) by 2030, and net-zero emissions worldwide by 2050. The Green Under the most modest estimates, just New Deal’s emission-reduction targets are meant to one part of this new deal costs an average keep global temperatures 1.5 degrees Celsius above family $165,000 and wipes out 5.2 million pre-industrial levels.1 jobs with negligible climate benefit. In what the resolution calls a “10-year national mobilization,” the policy proposes monumental Removing government-imposed bar- changes to America’s electricity, transportation, riers to energy innovation would foster manufacturing, and agricultural sectors. The resolu- a stronger economy and, in turn, a tion calls for sweeping changes to America’s economy cleaner environment. to reduce emissions, but is devoid of specific details as to how to do so. Although the Green New Deal This paper, in its entirety, can be found at http://report.heritage.org/bg3427 The Heritage Foundation | 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE | Washington, DC 20002 | (202) 546-4400 | heritage.org Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before Congress.
    [Show full text]
  • Flaws in the Social Cost of Carbon, the Social Cost of Methane, and the Social Cost of Nitrous Oxide
    1 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE • Washington DC 20002 • (202) 546-4400 • heritage.org CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY ________________________________________________________________________ Flaws in the Social Cost of Carbon, the Social Cost of Methane, and the Social Cost of Nitrous Oxide Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources Committee on Natural Resources U.S. House of Representatives July 27, 2017 Nick Loris Herbert & Joyce Morgan Fellow The Heritage Foundation 2 My name is Nick Loris and I am the Herbert & Joyce Morgan Fellow at The Heritage Foundation. The views I express in this testimony are my own, and should not be construed as representing any official position of The Heritage Foundation. I would like to thank the House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources for the opportunity to address the Transparency and Honesty in Energy Regulations Act of 2017 (H.R. 3117). The legislation would prevent specific federal agencies from considering the social cost of carbon (SCC), methane, or nitrous oxide. H.R. 3117 is a step in the right direction for U.S. energy and climate policy. The Integrated Assessment Models used to justify the social cost of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are not credible for policymaking. The outputs change significantly with reasonable changes to the inputs. Congress and the Trump Administration should prohibit any agency from using estimates of the SCC in regulatory analysis and rulemaking. What Is the Social Cost of Carbon and How Is It Used? The SCC and other GHGs is the alleged external cost from emitting CO2, methane, and other GHG emissions into the atmosphere. The logic behind the calculation is that the emissions of GHGs impose a negative externality by causing climate change, inflicting societal harm on the United States and the rest of the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis ­ Under Executive Order 12866 ­
    Technical Support Document: ­ Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis ­ Under Executive Order 12866 ­ Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, United States Government With participation by Council of Economic Advisers Council on Environmental Quality Department of Agriculture Department of Commerce Department of Energy Department of the Interior Department of Transportation Department of the Treasury Environmental Protection Agency National Economic Council Office of Management and Budget Office of Science and Technology Policy August 2016 See Appendix B for Details on Revisions since May 2013 1 Preface The Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (formerly the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon) has a longstanding commitment to ensure that the social cost of carbon estimates continue to reflect the best available science and methodologies. Given this commitment and public comments on issues of a deeply technical nature received by the Office of Management and Budget and federal agencies, the Interagency Working Group is seeking independent expert advice on technical opportunities to update the social cost of carbon estimates. The Interagency Working Group asked the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in 2015 to review the latest research on modeling the economic aspects of climate change to inform future revisions to the social cost of carbon estimates presented in this technical support document. In January 2016, the Academies’ Committee on the Social Cost of Carbon issued an interim report that recommended against a near-term update to the social cost of carbon estimates, but included recommendations for enhancing the presentation and discussion of uncertainty around the current estimates.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive
    Technical Support Document: ­ Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis ­ Under Executive Order 12866 ­ Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government With participation by Council of Economic Advisers � Council on Environmental Quality � Department of Agriculture � Department of Commerce � Department of Energy � Department of Transportation � Environmental Protection Agency � National Economic Council � Office of Energy and Climate Change � Office of Management and Budget � Office of Science and Technology Policy � Department of the Treasury � February 2010 Executive Summary Under Executive Order 12866, agencies are required, to the extent permitted by law, “to assess both the costs and the benefits of the intended regulation and, recognizing that some costs and benefits are difficult to quantify, propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs.” The purpose of the “social cost of carbon” (SCC) estimates presented here is to allow agencies to incorporate the social benefits of reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions into cost-benefit analyses of regulatory actions that have small, or “marginal,” impacts on cumulative global emissions. The estimates are presented with an acknowledgement of the many uncertainties involved and with a clear understanding that they should be updated over time to reflect increasing knowledge of the science and economics of climate impacts. The SCC is an estimate of the monetized damages associated with an incremental increase in carbon emissions in a given year. It is intended to include (but is not limited to) changes in net agricultural productivity, human health, property damages from increased flood risk, and the value of ecosystem services due to climate change.
    [Show full text]
  • The Contingent Valuation Method: Retrospect and Prospect
    THE CONTINGENT VALUATION METHOD: RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT Clive L. Spash 2008-04 Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion CSIRO Working Paper Series April 2008 ISSN: 1834-5638 Further information: Clive Spash - www.clivespash.org Bev Rose - [email protected] CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems GPO Box 284, Canberra ACT 2601 Australia www.csiro.au © CSIRO 2007. All rights reserved. This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cwlth), no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Commonwealth. The Contingent Valuation Method: Retrospect and Prospect Clive L. Spash1 ABSTRACT This paper explores the contingent valuation method for environmental valuation. Issues are raised over the validity of the approach as a method of assessing the underlying preferences of individuals. An alternative interpretation is given to the method as a means of exploring underlying motivation in a rich vein of social psychological research. 1 CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, GPO Box 284, Canberra ACT 2601, Australia. C.L. Spash INTRODUCTION The contingent valuation method (CVM) is a controversial approach by which economists have attempted to place a value upon environmental changes. The basic method involves a questionnaire which asks a respondent their willingness to pay (WTP) for an environmental improvement or their willingness to accept (WTA) compensation for a loss or degradation of environmental assets or quality. The resulting stated preference is most commonly used as a mean value of the change and then aggregated across the relevant population and discounted for time. The original justification was the need to include the resulting monetary value as part of a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) to aid project appraisal.
    [Show full text]
  • The Basic-Surplus Structure of Economics in Ecological Economics March 29, 2020
    The Basic-Surplus Structure of Economics in Ecological Economics March 29, 2020. Terrance J. Quinn, Middle Tennessee State University Highlights Basic-surplus field equations provide intrinsic structure of the economics part of ecological economics Discoverable and verifiable in facts and data obtainable from actual businesses small and large, banking, local and international finance Reveals that the circular-flow model is not explanatory Reveals that the contemporary notion of economic growth – “volume” – is fundamentally flawed Provides an economic theory that normatively is in support of ecological and cultural sustainability Abstract In the context of ecological economics, this paper provides an introduction to some technical aspects of a so far largely unknown (and in that sense new) view of how economies function. No mere model, it is explanatory of instances. It is discovered and verified in data and facts from actual businesses small and large, communities and ecologies, actual production and provision, credit, profit, and activities in the financial sector. The new view is accessible and, at the same time, remarkably reaching in its implications and its potential for further development. Among other things, it becomes obvious that the circular-flow model is, at best, superficial description. Rather, in any economy, there are five functions and two mutually dependent flows, basic and surplus. Also evident is that that contemporary measures of “economic growth” - “volume” - are fundamentally flawed. What is possible, instead, is economic progress that intrinsically is in support of ecological and cultural sustainability. Along the way, and in the Appendix, I make note of various topics, elaboration of which cannot fit into this article.
    [Show full text]
  • The Vienna School of Ecological Economics Routledge Handbook of Ecological Economics: Nature and Society
    real-world economics review, issue no. 83 subscribe for free The Vienna school of ecological economics Routledge Handbook of Ecological Economics: Nature and Society. Routledge: London (2017) Clive Spash, editor 525pp. plus index; Hbk ISBN: 9781138931510 £165; eBook ISBN: 9781315679747 £35.99 Katharine N. Farrell [Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany; Universidad del Magdalena, Colombia; Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain] Copyright: Katharine N. Farrell 2018 You may post comments on this paper at https://rwer.wordpress.com/comments-on-rwer-issue-no-83/ Introduction Founded roughly 30 years ago, the transdisciplinary field of ecological economics is today slowly coming of age, making the publication of this forward-looking edited collection a timely contribution. Its content speaks to contemporary scientific and political discourses concerning the future of the planet earth and the place of human societies within that future. It provides an economics oriented reader with an overview of the basic concepts and issues addressed in this diverse field. Comprised of 50 short chapters, each providing a concise summary of a specific topic, the Routledge Handbook of Ecological Economics: Nature and Society is a good, if in places puzzling, general introduction to the social science and humanities strands of the field. Its broad scope and consistent focus on the future reflect a maturing of the field. The collection, which presents ecological economics as an alternative to neoclassical economics, is a complement to the range of more general and more conventional textbooks and handbooks already available and can serve as a helpful reference tool for teaching, theory and applied research. It is, above all, an excellent guide for those looking to move beyond conventional neoclassical economics approaches to environmental questions.
    [Show full text]
  • Degrowth: Necessary, Urgent and Good for You Kallis, G
    real-world economics review, issue no. 93 subscribe for free BOOK REVIEW: Degrowth: necessary, urgent and good for you Kallis, G. Paulson, S. D’Alisa G. and Demaria, F. (2020) The Case for Degrowth. Cambridge: Polity Press, 151pp. (ppk) ISBN-13: 978-1-5095-3563-7. $12.95. 1 Jamie Morgan [Leeds Beckett University Business School, UK] Copyright: Jamie Morgan, 2020 You may post comments on this paper at https://rwer.wordpress.com/comments-on-rwer-issue-no-93/ Introduction Some introductory context is required for the general reader to make sense of Kallis et al.’s important new book, The Case for Degrowth (Kallis et al., 2020). It is now widely recognized that we have entered a period of climate and ecological “emergency” leading to the existential possibility of “ecocide” (e.g. Ripple et al,. 2020; Lenton et al., 2020; Hansen et al., 2017; Steffen et al., 2018, 2015). Complacency and delay have been endemic (see Lamb et al., 2020; Oreskes and Conway, 2010). But it is also recognized that fundamental change is required in order to avert disaster (Spash, 2020a; Newall and Taylor, 2020; Fullbrook and Morgan, 2019; Gills and Morgan, 2020a). What we mean by “change”, however, has remained in dispute. If we dispense with nuance for the moment, there are broadly three positions, each of which blends into the next based on relative emphasis and matters of degree, albeit with some greater disjuncture for the third position with which this essay is chiefly concerned. First, there is the historically dominant position that has informed the majority of state discourses, COP negotiation and UNEP “line of least resistance” policy discussion over the past 30 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change: Answers to Common Questions
    Climate change: Answers to common questions Cameron Hepburn Moritz Schwarz December 2020 Oxford Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment Smith School of Enterprise and Institute for New Economic the Environment / Institute Thinking at the Oxford Martin for New Economic Thinking, School (INET Oxford) University of Oxford The Institute for New Economic Thinking The Smith School of Enterprise and the at the Oxford Martin School (INET Environment (SSEE) was established Oxford) is a multi­disciplinary research with a benefaction by the Smith family centre dedicated to applying leading­ in 2008 to tackle major environmental edge thinking from the social and challenges by bringing public and physical sciences to global economic private enterprise together with the Uni­ challenges. versity of Oxford’s world­leading INET Oxford has over 75 affili ated teaching and research. scholars from disciplines that include Research at the Smith School shapes economics, mathematics, computer business practices, gov ernment policy science, physics, biology, ecology, geo­ and strategies to achieve net­zero graphy, psychology, sociology, anthro­ emissions and sustainable development. pology, philosophy, history, political We offer innovative evidence­based science, public policy, business, and law solutions to the environmental challenges working on its various programmes. facing humanity over the coming INET Oxford is a research centre within decades. We apply expertise in eco­ the University of Oxford’s Martin nomics, finance, business and law School, a community of over 300 scholars to tackle environmental and social chal­ working on the major challenges of lenges in six areas: water, climate, the 21st century. It has partnerships energy, bio diversity, food and the cir­ with nine academic departments cular economy.
    [Show full text]