1. HONR 229L: Climate Change: Science, Economics, and Governance
The Economics of Climate Change, Part I
Your name here
30 October 2018

2. As always, I suggest working the admission ticket questions into the presentation.
But you have plenty to choose from, especially since the admission ticket questions do not cover all aspects of the reading.
I suggest still working with the admission tickets, since most students will have thought of these questions just before class.
Please note both parts of the third AT question, while numerically involved, is meant to build a basis for discussion of item e)

3. Here is Q1 of AT 17:
William Nordhaus, recipient of the 2018 Nobel Prize in Economics, is quoted as stating the most damaging aspects of climate change lie well outside the conventional marketplace.
a) name the four specific areas of concern;
b) what other concerns does he add to this list?
I think a great way to handle this AT question would be to “do the usual” (i.e., show the question, then give the response) followed by a discussion of Table 1 and/or sea level rise.
Note the tables & figures of the reading are available on line at
Hence, I will not place any figures into this PPT.
But, the rendition of Table 1 on this PPT is a kind of “meh”. So, in the next slide, I include a screen shot of Table 1 with color. Then, I follow with a few additional slides, some new (top of slides 7 & 8) and some that have been shown before in class (all else), relating how much sea level would rise should all of Greenland or Antarctica collapse. I’ve included all of this info to provide context to the sea level rise statement on page 15 of the reading.

5. HONR 229L: Climate Change: Science, Economics, and Governance
Volume of Antarctic Ice Sheet 26.5  106 km3 and volume of cubic Greenland Ice Sheet 2.85  106 km3
&
Radius of Earth = 6371 km; Surface area of Earth = 510  106 km2
70% of earth, or 357  106 km2 is covered by water.
The complete collapse of Greenland would lead to sea-level rise of
2.85  106 km3 / 357  106 km2 = 8 meters according to these numbers.
Since more area would be covered by water following the collapse,
the actual rise in sea level is closer to 7 meters … or 23 feet

6. HONR 229L: Climate Change: Science, Economics, and Governance
Volume of Antarctic Ice Sheet 26.5  106 km3 and volume of cubic Greenland Ice Sheet 2.85  106 km3
&
Radius of Earth = 6371 km; Surface area of Earth = 510  106 km2
70% of earth, or 357  106 km2 is covered by water.
The complete collapse of Antarctica would lead to sea-level rise of
26.5  106 km3 / 357  106 km2 = 74 meters according to these numbers.
Since more area would be covered by water following the collapse,
the actual rise in sea level is closer to 70 meters … or 230 feet

7. Earth’s Climate History
Bottom figure was shown during the climate overview, second time we met. Horizontal lines on the CO2 chart depict 280 ppm (pre-industrial CO2), 400 ppm (close to current level), and 560 ppm (twice pre-industrial)
Fig 1.1, Salawitch et al., Paris Climate Agreement: Beacon of Hope, 2017

8. Earth’s Climate History
Today’s polar caps formed about 33.6 millions years ago,
Image on the top shows how the map of the world would change, if poles became ice-free. Since the polar caps started to form when CO2 dropped below about 650 ppm, it is reasonable to believe the stability of the polar caps would be severely threatened should CO2 increase beyond 600 (or so) ppm. The two production curves shown in Figure 15 of the reading both keep CO2 below 600 ppm. To meet the CO2 production curve of RCP 4.5, we need half of total energy to be produced by renewables in year For RCP 2.6 to be achieved, 93% of total energy must come from renewables in Yikes!
Fig 1.1, Salawitch et al., Paris Climate Agreement: Beacon of Hope, 2017

9. The new IPCC 1. 5 degree C Special Report, also known as IPCC 1
The new IPCC 1.5 degree C Special Report, also known as IPCC 1.5SR, has tried to fine tune climate impacts by distinguishing what would happen for 1.5°C warming compared to 2°C warming.
The Summary for Policy Makers of this report is at (no need to read the entire summary; just want you to know where it resides) and a key figure for climate impacts from the report is given on the next slide. Honestly, if you could work this IPCC 1.5SR figure into the discussion, would be great so that the material is connected to such a prominent new document.

11. You could walk the class through an understanding of the terms:
cost-benefit analysis
avoided costs
marginal abatement costs
and most importantly discount rate
in whatever way you see fit. For the discount rate, fine to use either Figure 14 or some other example.
At the end of the day, want to be sure students understand the basic terminology and how these are applied to the Economics of Climate Change. Of course, fine to work in Q2 of AT17:
The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, published in 2007, was extraordinarily influential. In fact, when announcing to class that William Nordhaus and Paul Romer had won the 2018 Nobel Prize in economics, I posited that perhaps Nicholas Stern should have shared the prize.
I have posted links to both the 4-page and 27-page executive summaries of this document in the auxiliary material column for Tuesday’s class. I hope everyone will be able to at least have a look at the 4-page PDF file prior to class: it’s only 4 pages and this was a watershed report!
This week's reading describes three differences between the Stern Review and earlier work of Nordhaus.
a) What are the three differences?
b) Pick one of these differences and explain why it is important for society to consider this issue, when deciding how to address climate change.
somewhere along the way.

12. Also, I have posted in auxiliary material both the 4 page and 27 page summaries of the Stern Review, as well as a National Geographic article that quotes Bob Watson. Fine to incorporate some of this material into the presentation, as your time and the 45 min discussion both allow. Please note Bob Watson appeared in the Ozone Hole movie and I am trying to get him to visit our class, for our screening of the Gore movie.
Here is Fig 3 from the 27-page Stern Review

13. The rather involved “Part 1” and “Part 2” of Q3 of AT17 is designed to make quantitative use of the material in this reading, in a thoughtful manner. As discussion lead, will be great if you could work through both Part 1 and Part 2 . If you are having any trouble with any parts, me and I’ll be happy to help.
Here is Part 1:
Page 24 of the reading states the predicted cost of stabilizing atmospheric CO2 at 450 ppm could range from a 3.4% decrease to a 3.9% increase in global gross domestic product (GDP). The caption of Figure 12 shows the trajectory that the annual emissions of CO2 would have to take, to stabilize CO2 at " ppm", which we'll take to be 450 ppm (this is close to 455 ppm, the average of 430 & 480 ppm).
Based on the black line of the figure shown at
a) What is the abundance of atmospheric CO2 today?
b) If atmospheric CO2 continues to rise at the rate portrayed in this figure, approximately when will the 450 ppm threshold be crossed?
c) Based on your answer to b), the trajectory of emissions needed to stabilize CO2 at 450 ppm shown in Figure 12, as well as your intuition, comment on whether you think it is realistic that atmospheric CO2 could be stabilized at 450 ppm with a maximum cost of only 3.4% decrease in global GDP?
d) Drawing upon either material discussed the second time we met, posted at:
or some other source, state the level of atmospheric CO2 that existed before humans began to make major perturbations.
e) Next, compute the fraction of the growth of CO2 relative to this pre-human baseline human society has exhausted before we hit 450 ppm. In other words, are we at the quarter pole, the half way point, etc in terms of reaching 450 ppm relative to conditions that existed before human activities led to a rise in atmospheric CO2.
Finally, the just released IPCC 1.5SR states CO2 must stabilize at close to 450 ppm in order for warming to be limited to 1.5°C (relative to pre-industrial). Write a sentence or two addressing the need for urgency, or perhaps lack thereof (depending on your numbers) for societal action to slow the growth of atmospheric CO2, to limit global warming to 1.5°C.
In the next slide, I provide the chart from the ESRL website as well as from the second time we met, from which you can estimate current level of CO2 and the abundance of CO2 before human’s got involved.

15. I include a screen shot of Table 2 on the next slide.
Here is Part 2 of Q3, AT17:
Page 26 of the reading states “the effects of climate change will fall most heavily upon the poor of the world.” Figure 12 shows past and projected emissions of CO2 from the developed world [light blue, which represents the OECD group of nations] and the developing world [dark blue, which represents all non-OECD nations]. OECD stands for the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development and is often used to denote the Developed world.
a) What was emission of CO2 in 2015 from the OECD group nations (you will have to read this information off of Figure 12)?
b) What was emission of CO2 in 2015 from the non-OECD group of nations?
In year 2015, the total population of OECD nations was 1.28 billion people, and the total population of non-OECD nations was 5.92 billion people.
c) What was the per-capita emission of CO2 for people living in the OECD nations in year 2015? Please express the answer in units of metric tons of CO2 per person.
d) What was the per capita emission of CO2 for people living in non-OECD nations in 2015, again in units of metric tons of CO2 per person?
e) If the economy of non-OECD nations were to expand such that the per-capita emission of CO2 of folks living in these nations were to equal to that of the developed work, compute the resulting global emission of CO2.
Finally, compare your computed emission of CO2 in e) to the values shown in Figure 15, and comment in a sentence or two on the moral obligation of the developed world to assist the developing world in seeking better lives for their inhabitants, while at the same time keeping global emissions of CO2 somewhere between RCP 4.5 (our 2°C pathway) and RCP 2.6 (the IPCC 2°C pathway) shown in Figure 15.
You can certainly couple the answer to this question to Table 2, of course Figure 15, and the words under Climate Change and Inequality on page 26.
I include a screen shot of Table 2 on the next slide.

17. Fuel Price (Oct 2018) Fuel cost to emit a ton of CO2 Automobile
I like this entire reading, but am especially fond of the discussion about carbon taxes at the end.
You’re more than welcome to conclude with a discussion about carbon taxes, perhaps asking students to summarize what is written about the view of Nordhaus versus Stern, adding in any new info you can find regarding either present taxes on the emission of CO2 (there are some in place), and should you want, also using the table below I showed at the end of class on last Tues that documented how much we pay (or a utility pays) for the cost of gasoline, natural gas, or coal that leads to the emission of a ton of CO2.
Fuel
Price (Oct 2018)
Fuel cost to emit
a ton of CO2
Automobile
Gasoline
$2.96 / galloon
$335
Natural Gas
(utility price)
$3.42 / 1000 cubic feet
$65
Coal
$57 per short ton
$20

18. As I write to all of the students:
a) truly your call on how to use the ~45 mins
b) I like the use of AT questions to facilitate discussion, but some students think this has been over done (if so, my fault!). Your call, completely, whether to use at all and, if so, how much to use.
c) If you me a draft, I will gladly review and send comments and I will be available to meet on Monday.
Good luck!