Climate Policy under Sustainable Discounted Utilitarianism



The explicit algorithm defined by WT = U(cT) and repeated use of (5), with δt
determined by (3), is used for calculating SDU welfare in the empirical analysis. It
follows from (3) that the population-adjusted utility discount factor
δt

• equals the unadjusted utility discount factor β if population is constant,

• exceeds β if there is positive population growth, and

• varies with time if population growth is not exponential.

Let ρ > 0 denote the unadjusted utility discount rate, where the relation between β
and ρ is given by

β = 1+ρ.                            (6)

The theoretical presentation of SDU in this section is facilitated by using the utility
discount factor
β , while the numerical results in Section 4 are easier to interpret in
terms of the utility discount rate
ρ. Keeping in mind eq. (6), this should not create
confusion.

Now we turn to the analysis of uncertainty. To handle uncertainty, one can in
principle think of two polar approaches in a situation where there is a probability
distribution over consumption streams.
3 One possibility is first to value each realiza-
tion and then assign probability weights to the different realizations. An alternative
approach is first to determine a certainty equivalent for each generation and then
value the stream of certainty equivalents. When applying SDU to uncertainty, the
choice between these approaches matters for policy evaluation: in the context of
climate change, the possibility of catastrophic consequences is assigned more weight
if the valuation is done first within each realization.

This point can be shown formally under the simplifying assumption that the
utility function
U not only expresses aversion to inequality over time, but also
aversion to risk. By abstracting from population growth and writing
V (u, w) :=
min
{(1 - δ)u +δw, w} for the function that aggregates present utility and future
welfare, it follows from (W.1) that
W (0c) = V (U (c0), W(1c)). Since V is a concave
function of
u and w, it follows from Jensen’s inequality that

E(V(U(co),W(ic))) V(E(U(co)),E(W(ɪe))),

3In the empirical part this corresponds to the empirical distribution of 1000 random draws of a
Latin Hypercube sample.



More intriguing information

1. Bird’s Eye View to Indonesian Mass Conflict Revisiting the Fact of Self-Organized Criticality
2. The name is absent
3. SOME ISSUES IN LAND TENURE, OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL IN DISPERSED VS. CONCENTRATED AGRICULTURE
4. Backpropagation Artificial Neural Network To Detect Hyperthermic Seizures In Rats
5. Peer Reviewed, Open Access, Free
6. The name is absent
7. The name is absent
8. SOME ISSUES CONCERNING SPECIFICATION AND INTERPRETATION OF OUTDOOR RECREATION DEMAND MODELS
9. On the job rotation problem
10. Altruism with Social Roots: An Emerging Literature
11. Review of “The Hesitant Hand: Taming Self-Interest in the History of Economic Ideas”
12. The resources and strategies that 10-11 year old boys use to construct masculinities in the school setting
13. A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATING SOCIAL WELFARE EFFECTS OF NEW AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY
14. AN ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF COTTON AND PEANUT RESEARCH IN SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES
15. Regional dynamics in mountain areas and the need for integrated policies
16. The name is absent
17. Disentangling the Sources of Pro-social Behavior in the Workplace: A Field Experiment
18. The name is absent
19. The name is absent
20. Towards a Strategy for Improving Agricultural Inputs Markets in Africa