Some Implications of Improved CO2 Emissions Control Technology in the Context of Global Climate Change

  • Stephen C. Peck
  • Thomas J. Teisberg
Part of the International Series in Operations Research & Management Science book series (ISOR, volume 18)


In this paper, we use the CETA-R model to explore some implications of improved (i.e. lower cost) CO2 control technology. CETA-R represents the costs of global climate change in terms of small risks of large climate change related losses.

First, we treat technology cost as deterministic and explore the implications of improved control technology for the value of information about the risks of large climate change related losses. We find that when future control technology is better, the value of information about climate change risks is substantially lower.

Second, we treat future technology as uncertain and explore the value of information about it, and the economic benefits of research and development that may produce improvements in it. We find that the value of information regarding future technology is relatively low. On the other hand, the direct benefit of better technology is large — each percentage point increase in the chance of twenty percent improved technology has a present value of $8 to $12 billion, depending on the magnitude of the risk of large climate change related losses.


Future Technology Climate Change Risk Optimal Emission Optimal Carbon Synthetic Fuel 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Chao, Hung-Po (1995), “Managing the Risk of Global Climate Catastrophe: An Uncertainty Analysis,” Risk Analysis, Vol. 15, No. 1.Google Scholar
  2. Maier-Reimer, E. and K. Hasselmann (1987), “Transport and Storage of CO2 in the Ocean -- An Inorganic Ocean-Circulation Carbon Cycle Model”, Climate Dynamics, Vol. 2, pp. 63–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Manne, Alan S. and Richard G. Richels (1994), “The Costs of Stabilizing Global CO2 Emissions: A Probabilistic Analysis Based on Expert Judgements,” The Energy Journal, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 31–56.Google Scholar
  4. Nordhaus, William D. (1990), “Contribution of Different Greenhouse Gases to Global Warming: A New Technique for Measuring Impact,” February 11.Google Scholar
  5. Nordhaus, William D. (1994), “Expert Opinion on Climatic Change,” American Scientist, January—February, pp. 45–51.Google Scholar
  6. Peck, Stephen C. and Thomas J. Teisberg (1995), “Optimal CO2 Control Policy with Stochastic Losses from Temperature Rise,” Climatic Change, Vol. 31, No. 1, September, pp. 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Schlesinger, Michael E. and Xingjian Jiang (1990), “Simple Model Representation of Atmosphere-Ocean GCMs and Estimation of the Time Scale of CO2-Induced Climate Change,” Journal of Climate, December, pp. 1297–1315.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen C. Peck
    • 1
  • Thomas J. Teisberg
    • 2
  1. 1.Electric Power Research InstitutePalo AltoUSA
  2. 2.Teisberg and AssociatesCharlottesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations