Experience in a Climate Simulator: Influence of Probability Function and Feedback on Decisions Against Climate Change

Research indicates that people continue to exhibit “wait-and-see” preferences toward climate change, despite constant attempts to raise awareness about its cataclysmic effects. Experiencing climatic catastrophes via simulation tools has been found to affect the perception of people regarding climate change and promote pro-environmental behaviors. However, not much is known about how experiential feedback and the probability of climate change in a simulation influence the decisions of people. We developed a web-based tool called Interactive Climate Change Simulator (ICCS) to study the impact of different probabilities of climate change and the availability of feedback on the monetary actions (adaptation or mitigation) taken by individuals. A total of 160 participants from India voluntarily played ICCS across four between-subject conditions (N = 40 in each condition). The conditions differed based on the probability of climate change (low or high) and availability of feedback (absent or present). Participants made mitigation and adaptation decisions in ICCS over multiple years and faced monetary consequences of their decisions. There was a significant increase in mitigation actions against climate change when the feedback was present compared to when it was absent. The mitigation and adaptation investments against climate change were not significantly affected by the probability of climate change. The interaction between probability of climate consequences and availability of feedback was significant: In the presence of feedback, the high probability of climate change resulted in higher mitigation and adaptation investments against climate change. Overall, the experience gained in the ICCS tool helped alleviate peoples' “wait-and-see” preferences and increased the monetary investments to counter climate change. Simulation tools like ICCS have the potential to increase people's understanding of climatic disasters and can act as a useful aid for educationalists and policymakers.

Games with Adaptation and Mitigation

We formulate and study a nonlinear game of n symmetric countries that produce, pollute, and spend part of their revenue on pollution mitigation and environmental adaptation. The optimal emission, adaptation, and mitigation investments are analyzed in both Nash equilibrium and cooperative cases. Modeling assumptions and outcomes are compared to other publications in this fast-developing area of environmental economics. In particular, our analysis implies that: (a) mitigation is more effective than adaptation in a crowded multi-country world; (b) mitigation increases the effectiveness of adaptation; (c) the optimal ratio between mitigation and adaptation investments in the competitive case is larger for more productive countries and is smaller when more countries are involved in the game.

Increasing mitigation ambition to meet the Paris Agreement’s temperature goal avoids substantial heat-related mortality in U.S. cities

Current greenhouse gas mitigation ambition is consistent with ~3°C global mean warming above preindustrial levels. There is a clear need to strengthen mitigation ambition to stabilize the climate at the Paris Agreement goal of warming of less than 2°C. We specify the differences in city-level heat-related mortality between the 3°C trajectory and warming of 2° and 1.5°C. Focusing on 15 U.S. cities where reliable climate and health data are available, we show that ratcheting up mitigation ambition to achieve the 2°C threshold could avoid between 70 and 1980 annual heat-related deaths per city during extreme events (30-year return period). Achieving the 1.5°C threshold could avoid between 110 and 2720 annual heat-related deaths. Population changes and adaptation investments would alter these numbers. Our results provide compelling evidence for the heat-related health benefits of limiting global warming to 1.5°C in the United States.

MODELING OF ENVIRONMENTAL ADAPTATION: AMENITY VERSUS PRODUCTIVITY AND MODERNIZATION

We develop an aggregated model to study rational environmental adaptation policies that compensate negative consequences of climate change. The model distinguishes three categories of adaptation measures that (a) compensate the decrease of environmental amenity value, (b) compensate the decrease of total productivity, (c) develop and introduce new hazard-protected capital and technology. We analyze the optimal balance among consumption, capital investment, and different categories of adaptation investments under exogenous climate change. It appears that the climate change damage and subsequent adaptation do not lead to a higher level of capital modernization in the long run as compared to the benchmark case with no climate change. A synergism between productivity-related and amenity-related adaptation activities arises because the productivity-related adaptation positively impacts the economy and creates better possibilities for the amenity adaptation.