Second RefAnnBib entry

Part 1: Bibliographic Entry

Markandya, Anil. CLIMATE CHANGE. Copenhagen Consensus Center, 2018, www.jstor.org/stable/resrep16373.

Part 2: Background and Credibility of Author & Source

Professor Markandya is a resource economist who has worked in this field for over thirty years and is acknowledged as one of the leading authorities.
He graduated from the London School of Economics with a Master of Science in Econometrics in 1968 and was awarded his Ph.D. on the Economics of the Environment in 1975.
Since then he has divided his time between academic and advisory work. On the academic side, he has published widely in the areas of climate change, environmental valuation, environmental policy, energy and environment, green accounting, macroeconomics, and trade. Some of his best-known works include, ´Blueprint for a Green Economy’, ´Green Accounting in Europe’, ´Reconciling Trade and Development’ and ´Cleaning the Ganges’.

Professor Markandya seems like a credible writer, and although this source is a bit outdated it’s cited by 3 of my other sources and therefore must be important; his ethos could hold lend weight and credibility to my argument.

Part 3: Précis

The author wants to enrich our understanding of the options for addressing the climate change challenge and cover the main forms of intervention. Their main shortcoming is their failure to address two of the most important aspects: public concern about possible major negative impacts and the fact that even modest damages would have serious consequences for the vulnerable and poor members of society. Cost-benefit analysis has always tended to be weak on these issues of uncertainty and equity, yet tools have been developed to address them but these tools have either not been used in the challenge papers, or if they have, their treatment is unclear.

Part 4: Reflection

The Tol paper examines the possible role of economic instruments such as carbon taxes; the Galiana and Green paper emphasizes the importance of measures to promote the development of technological low carbon solutions; the Bosello et al. paper looks at the balance between adaptation and mitigation and the Bickel and Lane paper makes a case for investing in finding out more about geo- engineering. I review each of the papers briefly and in the final section I give my overall assessment of how well they cover the issues that arise when formulating climate policy.

Part 5: Quotables

“DICE is not a bad model to use for the comparison but it is conservation in its damage estimates: it does not take account of regional differences and it ends up with less control on radiative forcing and a global higher temperature profile than other integrated assessment models” (7)

“The problem with the assessment is that we are dealing with a very uncertain technology, with significant risks” (6)

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

2 thoughts on “Second RefAnnBib entry

  1. Hi Xinyi,

    While you mention the dangers of climate change brought up in the article provided it’s a bit unclear as to what the main point the author is making. For instance, the significant risks of carbon taxes are simply stated as being a challenge due to how much damages it leads to. You should certainly try to keep your focus in prominent issues pertaining to climate change opposed to just an author listing issues with assessment without stating why. I hope that was helpful!

Leave a Reply