nep-res New Economics Papers
on Resource Economics
Issue of 2022‒02‒28
five papers chosen by
Maximo Rossi
Universidad de la República

  1. Climate and Migration By Katrin Millock; Cees Withagen
  2. Understanding Climate Damages: Consumption versus Investment By Casey, Gregory; Fried, Stephie; Gibson, Matthew
  3. Winners and Losers: The Distributional Effects of the French Feebate on the Automobile Market By Isis Durrmeyer
  4. Is There a Diminishing Value of Urban Amenities as a Result of the COVID-19 Pandemic? By van Vuuren, Aico
  5. Minimax-Regret Climate Policy with Deep Uncertainty in Climate Modeling and Intergenerational Discounting By Stephen J. DeCanio; Charles F. Manski; Alan H. Sanstad

  1. By: Katrin Millock (PSE - Paris School of Economics - ENPC - École des Ponts ParisTech - ENS Paris - École normale supérieure - Paris - PSL - Université Paris sciences et lettres - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement, CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique); Cees Withagen (VU - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam [Amsterdam])
    Abstract: We review some of the recent estimates of the effect of weather and climate on migration, and articles examining the historical evidence of such links. We identify four issues that have received less attention in previous reviews on the topic. The first one is general equilibrium effects of climate change and migration. The second one concerns accounting for thresholds in the climate-migration relationship. Some of the articles that we review incorporate non-linear effects, but only in the relation between income and migration, and in the relation between weather, climate and migration. Other thresholds are not yet incorporated into the literature. A third issue where much work remains to be done relates to climate change and conflict, and their influence on migration. Finally, we conclude with some reflections on the implications of the results for economic development.
    Date: 2021–12–28
  2. By: Casey, Gregory (Williams College); Fried, Stephie (Arizona State University); Gibson, Matthew (Williams College)
    Abstract: Existing climate-economy models use aggregate damage functions to model the effects of climate change. This approach assumes climate change has equal impacts on the productivity of firms that produce consumption and investment goods or services. We show the split between damage to consumption and investment productivity matters for the dynamic consequences of climate change. Drawing on the structural transformation literature, we develop a framework that incorporates heterogeneous climate damages. When investment is more vulnerable to climate, we find short-run consumption losses will be smaller than leading models with aggregate damage functions suggest, but long-run consumption losses will be larger. We quantify these effects for the climate damage from heat stress and find that accounting for heterogeneous damages increases the welfare cost of climate change by approximately 4 to 24 percent, depending on the discount factor.
    Keywords: climate change, structural transformation, growth
    JEL: Q56
    Date: 2021–12
  3. By: Isis Durrmeyer (TSE - Toulouse School of Economics - UT1 - Université Toulouse 1 Capitole - Université Fédérale Toulouse Midi-Pyrénées - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement)
    Abstract: I quantify the welfare and environmental gains and losses from a policy establishing an environmental tax/subsidy for new cars in France in 2008. I estimate a structural model of demand and supply that features heterogeneity in consumer preferences to go beyond the average policy effects and analyse distributional aspects. The policy reduces average carbon emissions by 1.6% at the cost of additional emissions of local pollutants. The regulation favours middle-income individuals but has redistributive effects when combined with a tax that is proportional to income. Moreover, local pollutant emissions increase least in poor and rural areas, suggesting another redistribution channel.
    Date: 2021–10–21
  4. By: van Vuuren, Aico (University of Gothenburg)
    Abstract: We investigate whether the COVID-19 pandemic decreased the willingness to pay for urban amenities such as restaurants, cinemas and theaters. We do this by using a hedonic pricing model in combination with a time-gradient difference-in-difference approach. We use a data set that contains virtually all apartments for sale in the larger Stockholm area. We use a very detailed and flexible definition of density of urban amenities based on the exact location of these amenities and the walking distance from the apartments to these amenities. We find a decrease of 1.9 percent of apartments that we label as amenity rich.
    Keywords: COVID-19, urban economics, amenities
    JEL: R00 R23 R30
    Date: 2022–01
  5. By: Stephen J. DeCanio; Charles F. Manski; Alan H. Sanstad
    Abstract: Integrated assessment models have become the primary tools for comparing climate policies that seek to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Policy comparisons have often been performed by considering a planner who seeks to make optimal trade-offs between the costs of carbon abatement and the economic damages from climate change. The planning problem has been formalized as one of optimal control, the objective being to minimize the total costs of abatement and damages over a time horizon. Studying climate policy as a control problem presumes that a planner knows enough to make optimization feasible, but physical and economic uncertainties abound. Manski, Sanstad, and DeCanio (2021) proposed and studied use of the minimax-regret (MMR) decision criterion to account for deep uncertainty in climate modeling. Here we study choice of climate policy that minimizes maximum regret with deep uncertainty regarding both the correct climate model and the appropriate time discount rate to use in intergenerational assessment of policy consequences. The analysis specifies a range of discount rates to express both empirical and normative uncertainty about the appropriate rate. The findings regarding climate policy are novel and informative. The MMR analysis points to use of a relatively low discount rate of 0.02 for climate policy. The MMR decision rule keeps the maximum future temperature increase below 2°C above the 1900-10 level for most of the parameter values used to weight costs and damages.
    JEL: Q54 Q58
    Date: 2022–02

This nep-res issue is ©2022 by Maximo Rossi. It is provided as is without any express or implied warranty. It may be freely redistributed in whole or in part for any purpose. If distributed in part, please include this notice.
General information on the NEP project can be found at For comments please write to the director of NEP, Marco Novarese at <>. Put “NEP” in the subject, otherwise your mail may be rejected.
NEP’s infrastructure is sponsored by the School of Economics and Finance of Massey University in New Zealand.