material and trade flows. Finally, he noted that policymakers are interested in the degree of confidence placed on the estimates they are seeing.

The DOE recently completed a survey of existing analytic tools, focusing specifically on the technology and economic models in current use both domestically and internationally. Marlay remarked that the models are providing insight into potential costs but that much less information was being generated about the various courses of action and potential benefits. Specifically—and this point is important to policymakers—there has been less consideration of the tradeoffs among mitigation, adaptation, and inaction. Participants recognized that an array of tools will be needed to develop climate change policy, and were challenged throughout the workshop to identify potential gaps and areas for improvement within the current suite of models and analytic tools. Given the anticipation that a new U.S. administration will be calling for information to help make decisions on legislation, inform international negotiations, and design multibillion dollar R&D programs, this workshop was intended to identify some of the key challenges posed for improving this information, specifically with regard to assessing economic impacts. Marlay informed participants that the CCTP intends to form partnerships with strong analytical elements of each participating agency within the CCTP, and that the work would not or could not be left to just one agency. The CCTP will then make additional investments to strengthen these existing tools, and so he expressed hope that this workshop would help define the frontier of climate economics analysis and push it forward. The following four chapters summarize what transpired during the four panel discussions and highlight their major themes.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement