Search

We interrogate mathematical modelling as an instrument of knowledge co-production by concentrating on the classical probabilistic operationalization of decision-making under uncertainty used for informing climate change mitigation options. We construct our co-productive assessment framework by first retrieving criticisms targeted at expected utility theory in relation to its epistemic and ethical limits in dealing with 'true' uncertainty. We then reflect on how ethical values should operate in relation to uncertainty in order to live up to the co-production ideal and specifically, to the principle of Responsible Research and Innovation. We thus undertake the perspective of a general modeller and test our reflections by imagining the classical probabilistic space of calculation as a space of negotiation between probabilities, ideas, values and beliefs. We thus propose an alternative 'public' space of calculation in which the conditions for co-production are set up on a pragmatic and moral account of rational expectations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Subjects respond in a pessimistic/averse manner to the uncertainty surrounding climate change and climate change catastrophes, with 67% of subjects successfully purchasing the climate change insurance in the base treatment. • When subjects have more information about the growing frequency of such events, 79% successfully ensure themselves. • A lemons problem may arise with only high-risk individuals/regions subscribing towards climate change insurance and suggests that government intervention may be required to ensure market failures do not arise. • When the strategic uncertainty of coordination with another person is removed, 81% of subjects are successful in buying the insurance. • An indirect intervention in the form of a nudge was unsuccessful, with only 58% of subjects successfully buying the insurance. This paper attempts to study how individuals respond to the availability of an insurance that would safeguard their interests if a climate change catastrophe occurred. If such an insurance is available to them, do individuals insure themselves sufficiently? Further, the study investigates if information regarding the past occurrence of the catastrophic event leads to an increase in insurance subscriptions and/or the emergence of a lemons market. Finally, policy implications are investigated - Can an indirect intervention in the form of a "nudge" ensure a better outcome? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines climate-change benefit-cost analysis in the presence of scientific uncertainty in the form of ambiguity. The specific issue addressed is the robustness of benefit-cost analyses of climate-change policy alternatives to relaxation of Savage's original axioms. Two alternatives to subjective expected utility (SEU) are considered: maximin expected utility (MEU) and incomplete expected utility (IEU). Among other results, it is demonstrated that polar opposite recommendations can emerge in an ambiguous decision setting even if all agree on Society's rate of time preference, Society's risk attitudes, the degree of ambiguity faced, and the scientific primitives. We show that, for a simple numerical simulation of our model, an MEU decision maker favors policies which immediately tackle climate change while an IEU decision prefers “business as usual”.“Each agency shall assess the costs and benefits of the intended regulation, and recognizing that some costs and benefits are difficult to quantify, propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its cost.” Executive Order 12866 of the US President. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Expected utility theory tells us how we should make decisions under uncertainty: we should choose the option that leads to the greatest expectation of utility. This may, however, not be the option that is likely to produce the best result – that may be the wrong choice if it also creates a small chance of a great disaster. A small chance of disaster may be the most important consideration in decision making. Climate change creates a small chance of disaster, and some authors believe this to be the most important consideration in deciding our response to climate change. To know whether they are right, we need to make a moral judgement about just how bad the disaster would be. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]