Ambitious measures to reduce carbon emissions are all too rare in reality, impeded by economic and political concerns rather than technological advances. In this collection of essays, Frank Ackerman and Elizabeth A. Stanton show that the impact of inaction on climate change will be far worse than the cost of ambitious climate policies.

After setting out the basic principles which must shape contemporary climate economics, Ackerman and Stanton consider common flaws in climate change policy from mistaken assumptions that dismiss the welfare of future generations and anticipate little or no growth in low-income countries, to unrealistic projections of climate damages that dismiss catastrophic risks and offer their own insightful remedies. They question the usefulness of conventional integrated assessment models (IAMs) that model the long-term interaction between economic growth and climate change, and propose an alternative in their Climate and Regional Economics and Development (CRED) model.

In this incisive work, Stanton and Ackerman offer a timely and original contribution to the fields of climate economics and global equity."

Climate science paints a bleak picture: The continued growth of greenhouse gas emissions is increasingly likely to cause irreversible and catastrophic effects. Urgent action is needed to prepare for the initial rounds of climatic change, which are already unstoppable. While the opportunity to avert all climate damage has now passed, well-designed mitigation and adaptation policies, if adopted quickly, could still greatly reduce the likelihood of the most tragic and far-reaching impacts of climate change. Climate economics is the bridge between science and policy, translating scientific predictions about physical systems into projections about economic growth and human welfare that decision makers can most readily use but it has too often consisted of an overly technical, academic approach to the problem. Getting climate economics right is not about publishing the cleverest article of the year but rather about helping solve the dilemma of the century. The tasks ahead are daunting, and failure, unfortunately, is quite possible. Better approaches to climate economics will allow economists to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. This book analyzes potential paths for improvement.

This book, as the title suggests, explains how General equilibrium, the dominant conceptual framework in mainstream economics, describes a perfectly impossible world. Even with its counterfactual assumptions taken for granted, it fails on many levels. Under the impressive editorship of Ackerman and Nadal, this book will appeal to students and researchers in economics and related social science disciplines.

Does economic theory, and its many practical applications, rest on concrete foundations? Given the influence and prestige afforded to orthodox economic policy advice, apparently the answer is a resounding "yes."
Economists Frank Ackerman and Alejandro Nadal present a fundamental challenge to this received wisdom, demonstrating that neither the abstractions of general equilibrium nor their real-world consequences, stand up to logical scrutiny. Themes critically analyzed in this book include:
* Economics' assumptions about consumer behavior
* Individual choices and the role of money
* The Application of economic theory to current debates in globalization, trade and development.
"The Flawed Foundations of General Equilibrium Theory "shows that there are fatal flaws in the standard theoretical model of a market economy. As such it will be an enlightening read for economists throughout the world of all persuasions.

According to many scientists, climate change is a growing threat to life as we know it, requiring a large-scale, immediate response. According to many economists, climate change is a moderately important problem; the best policy is a slow, gradual start, to avoid spending too much. They can't both be right. In this book, Frank Ackerman offers a refreshing look at the economics of climate change, explaining how the arbitrary assumptions of conventional theories get in the way of understanding this urgent problem. The benefits of climate protection are vital but priceless, and hence often devalued in cost-benefit calculations. Preparation for the most predictable outcomes of global warming is less important than protection against the growing risk of catastrophic change; massive investment in new, low carbon technologies and industries should be thought of as life insurance for the planet. Ackerman makes an impassioned plea to construct a better economics, arguing that the solutions are affordable and the alternative is unthinkable. If we can't afford the future, what are we saving our money for? Can we Afford the Future? is part of The New Economics series, which uses the ideas behind a new, more human economics to provide a fresh way of looking at major contemporary issues.

China faces many modernization challenges, but perhaps none is more pressing than that posed by climate change. China must find a new economic growth model that is simultaneously environmentally sustainable, can free it from its dependency on fossil fuels, and lift living standards for the majority of its population. But what does such a model look like? And how can China best make the transition from its present macro-economic structure to a low-carbon future? This ground-breaking economic study, led by the Stockholm Environment Institute and the Chinese Economists 50 Forum, brings together leading international thinkers in economics, climate change, and development, to tackle some of the most challenging issues relating to China's low-carbon development. This study maps out a deep carbon reduction scenario and analyzes economic policies that shift carbon use, and shows how China can take strong and decisive action to make deep reductions in carbon emission over the next forty years while maintaining high economic growth and minimizing adverse effects of a low-carbon transition. Moreover, these reductions can be achieved within the finite global carbon budget for greenhouse gas emissions, as determined by the hard constraints of climate science. The authors make the compelling case that a transition to a low-carbon economy is an essential part of China's development and modernization. Such a transformation would also present opportunities for China to improve its energy security and move its economy higher up the international value chain. They argue that even in these difficult economic times, climate change action may present more opportunities than costs. Such a transformation, for China and the rest of the world, will not be easy. But it is possible, necessary and worthwhile to pursue.

Climate science paints a bleak picture: The continued growth of greenhouse gas emissions is increasingly likely to cause irreversible and catastrophic effects. Urgent action is needed to prepare for the initial rounds of climatic change, which are already unstoppable. While the opportunity to avert all climate damage has now passed, well-designed mitigation and adaptation policies, if adopted quickly, could still greatly reduce the likelihood of the most tragic and far-reaching impacts of climate change. Climate economics is the bridge between science and policy, translating scientific predictions about physical systems into projections about economic growth and human welfare that decision makers can most readily use but it has too often consisted of an overly technical, academic approach to the problem. Getting climate economics right is not about publishing the cleverest article of the year but rather about helping solve the dilemma of the century. The tasks ahead are daunting, and failure, unfortunately, is quite possible. Better approaches to climate economics will allow economists to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. This book analyzes potential paths for improvement.

According to many scientists, climate change is a growing threat to life as we know it, requiring a large-scale, immediate response. According to many economists, climate change is a moderately important problem; the best policy is a slow, gradual start, to avoid spending too much. They can't both be right.

In this book, Frank Ackerman offers a refreshing look at the economics of climate change, explaining how the arbitrary assumptions of conventional theories get in the way of understanding this urgent problem. The benefits of climate protection are vital but priceless, and hence often devalued in cost-benefit calculations. Preparation for the most predictable outcomes of global warming is less important than protection against the growing risk of catastrophic change; massive investment in new, low carbon technologies and industries should be thought of as life insurance for the planet.

Ackerman makes an impassioned plea to construct a better economics, arguing that the solutions are affordable and the alternative is unthinkable. If we can't afford the future, what are we saving our money for?

"Can we Afford the Future?" is part of "The New Economics" series, which uses the ideas behind a new, more human economics to provide a fresh way of looking at major contemporary issues.

This book spells out, in more detail than usual, what can and should be done to avert the real risks of climate change disaster. Nor is it one of complacent congratulation for win-win initiatives, cautiously incremental steps, and green consumer choices. Climate Protection and Development summons us to an endeavour worthy of the resources and ingenuity of the twenty-first century - towards bold initiatives with big costs, and much bigger benefits. This book explores the interconnected issues of climate and development, laying the groundwork for just such a new deal. It presents a challenging agenda, and highlights the needs and perspectives of developing countries which may be unfamiliar or uncomfortable to readers in high-income countries. The unfortunate truth is that any large country, or group of mid-sized countries, can veto any global climate solution by refusing to participate, so a solution will only work if it works for everyone.

An economist and a law professor debunk the use of cost-benefit analysis in deciding whether human life and the environment are worth protecting. Engaging: A great approach to a potentially dry topic: instead of talking about deregulation, the authors talk about how much we are willing to pay to save animals on the verge of extinction, the rights of phone-talking drivers versus the rights of people they tend to hit, why we spend a disproportionate amount of research energy on diseases that afflict wealthy men in their 70s. Written by a lawyer and an economist, Priceless argues that the politically fashionable and wide-spread practice of applying cost-benefits analysis to subjects including environmental protection, health, and conservation is inappropriate and misguided. Issues of life and death - protecting the ozone, deciding whether or not to ban cell phone use while driving - call for informed public debate beyond market-based assessments of whether such measures are a good investment. myth behind it, Priceless is the first comprehensive rebuttal of the Bush administration's anti-regulatory legislation. There is no meaningful monetary price for life or nature, say economist Frank Ackerman and law professor Lisa Heinzerling in their critique of recent market-based assaults on health and environmental protection. Though cost-benefit analysis sounds like a reasonable way to gauge the extent to which we should regulate smoking or water quality, when applied to priceless concepts such as childhood disease or the value of a stable climate in years to come, the paradigm is misguided. In nine chapters, from Prices Without Values to An Ounce of Prevention to Values without Pricing, the book tells us how legislators today are turning away from environmental protection and regulation and are choosing instead to let the all-mighty market determine the value of life. discussion of policy, the book also includes a particularly timely discussion of why only military expenditure is afforded the kind of moral weight the authors wish was put on other issues.