Showing papers by "Anthony Patt published in 1997"

Assessing Extreme Outcomes: The Strategic Treatment of Low Probability Impacts of Climate Change

Abstract: Many assessments of climate change fail to consider the possibility of low probability, yet catastrophic, outcomes of greenhouse warming. A noteworthy example is the potential rapid deterioration of the West Antarctic ice sheet. If the ice sheet were to melt, as a minority of scientists believe it may, sea levels could rise by five meters or more in the next century. This study seeks to develop a theory that can predict why certain classes of assessments assess extreme outcomes, while other classes of assessments ignore them. Work in behavioral psychology argues that individual decision-makers display predictable bias when interpreting low probability events, either underestimating or overestimating the associated risks. Drawing on this work, this study theorizes that assessors who operate by consensus, and who are trying not to create controversy, will avoid issue areas, such as low probability outcomes, where biased interpretations are likely. Staff advisors who are asked to assess such issue areas will seek to offer explanations that overcome people's propensity for bias. Finally, advocates writing assessments will seek to take advantage of people's bias. Using a case study of the West Antarctic ice sheet issue, this study finds empirical evidence that supports these predictions.

Economists and Ecologists: Different Frames of Reference for Global Climate Change

Abstract: Economists and ecologists, in general, have offered differing opinions about the seriousness of climate change and the need for rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Economists have tended to urge caution, focusing on the potential for large-scale cutbacks to upset the economy. Ecologists have tended to focus on the potential for catastrophic losses from climate change, and have urged extensive shifts in policy. This paper uses the tools of cost benefit analysis and the decision sciences to examine why members of the two disciplines often reach different conclusions. First, economists and ecologists start from different perspectives about what is the point of reference against which policies should be judged. Second, economists and ecologists tend to apply different discount rates to future impacts of climate change. Third, economists and ecologists are likely to interpret differently the substantive findings and expressed uncertainties of formal cost-benefit analysis. Using a simplified version of the DICE model of climate change, this paper explores how these different viewpoints can be expressed in practice.