Timing of Climate Change Policies Workshop Proceedings

Pew Center Workshop on the Timing of Climate Change Policies

Proceedings Summarized by Dr. Ev Ehrlich

On October 11th and 12th, 2001, the Pew Center on Global Climate Change held a Workshop on the Timing of Climate Change Policies in Washington, D.C. that brought together leading economists, scientists, and other analysts in the area of climate change science and policy. Given the compelling consensus among the world's scientists that human influences are the cause of accelerating and potentially severe climate change, the purpose of the Workshop was to investigate the timing of the world's policy response to this challenge. The Workshop produced a consensus that action on climate change needs to be taken now in order to satisfy a variety of concerns, including: the significant level of future climate change already in place and the potential for sudden and catastrophic climate change events; the opportunity to learn about the economy's responsiveness in order to construct an "optimal" policy path over time; the need to manage possible GDP losses; and the need to provide incentives for a broadly-based technological response to the problem. The Workshop included keynote speeches by Pew Center President Eileen Claussen (on the status of the international and domestic political process) and by Dr. Glenn Hubbard, Chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisors (on the Bush Administration's response to climate change). This Overview summarizes the papers presented at this two-day Workshop.

Pew Center President Eileen Claussen welcomed participants (list also posted on this website) and introduced Workshop Chair and Nobel Laureate, Dr. Kenneth Arrow of Stanford University. Dr. Arrow framed the question of the timing of climate change policy by noting that while investments in technology and infrastructure to mitigate climate were sometimes criticized as being irreversible, climate change and its subsequent (and potentially severe) environmental impacts were irreversible as well. The issue, he noted, came down to a balancing of these two effects.

Dr. Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University, who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Economics the day before the Workshop began, delivered an overview paper entitled, "Climate Change: An Agenda for Global Collective Action," (pdf) to begin the general discussion. He noted the scientific consensus - led by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - as well as the uncertainties that remain regarding climate change and its effects, and concluded that climate change policy would be a matter of sequential decision-making, in which new information would continually be incorporated into climate change policy. This raised the issue of "dynamic consistency" - the concern that postponing abatement might require subsequent generations to accomplish extremely difficult tasks in order to address climate change. Dr. Stiglitz also discussed several other topics, including: different approaches to enforcing an international agreement; the appeal of market-based solutions and common international measures (which minimize the complexity of the enforcement issue); the advantages of intertemporal trading; and his general optimism about the ability of businesses to minimize greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. He also noted that a variety of market failures can be found in the energy market, including the nation's vulnerability to oil import disruptions and the congestion effects of downtown traffic, and that correcting these would constitute an economically "free" - or "no regrets" - policy to address climate change. He then discussed the possible immediate use of a GHG trading system with a series of interim price caps as a transitional vehicle to a long-term policy.

The first panel of the Workshop dealt with "Climate Change Science and Multi-Gas Approaches," and was chaired by Dr. Michael Oppenheimer of Environmental Defense. The first presenter, Dr. Jerry Mahlman of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, noted that a doubling of the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, which is usually the starting point for analyses of climate change's effects, is already a very strong likelihood in coming decades. In fact, although Dr. Mahlman stated that stabilizing atmospheric CO2 at a doubling was still possible, he considered it highly unlikely that policymakers would respond in a sufficiently timely manner to achieve this goal. Not only are GHG emissions growing rapidly, but also the planet's readily available mechanisms to sequester carbon (such as photosynthesis and absorption in shallow ocean) are quickly being saturated. To illustrate the magnitude of the changes required to stabilize the climate, Dr. Mahlman noted that holding world GHG concentrations constant at today's level in perpetuity leads to an expected temperature change of 2 degrees Fahrenheit in the planet's mean temperature - noting that we are "wired" to this level of change and committed to having to adapt accordingly. He concluded that it would take more dramatic and immediate action to avoid going beyond this warming, which could precipitate more severe impacts. Dr. Mahlman's paper entitled, "Long-term Implications of Human-Caused Warming" (pdf) is posted with these proceedings.

The second paper of the panel, by Dr. Stephen Schneider of Stanford University and Dr. Christian Azar of Chalmers University of Technology and Göteborg University, "Are Uncertainties in Climate and Energy Systems a Justification for Stronger Near-term Mitigation Policies?" (pdf) , was delivered in the authors' absence by Dr. Alan Sanstad of Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. This paper noted that most models of climate change assume that the resulting damages are gradual (linear), but that climate change can have more sudden, non-linear effects. One conspicuous example is the possibility of a cessation of the thermohaline current that produces the Gulf Stream and warms Western Europe. A model presented in the Schneider/Azar paper demonstrated that such an event could be triggered by the climate's rate of change rather than its state, with potentially catastrophic consequences. Such an outcome is rarely taken into account in economic models of climate change and is a strong argument for prompt GHG abatement. This paper will soon be made available as part of these proceedings.

The panel also included two presentations that identified opportunities to lower the overall cost of achieving any climate emissions target. A presentation by Dr. Alan Manne of Stanford University based on a paper co-authored with Dr. Richard Richels of the Electric Power Research Institute addressed the trade-offs among GHGs. Dr. Manne noted that different GHGs have different half-lives, despite having similar radiative forcings. Therefore, there is room to arbitrage abatement opportunities over an abatement "path" by treating the gases differently. Specifically, this study's results suggested that the relative values of GHGs change over the course of an abatement trajectory, which led the authors to suggest deferring abatement of shorter-lived GHGs until a time closer to achieving a long-term concentration target. Sandra Brown of Winrock International then discussed the potential and cost characteristics of forestry-related carbon sinks. Forestry in developing countries, she noted, produced carbon offsets at dramatically lower cost than fuel switching, renewable energy, or other solutions. She estimated that between 60 billion and 87 billion tons of carbon offsets are available through this method between 1995 and 2050, and noted that this approach might provide a low-cost bridging device to a new technological regime later in the new century.

The second panel on October 11th addressed "Uncertainty and Time Preference in Climate Change Models" and was chaired by Dr. Manne. The first presentation during this panel was a paper about uncertainty and discounting by Dr. William Pizer and Dr. Richard Newell of Resources for the Future (now available as a Pew Center report). This paper notes that the effects of uncertainty regarding the discount rate are not symmetric: higher discount rates lead to exponentially larger discounting factors (implying smaller values for distant events) than lower ones. Thus, the "average" effect of a high and low discount rate resembles the effect of the lower discount rate more than it does the higher one. This is particularly true, the authors noted, if discount rates are best explained by a true "random walk" model rather than a mean-reverting model over time. When applied to the problem of climate change, incorporating uncertainty over discount rates roughly doubles the present value of the stream of future damages.

A second presentation on this topic was made by Dr. Ferenc Toth of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. Dr. Toth presented the results of a model that identified "corridors" of climate policy (e.g., the set of GHG abatement paths over time) that are consistent with a number of pre-specified parameters such as acceptable environmental damages, GDP losses, or timing considerations. He found that changing damage levels had the largest effect on the range of possible abatement paths - higher damage levels, for example, limited significantly the range of abatement paths available to policy-makers. Timing considerations also played an important role: deferring abatement limits policy-makers' future options. If GHG emissions are not abated until 2035, according to Toth's model, they must subsequently be reduced at the maximum rate permitted by the model. Specifying changes in tolerable GDP losses had a less pronounced effect. Thus, as action against climate is deferred, fewer options become available to policy-makers, and opportunities for more stringent controls are forsaken.

Dr. Anthony Fisher of the University of California at Berkeley presented a paper on "Uncertainty, Irreversibility, and the Timing of Climate Policy" (pdf). Dr. Fisher noted that many economic models focus only on irreversibility when analyzing climate change policy, e.g., the cost of sunk capital. But atmospheric GHG loadings are also irreversible, and certainly virtually all GHGs have longer decay rates than physical capital. Thus, ignoring this second irreversibility may lead us to defer action on climate change when such action is warranted today. Dr. Fisher noted that problems involving the environment generally involve three key characteristics: uncertainty about the future, the prospect of future learning that reduces that uncertainty, and irreversible investments of actions. If this is the case, subsequent learning may clarify the real returns to the irreversible investments by resolving the uncertainties. Under these circumstances, there might be value to deferring the investment while new knowledge is gained: economists refer to this as an "options value" - that is, the value of preserving an option - and its existence makes the hurdle rate for the investment higher than it would otherwise be. Assigning some value to avoiding irreversible environmental decisions can lead to substantial changes in model results for problems such as land use, for example, and the same may be true for climate change. This is all the more important, Dr. Fisher noted, when effects such as those discussed by Drs. Schneider and Azar, above, are taken into account. A comment by Dr. Charles Kolstad of the University of California at Santa Barbara, who has also written in this area, noted that leading economic models of climate change typically do not account for irreversibilities and therefore implicitly assume that it is relatively easy to get "back on course" if faster rates of abatement are required, but, as the Schneider/Azar work illustrates, this may not be the case.

A final presentation in this panel, by Dr. James Edmonds of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and the Joint Institute for Climate Change Research at the University of Maryland, linked this panel to the next session on technological change. Dr. Edmonds noted that given the virtually non-existent decay rates of many GHGs, total emissions must go to zero at some point in the future, and that the climate change timing policy issue is really a matter of providing a transition to a technology capable of delivering this result, be it hydrogen, carbon capture and sequestration, biomass, storage, or other mechanisms. He noted that this type of transition takes time and that relatively simpler technological changes, such as the removal of lead from gasoline, took decades, as has the transition from one primary fuel to another in the past.

The third panel of the day was chaired by Dr. Robert Friedman of the Heinz Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment. The panel addressed "Technological Progress and Capital Cycles." The first presentation of this panel was made by Dr. Lawrence Goulder of Stanford University and concerned induced technological change. Using a model that allowed firms to anticipate future imputed carbon prices, Dr. Goulder demonstrated that anticipatory research and development would reduce only somewhat the long-term carbon price path, due to the scarcity of human capital available for that purpose. But he also showed that pre-announcing a path for carbon prices allowed firms to make anticipatory investments that reduced prospective GDP losses considerably, which strengthens the case for immediate announcement of domestic climate change policy.

Dr. John Alic then discussed technology policy as it applies to climate change. Dr. Alic noted that technology policy has been driven by the metaphor of a "pipeline," in which the results of basic research at one end of the pipe drive applied research and ultimately commercialization by firms at the other end. But technological progress is determined by a constellation of factors, including procurement by users (often the federal government) or regulatory requirements, and many models exist for how research and development should be done, including partnerships and collaborations among firms and with the national laboratories or other governmental entities. Dr. Alic's presentation was followed by Dr. Nebojsa Nakicenovic of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, who spoke about "Technological Dynamics and Climate Change." Dr. Nakicenovic noted that climate change would require not just research and development, but broad, complementary societal changes that would take long periods of time to accomplish. He presented model runs demonstrating that technological progress was "path dependent," meaning there was no likely single and obvious "best" technological solution: a wide range of technological options are capable of producing a "least-cost" solution. Endogenous "learning by doing" can be observed to lower unit costs as cumulative experience with any technology grows, which adds to this path-dependence. Optimal technological policy would therefore focus on "clusters" of related technologies that supported each other as they progressed.

The final presentation of this session and the first day of the Workshop concerned "Capital Cycles: A Survey of U.S. Businesses," and was made by Dr. Robert Lempert of the RAND Corporation, based on a paper in progress with co-authors Steven Popper and Susan Resetar, also of RAND, and Stuart Hart of the University of North Carolina. Dr. Lempert observed that most large companies find ways to extend the lives of their capital assets beyond the equipment's initial "design life," and that the driving force behind replacing those assets is usually the need to create a new production process for a new product rather than the availability of new technologies. Absent the opportunity to invest towards strategic growth, it is usually cheaper to extend the life of equipment that has already been paid for than to invest in new equipment/technology. This poses a challenge for climate change policy, and suggests that policy-makers look for "windows of opportunity" when firms upgrade their capital stock. One such window might be new regulatory requirements to limit so-called "criteria pollutants" from stationary sources.

The second day of the Workshop began with a presentation by Dr. Richard Goettle of Northeastern University, who presented some modeling results produced in collaboration with Dr. Dale Jorgenson of Harvard University. The preliminary results (part of ongoing work for Pew Center) were based on a survey of the literature regarding various classes of potential damage arising from climate change: the survey was conducted by a team of researchers led by Joel Smith of Stratus Consulting. This work yielded optimistic and pessimistic estimates of damages related to crop agriculture, forestry, energy services, water supply, storm damage and coastal protection, air quality, and health (through thermal stress). Under optimistic assumptions throughout, these effects yielded positive benefits equal to slightly less than one percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Under pessimistic assumptions, GDP losses totaled about 2 percent. Dr. Goettle reported that agricultural damages produce most of the GDP losses, and that health effects lead to most of the welfare losses observed by the model. Dr. Henry Jacoby of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology commented after Goettle's presentation that non-monetized damages could dominate monetized ones if properly valued, but that these two types of damages are difficult to add.

A panel on "The Political Feasibility of Climate Change Policies" was chaired by Eileen Claussen. Dr. Henry Lee of Harvard University outlined some ideas regarding a tenable U.S. political strategy for advancing consideration of climate change. It consisted of "hitchhiking" the issue onto other related issues such as energy or national security or farm legislation, mobilizing potential "winners" in the compositional change that will follow any climate policy, and addressing adaptation costs forthrightly and early. His presentation was followed by Ambassador Chandrashekar Dasgupta of the Tata Energy Research Institute, who spoke from the perspective of the developing world. Ambassador Dasgupta noted that many proposals for climate burden sharing would have the developing world make cumulative emissions reductions greater than those of the developed world despite their lower standard of living and the historic responsibility of the advanced nations for the climate problem. Over time and inevitably, in his view, per capita emissions must converge for all nations. But developing nations have little confidence in the developed countries taking on even their existing or prospective responsibilities, as opposed to a commitment as major as the one implied by this target. Thus, he sees the current state of climate negotiations as heading towards a "crisis of confidence" on the part of the developing world.

A view from the European Community was then provided by Mr. Chris Whaley of the British Embassy to the United States. Mr. Whaley noted that the progress towards a successful climate negotiation depends largely on what the United States does now that the current Administration has renounced the Kyoto Protocol. But he also noted that there are other problems in the developed world, pointing to recent anti-gasoline tax demonstrations in Europe. Ultimately, he said, the world will have to find a process to build convergence around the starting point defined by the new U.S. position.

The last session of the Workshop integrated the material of the previous two days, and was chaired by Dr. Everett Ehrlich, President of ESC Company. Ms. Christiana Figueres of the Center for Sustainable Development in the Americas spoke first, citing climate change as an example of a new kind of problem and decision-making involving long lead times, interdisciplinary thinking, and a collaborative style among businesses, governments, and their agencies. But, she warned, the distant effects of climate change risk delaying an enabling environment of public opinion. She gave the view that the next initiative must come from the developing countries, laying the basis for their involvement, which means primarily defining their baseline and how it relates to their prospects for future economic growth.

The second speaker on the last panel was Mr. Frank Nutter of the Reinsurance Association of America. Mr. Nutter noted that of 29 weather-related incidents with damages greater than $1 billion, 28 have occurred since 1990. Nonetheless, many insurers see this pattern as a series of local incidents as opposed to a larger pattern, and are more focused on pricing and shifting risks among the insured than on a comprehensive approach to the problem.

A third presentation was provided by Dr. Jacoby, who began by asking, "How much longer can we go on like this?" He noted that there are four questions that must be resolved in order to move climate policy forward. The first relates to uncertainty regarding costs and effects: the answer to this question depends on perceptions of regret if we get it wrong. The second issue concerns priorities for various GHG sources and sinks. He disagreed with Dr. Manne's view that action on non-CO2 GHGs could be deferred, and that cutting non-CO2 GHGs in half today would have the same long-term effect as cutting CO2 in half today. A third question was how to spur research and development: Dr. Jacoby characterized the popular confidence that technology would provide low-cost abatement as "faith-based climate policy." The last question was how to bind future generations to a course of action. Dr. Jacoby expressed the view that too often in economic models we assume that what ought to happen will happen, when there is frequently a substantial divergence between the two.

The fourth and last panelist was Dr. James Baker, a former Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmospheres. He pointed out first that despite lingering uncertainties, there is little reason to expect dramatic improvements in our climate science and that the basic results of a doubling or tripling of the atmosphere were known long ago. Second, he noted that climate changes may be global, but are experienced locally: for example, despite the damage that El Niño caused in California, its net economic effect was positive because of the mild winter it brought to the Midwest. Finally, he noted that the resources devoted to measuring the climate (e.g., temperature) are far from matched by resources going to measuring ocean temperatures and other changes that might be just as informative as an "early warning system" for climate change.

In summary, the Workshop revealed that a compelling consensus is emerging that action to address global climate change must begin now if it is to be effective. In addition to providing a smooth and cost-effective transition to a stable concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere, immediate action is required to address a challenge that will take decades-if not generations-to solve. Workshop participants identified many compelling reasons to take action now, including:

  • The reality that the current atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has not been exceeded during the past 420,000 years and will soon be more than double its pre-industrial level, taking us, in effect, to an unprecedented situation with unknown consequences;
  • The potential for "catastrophes" that defy the assumption that damages resulting from climate change will be incremental, "smooth," and linear;
  • The risk of irreversible environmental impacts (as compared to the lesser risk of unnecessary investment in GHG reduction or mitigation);
  • The need to learn about the pace at which society can begin a transition to a climate-stable economy;
  • The likelihood of imposing unconscionable burdens and impossible tasks on future generations;
  • The need to create the incentives to accelerate technological development that will allow us to address the climate change problem; and
  • The ready availability of "no regrets" policies that have very low or even no costs to the economy.

These topics will be further explored in an upcoming Pew Center "In Brief" on the Timing of Climate Change Policy.


Pew Center Workshop Agenda on the Timing of Climate Change Policies

Wednesday, October 10, 2001

3:00 pm
Westin Grand Hotel check in available

7:30 pm
Informal gathering at the Westin Grand Hotel bar (Café on M)
Thursday, October 11, 2001

7:30 - 8:30 am
Workshop registration and continental breakfast for all participants 
8:30 - 8:40 am
Welcome and Introduction: Eileen Claussen, President, Pew Center
8:40 - 9:00 am
Opening Remarks/Discussion: "Timing and Climate Change Policy" Kenneth Arrow, Stanford University 
9:00 - 9:45 am
9:45 - 10:00 am  Break
10:00 am - 12:00 pm
FIRST WORKSHOP PANEL - "Climate Change Science and Multi-Gas Approaches" - Chair: Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense
  • "Climate Uncertainty and Economic Costs" Christian Azar, Göteborg University
  • "An Alternative Approach to Establishing Trade-off Amounts of Greenhouse Gases" Alan S. Manne, Stanford University
  • "The Timing and Magnitude of a LULUCF Contribution to Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Efforts" Sandra Brown, Winrock International
Open discussion, all workshop participants 

12:00 - 1:00
Lunch Provided in the M Street Grill
1:00 - 3:30 pm
SECOND WORKSHOP PANEL - "Uncertainty and Time Preference in Climate Change Impacts" Chair: Alan S. Manne, Stanford University 
  • "Discounting the Benefits of Future Climate Change Mitigation: How Much Do Uncertain Rates Increase Valuations?" William Pizer, Resources for the Future (on leave) Richard Newell, Resources for the Future
  • "Timing, Targets, and Costs of Climate Stabilization" Ferenc Toth, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany
  • "Uncertainty, Irreversibility, and the Timing of Climate Policy" (pdf) Anthony Fisher, University of California, Berkeley
  • "Emissions and Stabilizing Greenhouse Gas Concentrations" Jae Edmonds, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory/ Joint Institute for Global Change Research at the University of Maryland
Open discussion, all workshop participants 

3:30 - 3:45 pm Break
3:45 - 6:00 pm
THIRD WORKSHOP PANEL - "Technological Progress and Capital Cycles" Chair: Robert M. Friedman, The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment
  • "Induced Technological Change and Climate Policy" Larry Goulder, Stanford University
  • "Lessons Learned in U.S. Technology Policies" John Alic, Consultant
  • "Technological Dynamics and Climate Change" Nebojsa Nakicenovic, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)
  • "Capital Cycles: A Survey of Several U.S. Businesses" Robert Lempert, RAND Corporation
  • Michael Grubb, Imperial College, discussant
Open discussion, all workshop participants 

6:00 - 7:00 pm
Reception in the Courtyard

7:00 - 9:00 pm
Dinner Speaker, Eileen Claussen "Policy and Politics of the Climate Change Debate"

Friday, October 12, 2001
8:00 - 9:00 am
Continental breakfast for all participants 

9:00 - 9:05 am
Remarks/Introduction: Eileen Claussen

9:05 - 9:35 am
"Quantification of Long-term Climate Change Impacts" Richard J. Goettle, Northeastern University
9:35 - 10:00 am
Debrief re: Day 1 of workshop, Ev Ehrlich, ESC Company

10:00 - 10:15 am Break
10:15 am - Noon
FOURTH WORKSHOP PANEL - "The Political Feasibility of Climate Change Policies" Chair: Eileen Claussen, Pew Center
  • U.S. Perspective Henry Lee, Harvard University
  • Developing Country Perspective Ambassador Chandrashekar Dasgupta, Tata Energy Research Institute (TERI)
  • European Perspective Chris Whaley, British Embassy Washington
Open discussion, all workshop participants 
Noon - 1:00 pm
Luncheon Speaker, Glenn Hubbard, Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers
1:00 - 3:30 pm 
FIFTH WORKSHOP PANEL DISCUSSION - "The Timing of Climate Change Policies" Chair: Ev Ehrlich, ESC Company
  • James Baker, Former NOAA Administrator
  • Christiana Figueres, Center for Sustainable Development in the Americas
  • Henry Jacoby, MIT
  • Frank Nutter, Reinsurance Association of America 
3:45 - 4:00 pm 
Concluding Remarks, Eileen Claussen
Workshop Attendees

John A. Alic

Kenneth Arrow
Stanford University

Kameran L. Bailey
Council on Environmental Quality

James Baker
Former NOAA Administrator

Scott Barrett
Johns Hopkins University

Jan Bigelow
Pew Center on Global Climate Change

Odile Blanchard
World Resources Institute/ Institut d'Economie et de Politique de l'Energie

Brian Bonlender
The Honorable Jay Inslee

Sandra Brown
Winrock International

Kirsten Cappel
Pew Center on Global Climate Change

Leslie Carothers
United Technologies

Sophie Chou
Pew Center on Global Climate Change

Eileen Claussen
Pew Center on Global Climate Change

Leianne Clements
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions

Vicki Arroyo Cochran
Pew Center on Global Climate Change

Sarah Cottrell
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions

Ambassador Chandrashekar Dasgupta
Tata Energy Research Institute (TERI)

Floyd DesChamps
Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee

Elliot Diringer
Pew Center on Global Climate Change

David Doniger
Natural Resources Defense Council

Jae Edmonds
PNNL/Inst. for Global Change Research Univeristy of Maryland

Everett Ehrlich
ESC Company

A. Denny Ellerman
Massachusets Institute of Technology

Sally Ericsson
Pew Center on Global Climate Change

Christiana Figueres
Center for Sustainable Development in the Americas

Anthony C. Fisher
University of California at Berkeley

Diane Fitzgerald
American Electric Power

Taryn Fransen
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions

Robert M. Friedman
The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment

Richard Goettle
Northeastern University

Lawrence Goulder
Stanford University

Judith Greenwald
Pew Center on Global Climate Change

Bryan Hannegan
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee

Steve Harper

Glenn Hubbard
Council of Economic Advisers

Henry Jacoby

Christie Jorge
Pew Center on Global Climate Change

Nancy Kete
World Resources Institute

Charles Kolstad
University of California, Santa Barbara

Henry Lee
JFK School of Government, Harvard University

Robert Lempert

Katie Mandes
Pew Center on Global Climate Change

Jerry D. Mahlman

Alan S. Manne
Stanford University

Gerry Matthews

Abby Meador
The Honorable John W. Olver

Nebojsa Nakicenovic
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)

Richard Newell
Resources for the Future

Robert Nordhaus
Van Ness Feldman

Franklin W. Nutter
Reinsurance Association of America

Michael Oppenheimer
Environmental Defense

Peter R. Orszag
The Brookings Institution

Naomi Pena
Pew Center on Global Climate Change

William Pizer
Resources for the Future (on leave)

Steven Popper

Benjamin Preston
Pew Center on Global Climate Change

Tim Profeta
The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman

Nikki Roy
Pew Center on Global Climate Change

Alan Sanstad
Lawerence Berkeley National Laboratory

Thomas C. Schelling
University of Maryland

Joel Smith
Stratus Consulting, Inc.

Joseph Stiglitz
Columbia University

Neil Strachen

Byron Swift
Environmental Law Institute

Michael A. Toman
Resources for the Future

Ferenc Toth
Potsdam University and Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)

Jenny Voelker
Pew Center on Global Climate Change

Chris Whaley
British Embassy, Washington