A unifying framework for metrics for aggregating the climate effect of different emissions

Multi-gas approaches to climate change policies require a metric establishing ‘equivalences’ among emissions of various species. Climate scientists and economists have proposed four kinds of such metrics and debated their relative merits. We present a unifying framework that clarifies the relationships among them. We show, as have previous authors, that the global warming potential (GWP), used in international law to compare emissions of greenhouse gases, is a special case of the global damage potential (GDP), assuming (1) a finite time horizon, (2) a zero discount rate, (3) constant atmospheric concentrations, and (4) impacts that are proportional to radiative forcing. Both the GWP and GDP follow naturally from a cost–benefit framing of the climate change issue. We show that the global temperature change potential (GTP) is a special case of the global cost potential (GCP), assuming a (slight) fall in the global temperature after the target is reached. We show how the four metrics should be generalized if there are intertemporal spillovers in abatement costs, distinguishing between private (e.g., capital stock turnover) and public (e.g., induced technological change) spillovers. Both the GTP and GCP follow naturally from a cost-effectiveness framing of the climate change issue. We also argue that if (1) damages are zero below a threshold and (2) infinitely large above a threshold, then cost-effectiveness analysis and cost–benefit analysis lead to identical results. Therefore, the GCP is a special case of the GDP. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change uses the GWP, a simplified cost–benefit concept. The UNFCCC is framed around the ultimate goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations. Once a stabilization target has been agreed under the convention, implementation is clearly a cost-effectiveness problem. It would therefore be more consistent to use the GCP or its simplification, the GTP.

Beyond the environmentalist's paradox and the debate on weak versus strong sustainability

Environmentalists generally argue that ecological damage will (eventually) lead to declines in human well-being. From this perspective, the recent introduction of the “environmentalist’s paradox” in BioScience by Raudsepp-Hearne and colleagues (2010) is particularly significant. In essence, Raudsepp-Hearne and colleagues (2010) claimed that although ecosystem services have been degraded, human well-being—paradoxically—has increased. In this article, we show that this debate is in fact rooted in a broader discussion on weak sustainability versus strong sustainability(the substitutability of human-made capital for natural capital). We warn against the reductive nature of focusing only on a stock–flow framework in which a natural-capital stock produces ecosystem services. Concretely, we recommend a holistic approach in which the complexity, irreversibility, uncertainty, and ethical predicaments intrinsic to the natural environment and its connections to humanity are also considered.

Capital market expectations and the London office market

The analysis of office market dynamics has generally concentrated on the impact of underlying fundamental demand and supply variables. This paper takes a slightly different approach to many previous examinations of rental dynamics. Within a Vector-Error-Correction framework the empirical analysis concentrates upon the impact of economic and financial variables on rents in the City of London and West End of London office markets. The impulse response and variance decomposition reveal that while lagged rental values and key demand drivers play a highly important role in the dynamics of rents, financial variables are also influential. Stock market performance not only influences the City of London market but also the West End, whilst the default spread plays an important role in recent years. It is argued that both series incorporate expectations about future economic performance and that this is the basis of their influence upon rental values.

The long-run performance of IPOs: the case of the Stock Exchange of Mauritius

This study examines the long-run performance of initial public offerings on the Stock Exchange of Mauritius (SEM). The results show that the 3-year equally weighted cumulative adjusted returns average −16.5%. The magnitude of this underperformance is consistent with most reported studies in different developed and emerging markets. Based on multivariate regression models, firms with small issues and higher ex ante financial strength seem on average to experience greater long-run underperformance, supporting the divergence of opinion and overreaction hypotheses. On the other hand, Mauritian firms do not on average time their offerings to lower cost of capital and as such, there seems to be limited support for the windows of opportunity hypothesis.