Stanton and Ackerman also have a working paper out on their own economics model (CRED) that is based on DICE but is meant to address the various shortcomings they identified. Again, I've just glanced at it, but this one statement just caught my eye on Stanton's site announcing it:
What the model shows is that the most cost-effective way to reduce global emissions and maximize the yield of “green” investment is to target developing countries: Because the impact of every dollar is bigger in a lower-income economy, shifting capital from rich to poor regions has the best payoff.So, er, even if the other models show the most cost-effective solutions are X, the modellers get to override X with Y if X disagrees with their worldview? And its the climate modellers that get accused of fiddling with their models and fine-tuning to get the results they "want"???? Geez...
Developing nations have advocated this approach for years, but industrialized nations have resisted, not wanting climate mitigation to become a vehicle for the redistribution of wealth. In fact, widely used economic models specifically correct for this “problem,” and focus on climate solutions that leave global inequality untouched by design.
Rust also notes, in giving me permission to share this, that "all I am going on right now is their say-so... I suspect entirely valid but you know - caveat emptor!"
Anyone out there have any insight into this?