Publications

Pricing Monitoring Uncertainty in Climate Policy

25 August 2016 - Special issues

This article assesses the environmental and economic efficiency of three different approaches to treat monitoring uncertainty in climate policy, namely prescribing uncertainty, setting minimum certainty thresholds and pricing uncertainty through a discount. Our model of the behavior of profit-maximizing agents demonstrates that under the simplest set of assumptions the regulator has no interest in reducing monitoring uncertainty. However, in the presence of information asymmetry, monitoring uncertainty may hamper the economic and environmental performance of climate policy due to adverse selection. In a mandatory policy, prescribing a reasonable level of uncertainty is preferable if the regulator has enough information to determine this level. For voluntary mechanisms, such as carbon offsets, allowing agents to set their own monitoring uncertainty below a maximum threshold or discounting carbon revenues in proportion to monitoring uncertainty are the best approaches for the regulator to mitigate the negative effects of information asymmetry. These conclusions are much more pronounced when agents do not accrue revenues from their mitigation action, other than carbon. Our analysis of monitoring uncertainty under information asymmetry, which results in heterogeneity in the agents’ benefits from abatement, generalizes the classical trade-off between production efficiency and information rents.

You can download the article HERE  

Pricing Monitoring Uncertainty in Climate Policy Download
To learn more
  • 07/08/2025
    Annex 2 – Methodology note (2025 Edition)
  • 07/02/2025 Foreword of the week
    Bridging the gap: high-level climate & development finance commitments and the reality on the ground

    The 4th International Conference on Financing for Development (FFD4) in Seville represents a milestone for delivering on development (including climate action) goals, a decade after the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement. The “Seville Commitment” was adopted on June 30th, albeit in the absence of the United States – demonstrating that widespread support remains for a comprehensive package to finance development. However, the outcome also embodies the growing chasm between high-level commitments and the reality of financing for development and climate action on the ground. Recent research by I4CE attempts to bridge this gap on two crucial issues. 

  • 07/02/2025
    From headline trillions to actual millions: climate financing needs estimates in the age of implementation

    As climate finance debates evolve from pledges to implementation, this report critically reviews the methodologies and narratives behind existing climate financing needs estimates to examine how they might be used to guide practical efforts in the years to come, and where the most urgent improvements are needed. From headline trillions to actual millions, the challenge ahead is not just about determining how much is missing – the focus should be on closing this gap in practice.

See all publications
Press contact Amélie FRITZ Head of Communication and press relations Email
Subscribe to our mailing list :
I register !
Subscribe to our newsletter
Once a week, receive all the information on climate economics
I register !
Fermer