8th Annual NBER Environmental and Energy Policy and the Economy Conference

Why It Matters

Accurate mortality valuation reshapes the social cost of carbon, directly affecting climate regulation and the economic justification for mitigation policies.

Key Takeaways

• NBER conference fosters collaboration among academics, government, NGOs.
• Papers undergo peer review, influencing upcoming Cambridge University Press volume.
• Presentation examines how to value climate‑induced premature deaths.
• Mortality valuation now dominates social cost of carbon estimates.
• Spatially detailed models reveal regional disparities in life‑value assumptions.

Summary

The eighth annual NBER Environmental and Energy Policy and the Economy conference brought together researchers, government officials, and NGOs to showcase policy‑relevant work funded by the Sloan Foundation. Organized by Matthew Kocchin, Tatiana Darugina, and Catherine Wolfram, the meeting serves as a peer‑review forum, with feedback shaping papers slated for a Cambridge University Press volume.

One of the highlighted presentations, by Daniel Bresler and co‑author Jeffrey Heal, tackled the thorny question of valuing excess deaths caused by climate change. The authors argue that the social cost of carbon (SEC) hinges critically on how premature mortality is monetized, noting that mortality now accounts for 50‑80% of SEC damages in recent EPA models. They stress that the choice of value‑of‑statistical‑life (VSL) across regions is the most influential factor, surpassing discount‑rate considerations.

Bresler traced the debate back to the 1995 IPCC report, which controversially assigned a tenth‑world‑average VSL to developing nations, prompting diplomatic backlash. He highlighted advances in climate‑impact modeling—such as the Climate Impact Lab’s 25,000‑region resolution and RFF’s 184‑country grid—that now allow granular mortality assessments. The presentation also referenced the EPA’s 2023 SEC update, which employed three damage modules to illustrate the mortality share.

The discussion underscores the policy stakes: regulators must decide whether to apply a uniform global VSL or region‑specific values, a choice that can dramatically shift the estimated benefits of carbon mitigation. As models become more spatially precise, the pressure mounts on agencies to adopt transparent, equitable valuation frameworks, influencing future climate‑related rulemaking and cost‑benefit analyses.