arbiter
JournalsAccount

COMMON CLIMATE ACTIONS VERSUS DIFFERENTIATED CARBON PRICING: THE SOCIAL COST OF CARBON (SCC) FORMATION BASED ON THE LINDAHL EQUILIBRIUM

Zili Yang

Climate Change Economics2026https://doi.org/10.1142/s2010007826500016article
ABDC B
Weight
0.50

Abstract

Calculating the proper social cost of carbon (SCC) is essential for effective climate policy. This paper argues for differentiated regional SCCs and a global SCC indicator based on the Lindahl equilibrium by treating climate change as an externality. The regional Lindahl SCC represents the regional “personalized prices” or “willing-to-pay” cost-sharing in global GHG mitigation efforts. It also acts as a consensus tool for international cooperation on carbon emissions. To demonstrate the feasibility and advantages of the Lindahl SCC, it is calculated using the RICE2020 model and compared with the regional SCC based on a utilitarian (equal-weight) social optimum. Numerical simulations support the findings. Finally, the policy implications of the Lindahl SCC are discussed.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1142/s2010007826500016

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{zili2026,
  title        = {{COMMON CLIMATE ACTIONS VERSUS DIFFERENTIATED CARBON PRICING: THE SOCIAL COST OF CARBON (SCC) FORMATION BASED ON THE LINDAHL EQUILIBRIUM}},
  author       = {Zili Yang},
  journal      = {Climate Change Economics},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1142/s2010007826500016},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

COMMON CLIMATE ACTIONS VERSUS DIFFERENTIATED CARBON PRICING: THE SOCIAL COST OF CARBON (SCC) FORMATION BASED ON THE LINDAHL EQUILIBRIUM

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.