Frank Ackerman
Director, Climate Economics Group
Somerville, MA
frank.ackerman@sei-us.org
skype: frank.ackerman
+1 (617) 627-6957
Frank Ackerman is an economist specializing in climate change. A prominent critic of conventional economic approaches to climate policy and the abuses of cost-benefit analysis, he has written extensively for academic, policy and general audiences and has directed studies for clients ranging from Greenpeace to the European Parliament and U.S. federal and state agencies.
Ackerman's most recent book, Can We Afford the Future? Economics for a Warming World (Zed Books, 2009), reframes the economics of climate change in terms of insuring the planet against worst-case scenarios, addressing the needs of future generations, and accepting the challenge of global equity raised by the climate crisis. His other recent projects include The Economics of 350: The Benefits and Costs of Climate Stabilization (E3 Network, 2009, with Elizabeth A. Stanton et al.), and Poisoned for Pennies: The Economics of Toxics and Precaution (Island Press, 2008).
Ackerman is a founder and steering committee member of Economics for Equity and Environment (the E3 Network) and a member scholar of the Center for Progressive Reform in Washington, D.C. He is also a senior research fellow at the Global Development and Environment Institute of Tufts University, where he led the Research and Policy Program until 2007.
Ackerman earned his Ph.D. in economics at Harvard University in 1975 and has taught economics at Tufts University and the University of Massachusetts.
In his free time, he plays the trumpet in the Second Line Social Aid and Pleasure Society Brass Band, an amateur New Orleans-style band.
Ackerman welcomes media inquiries and invitations to speak and write on climate economics; the costs of inaction; critiques of conservative economic analyses; and international perspectives on climate protection.
Recent Publications by Frank Ackerman
|
Estimating Regions' Relative Vulnerability to Climate Damages in the CRED ModelSEI Working Paper WP-US-1103 Author(s): Stanton, E.A. ; Cegan, J. ; Bueno, R. ; Ackerman, F.Year: 2012 Research Area(s): Climate Economics Description: This article introduces the CRED climate vulnerability index (VI-CRED), developed for use in the CRED integrated assessment model. VI-CRED is an index of vulnerability to climate change, with the advantage of simplicity and transparency as compared to more complicated indices with dozens of components. VI-CRED apportions economic damages from climate change among world regions on the basis of differences in vulnerable sectors' contribution to gross domestic product, share of population living at less than 5 meters above sea level, and access to freshwater resources. Its results are broadly similar to those of other indices, but it assigns a more prominent role to water scarcity and, for this reason, includes the Middle East among the most vulnerable regions.Note: This is an updated version of a paper first published in February 2011. Download PDF |
|
|
Climate Economics: The State of the ArtSEI Report Author(s): Ackerman, F. ; Stanton, E.A.Year: 2011 Research Area(s): Climate Economics Description: Economic analysis has become increasingly central to the climate policy debate, but the models and assumptions of climate economics often lag far behind the latest developments in this fast-moving field. This report offers an in-depth review of new developments in climate economics and science since the Stern Review (2006) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), with more than 500 citations. Drawing on this review, the authors also make several recommendations for aligning climate economics with climate science.More information Download PDF |
|
|
Employment effects of coal ash regulationPolicy white paper Author(s): Ackerman, F.Year: 2011 Research Area(s): Climate Economics Description: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is considering regulation to protect the public from the health hazards of coal ash disposal. In response, an industry group has claimed that strict regulation of ash disposal could lead to the loss of more than 300,000 jobs. This analysis shows fundamental flaws in that claim and provides a new calculation of job impacts, based on an industry estimate of the costs of regulation and using the well-known IMPLAN model of the U.S. economy. It finds the true employment impact would be a gain of 28,000 jobs.More information Download PDF |
|
|
CRED v.1.3 Technical ReportSEI technical report Author(s): Ackerman, F. ; Stanton, E.A. ; Bueno, R.Year: 2011 Research Area(s): Climate Economics Description: Climate and Regional Economics of Development (CRED) is an integrated assessment model, with a central focus on the global distribution of climate damages and climate policy costs. It is designed to estimate both the best pace of investment in mitigation, and the best distribution of the cost of that investment to regions of the world, with the goal of informing global climate negotiations and help break the stalemate between developed and developing countries. Version 1.3 of the CRED model was completed in June 2011. This technical report describes the CRED v.1.3 methodology in detail.Download PDF |
|
|
Regulation of Cooling Water Intake Structures at Existing FacilitiesTestimony to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0667 Author(s): Ackerman, F. ; Stanton, E.A.Year: 2011 Research Area(s): Climate Economics Description: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has proposed requirements under the Clean Water Act for cooling water intake structures at existing power generation and manufacturing facilities that withdraw more than 2 million gallons per day of water. These comments review a cost-benefit analysis done by the EPA of four regulatory options and discuss the agency's use of the cost-benefit framework in the regulatory process. They offer more complete estimates of benefits, look more closely at projected electricity market and employment impacts, and identify problems with non-monetizable values that make cost-benefit analysis less useful in this context. In addition, they argue against the EPA's recommendation of site-specific decisions, which would shift the burden of cost-benefit analysis onto individual states.Download PDF |





