MERGE provides a framework for thinking about climate change management proposals. The model is designed to be sufficiently flexible to be used to explore alternative views on a wide range of contentious issues, eg costs, damages, valuation and discounting. We begin with a description of the model's individual components and show how they fit together. We then provide an initial application to illustrate how the framework can be used in the assessment of alternative policy options. Given the level of uncertainty which pervades the climate debate, it would be unrealistic to expect cost-benefit analysis to lead to consensus on a bottom line — at least any time soon. Rather, models such as MERGE should be viewed as research tools capable of providing insights into which aspects of the debate may be most important. In this way, they can help focus the discussion and identify the areas where additional research may have the highest pay-off.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 737 citations exist upstream.