You might be interested in this paper.
First, as already remarked in, it is possible to generate much more aggressive policy recommendations within the DICE paradigm: all that is needed are realistic damage function specifications, as well as the possibility of damages affecting more than just economic output. Second, and in our view most importantly, the unique-equilibrium nature of the DICE model is incapable of generating economic collapse as a solution, no matter how extreme the damages are from climate change.
This critique is apparently not captured in the literature surrounding SCC.
see in particular the publications of the USA’s Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, which use DICE, PAGE and FUND to calculate the SCC, and whose academic references are dominated by economics papers, rather than the scientific literature on climate change.
Given the failings in the economic literature detailed in this paper, this situation cannot be allowed to continue. Where economics has failed, science should prevail.
Can someone more familiar with models respond or discuss the criticism raised in that paper?
Should Mimi consider inviting these authors to create a different model that addresses the criticisms?