TY - JOUR
T1 - Steering the climate system
T2 - using inertia to lower the cost of policy: Reply†
AU - Lemoine, Derek
AU - Rudik, Ivan
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 American Economic Association. All rights reserved.
PY - 2020/4
Y1 - 2020/4
N2 - Mattauch et al. (2020) claims that the quantitative conclusions in Lemoine and Rudik (2017)—henceforth, LR17—are not robust to using a climate model consistent with recent scientific results. We observe that LR17 in fact analyzes an extension to a more realistic carbon model that generates an efficient emission tax trajectory very similar to that in Mattauch et al. (2020), and we here show that simplifications in the temperature model of LR17 do not qualitatively affect their policy conclusions. Accounting for inertia reduces the initial emission tax by 42 percent and reduces the present value of abatement cost by 39 percent.
AB - Mattauch et al. (2020) claims that the quantitative conclusions in Lemoine and Rudik (2017)—henceforth, LR17—are not robust to using a climate model consistent with recent scientific results. We observe that LR17 in fact analyzes an extension to a more realistic carbon model that generates an efficient emission tax trajectory very similar to that in Mattauch et al. (2020), and we here show that simplifications in the temperature model of LR17 do not qualitatively affect their policy conclusions. Accounting for inertia reduces the initial emission tax by 42 percent and reduces the present value of abatement cost by 39 percent.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85085294237&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85085294237&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1257/aer.20191814
DO - 10.1257/aer.20191814
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85085294237
SN - 0002-8282
VL - 110
SP - 1238
EP - 1241
JO - American Economic Review
JF - American Economic Review
IS - 4
ER -