Abstract
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. (JEL H23, Q54, Q58)
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
