Question A:
Considering a broad range of costs and benefits is a better tool for guiding climate policy than setting temperature limits (such as 1.5 °C , eg) based on expected links between temperature increases and the extent of environmental harm.
Responses
Responses weighted by each expert's confidence
Question B:
Carbon taxes are a better way to implement climate policy than cap-and-trade.
Responses
Responses weighted by each expert's confidence
Question A Participant Responses
Participant | University | Vote | Confidence | Bio/Vote History |
---|---|---|---|---|
Daron Acemoglu |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
There is great urgency. We need a redline, and 1.5C is as good as any, esp taking into account consequences of greater rises for some areas.
|
||||
Alberto Alesina |
Harvard | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
||||
Joseph Altonji |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
The economist in me wants to answer "yes", but the right answer is as much about politics and persuasion as about economics
|
||||
Alan Auerbach |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
David Autor |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Katherine Baicker |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Abhijit Banerjee |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
Its too late and too hard to build s consensus around something more complicated
|
||||
Marianne Bertrand |
Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Markus Brunnermeier |
Princeton | Bio/Vote History | ||
In general cost-benefit analysis is good, but in this case TAIL RISKS matter much more. They need appropriate overweighting.
|
||||
Raj Chetty |
Harvard | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
||||
Judith Chevalier |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
David Cutler |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Angus Deaton |
Princeton | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Darrell Duffie |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Aaron Edlin |
Berkeley | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
||||
Barry Eichengreen |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
Better for policy makers capable of processing a wide range of evidence and acting on it, worse if you just want a focal point for action.
|
||||
Liran Einav |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Ray Fair |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Amy Finkelstein |
MIT | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
||||
Pinelopi Goldberg |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Austan Goolsbee |
Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Michael Greenstone |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Robert Hall |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
A truism valid across a wide range of policy issues
|
||||
Oliver Hart |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Bengt Holmström |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
I would include temperature limits, too, in the range of trade-offs
|
||||
Caroline Hoxby |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Hilary Hoynes |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Kenneth Judd |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
A temperature target is an inflexible goal and not responsive to tradeoffs that are part of any policy decision.
|
||||
Steven Kaplan |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Anil Kashyap |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Pete Klenow |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
I am not aware of evidence that the costs of temperature change rise discontinuously at any one point.
-see background information here -see background information here |
||||
Jonathan Levin |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Eric Maskin |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
William Nordhaus |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Emmanuel Saez |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Larry Samuelson |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
Consideration of a broad range of costs and benefits should lie behind any policy. This may well lead to a temperature limit.
|
||||
José Scheinkman |
Columbia University | Bio/Vote History | ||
C-B analysis helpful for comparing different mitigation actions but non-linearities and complementarities demand an overall target
|
||||
Richard Schmalensee |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
Given time horizons, uncertainty, high stakes, cost-benefit analysis is a weak tool; arbitrary limits are not obviously worse.
|
||||
Carl Shapiro |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
Setting temperature limits seems like a fine way of taking a very complex benefit/cost analysis and putting it into practice.
|
||||
Robert Shimer |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
But in the end, implementing optimal policy might be done in part through temperature targets.
|
||||
James Stock |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
The cost-benefit is preferred in principle, but a carbon budget approach can be justified as a robust way to guard against unknowns.
|
||||
Richard Thaler |
Chicago Booth | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
||||
Christopher Udry |
Northwestern | Bio/Vote History | ||
Simplicity may dominate nuance here, if it makes it more feasible to coordinate on better policy.
|
Question B Participant Responses
Participant | University | Vote | Confidence | Bio/Vote History |
---|---|---|---|---|
Daron Acemoglu |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
Of course, they are equivalent under ideal conditions. But a predictable price for carbon is very useful for future planning and as a signal
|
||||
Alberto Alesina |
Harvard | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
||||
Joseph Altonji |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Alan Auerbach |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
David Autor |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Katherine Baicker |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Abhijit Banerjee |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Marianne Bertrand |
Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Markus Brunnermeier |
Princeton | Bio/Vote History | ||
Tax preferable since marginal abatement cost curve is uncertain, but steeper than marginal damage curve. Latter is flat since CO2 is a stock
|
||||
Raj Chetty |
Harvard | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
||||
Judith Chevalier |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
Depends. But of course either better than status quo.
|
||||
David Cutler |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Angus Deaton |
Princeton | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Darrell Duffie |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Aaron Edlin |
Berkeley | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
||||
Barry Eichengreen |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Liran Einav |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Ray Fair |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Amy Finkelstein |
MIT | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
||||
Pinelopi Goldberg |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Austan Goolsbee |
Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Michael Greenstone |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Robert Hall |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
Cap and trade creates rents that could otherwise be tax revenue
|
||||
Oliver Hart |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
If we know the marginal cost of emissions a tax is better but if we know the optimal quantity cap and trade is better (see Weitzman).
|
||||
Bengt Holmström |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Caroline Hoxby |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Hilary Hoynes |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Kenneth Judd |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
A carbon tax imposes a uniform carbon price across all emissions. How do you cap my car's annual CO2 emissions? Also, we need the revenue.
|
||||
Steven Kaplan |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Anil Kashyap |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
i think it is true, but don't know enough to be sure, and suspect the implementation details matter enough to rule out a blanket endorsement
|
||||
Pete Klenow |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
Jonathan Levin |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Eric Maskin |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
William Nordhaus |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
Many reasons but one important is to get the revenues to recycle to consumers.
|
||||
Emmanuel Saez |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Larry Samuelson |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
Cap and trade is a reasonably second-best, but a carbon tax is more flexible and potentially more effective.
|
||||
José Scheinkman |
Columbia University | Bio/Vote History | ||
Carbon taxes greatly simplify market-design albeit with risk of missing desired targets. This can be fixed by changing tax rates.
|
||||
Richard Schmalensee |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
In theory, of course; in practice, cap-and-trade can handle equity/political concerns without compromising efficiency, while tax laws can't
|
||||
Carl Shapiro |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Robert Shimer |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
But whatever can achieve a political consensus is better than the alternatives.
|
||||
James Stock |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
Price stability, incentives, administrative advantages, clarity. The main plus of cap&trade is politically it hides the costs.
|
||||
Richard Thaler |
Chicago Booth | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
||||
Christopher Udry |
Northwestern | Bio/Vote History | ||
But I'd take either. Or a combination.
|