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
© 2025. Kent A. Clark Center for Global Markets.
12%
5%
2%
7%
23%
35%
16%
Responses weighted by each expert's confidence
© 2025. Kent A. Clark Center for Global Markets.
3%
6%
23%
43%
25%
Question B:
Carbon taxes are a better way to implement climate policy than cap-and-trade.
Responses
© 2025. Kent A. Clark Center for Global Markets.
12%
5%
0%
0%
26%
42%
16%
Responses weighted by each expert's confidence
© 2025. Kent A. Clark Center for Global Markets.
0%
0%
21%
53%
26%
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.
|
||||
