thanks for your comments! Since you posted this (quite a while ago), we have substantially revised the paper which now incorporates many of your suggestions including quantitative results. We also discuss a modification where climate change has direct utility effects. The final version is now accepted for publication in JET and can be downloaded here:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325528610_Optimal_Climate_Policies_in_a_Dynamic_Multi-Country_Equilibrium_Model

Thanks again, kind regards,

Marten.

In this context: The 2-degree-objective has been contested of course. Any number is always arbitrary to some extent (why not 2.1 or 1.9 degrees?). Is there any mechanism in the model that would justify a clear threshold level? Does the model predict that a rise about x degrees would lead to something qualitatively different than any rise in average temperature that remains below these x degrees? Are there tipping points in the model, points of no return? A quantitative version of the model would provide some rational for 2-degree-objectives and could come up with quantitative values for the x.

]]>A nice feature of the work by the two Hillebrands is their multi-country framework. This would allow to model “costs in the North and death in the South”. One would make the effects of environmental changes dependent on the current development level of a country. But I guess, one should first come up with some numbers on what it actually means that there are only costs in the North (good warning systems, we just reconstruct our houses?) vs more threatening effects in the South (fewer well-developed institutions, less well-developed health systems?). I see that this sounds more like future work than a precise comment for this specific paper.

]]>