Reply [to Comments on “The greenhouse debate: Time for action?”] Greenhouse economics and policy

Michael E. Schlesinger

Research output: Contribution to journalLetter

Abstract

In their comments, Harvey [1992], Oeschger et al. [1992], and Bolin [1992] raise the intertwined issues of greenhouse economics and policy, particularly the economic and environmental costs of a 10‐year delay in action and the need for the natural and socioeconomic sciences to define future scenarios. In the following I address these concerns by summarizing recent research conducted on greenhouse economics and policy by Peck and Teisberg [1992a, b], W.D. Nordhaus (Rolling the “DICE”: An optimal transition path for controlling greenhouse gases, submitted to the Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1992; hereinafter, referred to as Nordhaus, 1992), and Hammitt, Lempert, and Schlesinger [1992], followed by conclusions and recommendations.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)321
Number of pages1
JournalEos, Transactions American Geophysical Union
Volume73
Issue number30
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 28 1992

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Earth and Planetary Sciences(all)

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Reply [to Comments on “The greenhouse debate: Time for action?”] Greenhouse economics and policy'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this