Another list

• Joseph Aldy, Resources for the Future
• James Edmonds, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
• Richard Howarth, Dartmouth College
• Bruce McCarl, Texas A&M University
• Robert Mendelsohn, Yale University
• William Nordhaus, Yale University S
• ergey Paltsev, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
• William Pizer, Resources for the Future
• David Popp, Syracuse University
• John Reilly, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
• Roger Sedjo, Resources for the Future
• Kathleen Segerson, University of Connecticut
• Brent Sohngen, Ohio State University
• Robert Stavins, Harvard University
• Richard Tol, Economic and Social Research Institute
• Martin Weitzman, Harvard University
• Peter Wilcoxen, Syracuse University
• Gary Yohe, Wesleyan University

So what do they have in common??


They are the economists consulted by the US Government Accountability Office on what should be done about climate change. You can read the report, or you can read the summary

All of the panelists agreed that the Congress should consider a market-based mechanism to establish a price on greenhouse gas emissions and supported implementation of the policy by 2015. Opinions varied on whether the Congress should implement a cap-and-trade system or a tax to control greenhouse gas emissions, with eight panelists preferring a cap-and-trade program with a safety valve (sometimes referred to as a hybrid system), seven preferring a tax, and three preferring a cap-and-trade program. All of the panelists agreed that the policy should target all sectors of the economy, and the majority believed that it should include all greenhouse gases. For example, one panelist stated that by establishing a price on emissions from all sources in the United States with no exceptions, the policy would equilibrate the marginal cost of reducing emissions across all sources, making it economically efficient.

The panelists varied in their views on the stringency of the market-based regulatory mechanism that they supported to place a price on greenhouse gas emissions.25 For example, in proposing an initial price on emissions, seven panelists said it should range from less than $1 to $10, six said from $11 to $20, and four said it should be greater than $20 (2007 dollars per metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent).26 In addition, while most panelists said the price should increase over time, they varied in their views on the preferred rate of increase. For example, some panelists provided estimates ranging from 2 percent to 5 percent per year adjusted for inflation, while another panelist said more generally that it should be reevaluated periodically (for example, every 5 years) and rise as marginal damages of climate change rise. Some panelists noted the importance of a long-term commitment to establish a price on emissions and the flexibility to adjust the price and rate of increase as new information becomes available. For example, one panelist stated that certainty in setting emissions reductions goals was necessary for firms that would have to make substantial investments in new emissions reduction technologies.