1. What is your understanding of the neoclassical perspective as presented by the authors?
My understanding if the neoclassical perspective as presented by the authors on the issues at hand, is that there is a “straight forward,” monetary exchange between emitters of (GHG) for their emissions by means of a simple tax, such as a carbon tax.
2. What are the assumptions about human economic behavioral?
I believe that the assumptions about human behavior in regards to this purposes solution is that once their is a favorable monetary value, the markets will react favorably and lead to development of the necessary technologies.
3. What is your understanding of the neo-Keynesian perspective?
In contact to the neoclassical approach, the neo-Keynesian perspective is to instead create a emissions cap, and create subsidies for renewable energy technologies that contribute to renewable energy portfolio standards.
4. How does it differ from the neoclassical perspective?
The neo-Keynesian approach eliminates the need of a middleman and situational tactics of neoclassical, such as depending on how the market would respond to a carbon tax. Also by I stilling a (GHG) emissions cap, it creates a ceiling, which can be beneficial for regulations and pricing. Also there is an aggressive change to the necessary technological advances, compared to neoclassical.
5. What do neo-Keynesian economists view as the most important policies to address the challenges of climate change?
Neo- Keynesian economists view that, “price signals alone are insufficient to drive clean energy transformation and that carbon taxes that explicitly support clean energy innovation policies to spur research, development, and deployment of next generation alternatives are the preferable solution.”