What factors make creating environmental policies so difficult?
Different people will have different opinions on environmental policies due to different backgrounds and experiences. We first need to consider how much we are willing to give up now for the sake of a better future environment.

How do we gauge the effectiveness of abatement policies, and what policies result in good abatement?
The global greenhouse gas abatement cost curve compares different abatement policies on how effective they are. A bar on the graph represents a way carbon emissions could be reduced, its height indicates the cost of using it, and its width compares the reduced CO2 emissions to the levels without the policy. While changes in agriculture measured to be the most effective, nuclear, wind, and solar photovoltaics are also efficient.

How can we use the marginal cost curve to predict the amount of abatement we get for our expenditure?

Starting with the cheaper and more effective processes first, we would implement land management and conversion policies; once those avenues have been exhausted, we would move on to use higher levels of expenditures with less abatement such as with carbon capture and storage modifications. In terms of the least-cost abatement curve, points within the curve are considered inefficient since there are other abatement policies that will produce the same degree of abatement for less cost.

What would the difference in abatement and cost look like if policies weren’t implemented to the least-cost abatement curve?
For example, if $8.37 billion dollars were invested in less effective abatement options such as coal carbon capture or nuclear, we’d have 6.26 gigatons less in CO2 abatement compared to the curve. Therefore, it is important to be conscientious about what resources we are investing in to produce the most abatement for our budget.

What does the feasible frontier graph of consumption of goods vs quality of the environment tell us about the trade-offs of environmental protection?
The feasible frontier graph measures the goods available for consumption after abatement costs (x-axis) compared to the quality of the environment (y-axis); the highest quality of the environment would result in zero available consumption while the most available consumption would result in zero environmental quality. The slope of the feasible frontier will provide information on the marginal rate of transformation of consumption and environmental quality. Here, the MRT indicates how much environmental quality is gained by giving up one unit of consumption. A steeper MRT indicates a smaller opportunity cost, meaning that less consumption has to be forfeited for an increase in environmental quality.

What does the indifference curve tell us about a policymaker’s choice of abatement policies?
The indifference curve indicates how much consumption people are willing to give up for better environmental quality, and its slope is known as the marginal rate of substitution. If the MRS is steep, people highly value consumption and do not value abatement as much; if the MRS is less steep, people value consumption less and value abatement more.

How would a policymaker approach abatement?
In an ideal situation, a policymaker should balance between policies on the feasible frontier and a degree of environmental quality and consumption that is the highest on the indifference curve possible. In order to achieve this, a point where the MRT and MRS are equal on the feasible frontier should be selected. The point will differ depending on people’s values towards the environment and the cost of abatement.

Abatement policies: policies to reduce environmental impact

Global greenhouse gas abatement cost curve: ranks cost of abating greanhouse gasses

Least-cost abatement curve: all the combinations of expenditures and abatement from lowest to highest cost

Feasible frontier: possible combinations of one factor and another factor

Marginal rate of transformation and Marginal rate of substitution: quantity of vertical axis gained by giving up one quantity of horizontal axis; amount of good consumer is willing to consume compared to another good

Creating effective environmental policies is challenging due to various factors. Diverse perspectives and opinions among people, shaped by their backgrounds and experiences, contribute to the complexity. It is necessary to consider how much individuals are willing to sacrifice in the present for the betterment of the future environment. To gauge the effectiveness of abatement policies, the global greenhouse gas abatement cost curve is used. This curve compares different policies based on their effectiveness, cost, and impact on reducing carbon emissions. Agriculture shows promising results, while nuclear, wind, and solar photovoltaics are also efficient options. The marginal cost curve helps predict the amount of abatement achieved for a given expenditure. Cheaper and more effective processes, such as land management, are implemented first, followed by higher-cost options like carbon capture and storage modifications. The least-cost abatement curve represents the most efficient allocation of resources, while points outside the curve indicate less cost-effective policies. Implementing policies that deviate from the least-cost abatement curve can result in less abatement for the same expenditure. For instance, investing $8.37 billion in less effective options would yield 6.26 gigatons less CO2 abatement compared to following the curve. Therefore, it is crucial to be mindful of resource allocation to maximize abatement within the available budget. The feasible frontier graph shows the trade-offs between consumption of goods and environmental quality. It illustrates how the quality of the environment affects available consumption. The slope of the feasible frontier, known as the marginal rate of transformation (MRT), indicates the opportunity cost of improving environmental quality. A steeper slope implies a smaller sacrifice in consumption for environmental gains. The indifference curve represents the policymaker's choice of abatement policies, reflecting the trade-off between consumption and environmental quality. The slope of the indifference curve, known as the marginal rate of substitution (MRS), reveals the relative value placed on consumption and abatement. A steeper MRS suggests a higher preference for consumption, while a less steep MRS indicates a higher value placed on abatement. An ideal approach for policymakers is to strike a balance between policies on the feasible frontier and the highest point on the indifference curve. This involves selecting a point on the feasible frontier where the MRT and MRS are equal. The specific point will depend on people's values regarding the environment and the cost of abatement.

An example of an abatement policy would be a CRV tax that incentivizes recycling.