Economists' 'next‑ton' trap

Economists often evaluate climate policy by the cost to cut the next ton of CO2 (marginal abatement cost), which privileges near‑term, low‑cost switches (e.g., coal→gas) over the expensive early investments needed to change long‑lived infrastructure and bend the emissions trajectory toward net zero. That framing undervalues system‑level interventions (clean‑technology scale‑up, durable low‑carbon fuels, permitting reform) whose benefits accrue over decades because CO2 is a stock pollutant. — If accepted, this reframes political debates and the justification for subsidies, industrial policy, and regulatory interventions, shifting public support toward upfront, higher‑cost actions that enable deep decarbonization.