The reviewers note that while the authors have a bit of work to do, this paper could constitute a valuable contribution to the literature. The responses to the reviewers seem generally appropriate. I look forward to the revised manuscript. Please also include a tracked changes version of your revision.

The authors have done a nice job of responding to the reviewers’ comments. I have a few more minor comments, after which I would be happy to accept the paper.

Page 1, Lines 6-7: Taken out of context, this is a bold statement and probably not true. This is only true within your modeling framework. Caveats need to be added.

Page 1, Line 18: Feasible to do what? Needs more context.

Page 2, lines 27-28: I agree that this is the first rigorous cost-benefit analysis, which is interesting. However, DICE has its issues, which you describe quite well in the following paragraph. I wonder if there’s a way to rearrange some of your text so that it’s clear to readers that this cost-benefit analysis is done in the framework of a model with limitations.

Page 3, lines 24-25: Is this estimate of 50% also from Ciais et al. (2013)? Citation could be clearer.

Page 9, line 4: This isn’t a complete sentence.