Aside from the immorality of obliging poor nations to avoid policies that would reduce poverty, the big problem with forcing carbon cuts is that green energy is not yet the savior that it is portrayed as.
More in my latest for @nypost:http://ow.ly/N8RE30lA98j
-
Bjorn, it’s good to see a cost & benefit analysis on this and I enjoyed your book Cool It, however $600B a year in costs for the EU seems way too high. Where do you get that #?
thanks – from my congress testimony on Paris: https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-114-SY-WState-BLomborg-20151201.pdf … Estimated GDP reduction from EMF28 (80% by 2050 which reaches 41% reduction in 2030). Previous estimates show EU costs double because poor implementation (wanting wind instead of gas etc.), Bohringer et al 2009pic.twitter.com/E6AmBOd4Z0
-
-
Nice to see the detail behind the figures.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
Ok, so GDP resets $600B lower and assumes a similar growth trajectory thus each year GDP is $600B less than it otherwise would have been. That makes sense now. Thanks for the clarification Bjorn.
-
great, yes. And it is just that the GDP grows slightly slower each year, so by 2030, it is 1.6% behind in the most efficient policy scenario (and then, with no more policies, it will stay 1.6% behind every year from then)
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.