Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
France’s U-turn over ¢3 fuel tax sent shivers through the COP24 climate summit: Highlights the difficulty of imposing *any* economic pain in the name of tackling climate change https://www.politico.eu/article/france-fuel-tax-retreat-dismays-cop24-climate-change-summit/ …pic.twitter.com/JNvd1cGGgy
Who knew? Voters care about climate, but only willing to pay a little Studies routinely show that voters only willing to pay $100-200/year to fix climate. Most policies that will have any real impact will cost much, much more (e.g. $177 in US, http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa822a/meta …)
They would probably be willing pay more if it wasn’t a load of made up socialist rubbish. The masses see through the ‘experts’ politically biased ‘science’.
Why would I want to buy something when I had no idea if what I got back was worth it. Raise my gasp tax $5 and reduce temperature by 0.001 degrees over 80 years. I’d say the protesters were smart.
I’m confused, how does highlighting climate “alarmism” and downplaying the human economic costs of CC, help voters accept the costs of changing behaviour?
Reluctant though I am to argue with an economist about financial matters, I must insist that in the mathematics the rest of us use, $177 falls in the range $100-$200.
Is there a distinction between what voters SAY they are willing to pay in the hypothetical and what they are actually willing to pay in reality? If so, that $177 might in truth be closer to $0
Some lefty proposed that the solution here is the transfer of wealth to the working classes. However fuel taxes will only work if they hurt. If you make the lower classes richer the will simply use the money to buy gas. The pain also has to fall on the poor as the rich have money
The beatings will continue until behavior improves
Luckily co2 rises follow rather than precede global temperature rises, so I think we might get away with this.
That's great, we now know what the battle lines are. The intervention prices need to come down, and people need to be willing to pay more. First is a science problem, which is good as we're good with science, the second a comms problem, which is good as we're amazing with comms.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
