Hello @BjornLomborg. I just watched your discussion with @jordanbpeterson and reviewed the pdf you were showing.
Could you please elaborate on exactly what you consider "Oil and Gas subsidies" to be that you indicate could be cut?
Thank you.
Here is the short version: https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/03/02/end-fossil-fuel-subsidies/LzzK4UxeC0J57WskBYeOqL/story.html … IEA makes an annual estimate here: https://www.iea.org/weo/energysubsidies/ …pic.twitter.com/sSuTiURe6r
-
-
Thank you, Bjorn. 1/ "Consumption" subsidies are significantly different than what is currently being argued, which includes the "social cost of carbon" as a de facto subsidy. Calls for a carbon tax, or leaving the oil in the ground is then the "answer".
-
2/ When you say "Phase out fossil fuel subsidies" that doesn't read "consumption", that reads all, and when you have this other factor coming from people like the Gov't of Canada for example, it takes on a whole new meaning. A very dangerous one. https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/energy/pdf/GenEnergy/Calculating%20the%20Real%20Cost%20of%20Energy.pdf …
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.