Why is the World Economic Forum taking climate advice from a 16 year old climate campaigner instead of the world’s only Nobel climate economist?pic.twitter.com/44FQmDb1dd
Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Ah, well wedged firmly in my mind is that prior to this you convinced many people, including At my newspaper, that we should do nothing...
He takes the "lukewarmer" denier position, in which you propose totally inadequate solutions that confuse your critics and increase your credibility while arguing that the costs of fighting climate change are worse than the costs of "managing" it.
Your work has repeatedly been found to be littered with basic errors, falsehoods and all the rest. However, rather than learning from your mistakes, you just continue to pour out more Gish Gallop nonsense, and do not address the fundamental errors in your reasoning.
Carbon tax is a bad idea. It creates some perverse incentive, like for CCS. A more general Fossil Fuel tax makes better sense. Most agriculture is subsistence level and dependent on rising emissions, overly aggressive reductions in CO2 concentrations could be problematic.
I haven't seen Lomborg advocating carbon taxes anywhere.
His Consensus placed taxes last in a ranking of policy proposals "to spend $250 billion per year over 10 yrs to diminish adverse effects of climate change;" perversely ignoring that taxes could FUND that $$.
@DoctorVive 1/
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.