Because cutting 100% CO₂ fast will harm the world much, much more than the benefit it will providehttps://twitter.com/EricHolthaus/status/1101836893589852162 …
Näytä tämä ketju
Not just a 'feeling' Clear conclusion of major cost-benefit studies of climate change E.g. first climate Nobel economist: moderate CO₂ tax optimal, Strong policy: cost>benefits 100% CO₂ cut (1.5°C) phenomenally costly & impossible https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pol.20170046 …pic.twitter.com/Rji2Pv7Utw
-
-
Don't think you get it Bjorn. Feelings are how we do policy now.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
Can't wait to breath all that GDP in 20 years time.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
I get yr argument (does it hold up under worst case case scenario?). But are things like ocean acidification and species extinction factored in? Can getting rich de-acidify the oceans, replace pollinators for example? And can we build our way out of growing probs ad infinitum?
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
Tämä twiitti ei ole saatavilla.
-
25000 GW nuclear cleans all those things. No more clear cutting rainforest for EU biofuels. Biofuel is as bad as it sounds.
Keskustelun loppu
-
-
-
Thanks Bjorn, you’ve convinced me to get that ego swelling V8 pickup truck I’ve been craving, and let my kids generation pickup the tab for climate change adaptation.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
This graph is only as good as the accuracy of the climate models. Which have basically been mostly failed in the past.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
The planet will need 25,000 GW electric in 2060. If we build it all nuclear, it will be 100% clean, with enough power for most of transport and heating. 5 times the current power and overall 70% less emissions than today. Easy and cheap.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
Serious question.... should we pursue economic growth at any cost? Do you seriously believe we have perfectly taken into account the full cost of “climate damage”? This notion is asinine if you ask me. E.g: No money in the world will replace the thousands of extinct species.
-
LIke Nordhaus (and pretty much all other economists) I point out that we *shouldn't* pursue economic growth at any costs: The above tweet of Nordhaus' optimal 3.5°C path is exactly the most efficient tradeoff between climate damage and climate policy damage
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.