Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Paying 16% to avoid a small part of a 2-4% problem is a bad deal For NZ it is more than last year’s entire national budget on social security, welfare, health, education, police, courts, defense, environment, and every other part of government combined. $13 tax on a gallon of gas
That is what first Nobel laureate in climate economics, William Nordhaus finds We should cut the cheapest and most damaging CO₂, but optimal level is cutting from 4.1°C in 2100 to 3.5°C 2.5°C would be a terrible deal, and 2°C or 1.5°C worse (& impossible) https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pol.20170046 …pic.twitter.com/yIIYwLeyja
So maybe we should stop scaring kids silly Maybe we should stop scaring ourselves silly? And maybe start making sensible climate policy, not based on fear but honest awareness of tradeoffs between climate damage and climate policy damage?https://twitter.com/bjornlomborg/status/1136724909093208065 …
"... which no philosopher or philosophically-minded economist believes is justified." Nonsense.
I’m afraid our species is dealing with a challenge that exceeds the boundaries of economic rationality
I don't care how many Nobel prizes anyone has, the idea that we can know values at 2100 or optimal definition is not correct. However sensible capitalist approach is required. But as engineer you need to show some demonstrable control before U can grasp hysteresis effects.
What abatement actions are we talking about that costs so much money? Is this about replacing fossil fuels or reducing the emissions from them? As the percentage of CO2 increases, will this cause plants to grow better and faster and help offset?
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
