SCIENTISTS: We have to cut consumption to prevent global warming!! OTHER SCIENTIST: [invents a way to remove carbon in the atmosphere without destroying global economy] SCIENTISTS: No, not like thathttp://www.climatecentral.org/news/scientists-warn-negative-emissions-moral-hazard-20785 …
-
-
Well, yep, and the not-quite-joke I'm making here is that capability to argue against activities/interventions based on (often speculative) risky behavior of agents they will induce (such as the proposed hypothesis that deployment of carbon sequestration will
-
undermine clean-energy and emission-reduction efforts) itself constitutes a kind of lowkey "meta-ish" moral hazard, because agents (researchers) are now inclined to make arguments about hypothetical behaviors carbon sequestration might encourage instead of, i dunno, actually
-
studying those effects. I think that one can find a lot of "moral hazard" claims that fit this amusing pattern.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.