... but very unlikely to be the full solution, since net zero or negative emissions is the goal. At some price point, negative emission technologies must become a much better solution.
-
-
Prikaži ovu nit
-
Fascinating little tidbit: no WTO case law on carbon leakage:pic.twitter.com/sgG5wxC8uQ
Prikaži ovu nit -
Quite a few people have pointed out that maybe the Economist implicitly meant "... and then using those taxes to fund negative emissions technologies, renewable energy, other new regs etc." In which case, fair enough. It wasn't my reading, but it's plausible.
Prikaži ovu nit
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
more important question is why are we talking to economists rather than nuclear scientists and geoengineers?
-
Curious on two questions: (1) Why do you think nuclear has stagnated so much since the early 80s (when capacity pretty much maxed out)? What can be done to shift that? [I'd love a good answer! I've spent a lot of time searching for one.]pic.twitter.com/pomMuNCnvl
- Još 7 drugih odgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
To be more precise, a carbon (or GHG)*price* is a huge part of the solution that virtually all economists support. Pay if you emit; collect if you remove. This can internalize externalities and provide the right incentives for both conservation and innovation.
-
Yeah, I'm inclined to think the original was just sloppily worded, and left a lot implicit.
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
I think the reasoning here is not as bad as it looks - ‘carbon tax’ really just means ‘pricing the negative externalities of emissions’ Once you’ve done this, all other methods of carbon abatement/reduction become *financially incentivised*
-
the idea is that after you introduce a global carbon tax, there are v strong financial incentives to find the most cost effective way to reduce emissions I.e. ‘planting trees’ and ‘renewable energy’ and so on all become cashflow positive (reflecting their social cost)
- Još 1 odgovor
Novi razgovor -
-
-
This might come from the Nordhaus work where I'd one assumes some discount factor then it's not that bad and warming can be allowed to continue. But it also seems odd. Perhaps the profession as a whole didn't even consider negative emissions? Too not mainstream back then?
-
In particular he wants 4°C (!)
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.