This is a fascinating comment in the Economist. It seems obviously wrong, and (they claim) an opinion held by an entire profession. A carbon tax seems like a very good way of partially solving the problem...pic.twitter.com/41WyHKuIjZ
Za najbolje sučelje na Twitteru koristite Microsoft Edge ili instalirajte aplikaciju Twitter iz trgovine Microsoft Store.
Searching for the numinous. Co-purveyor of https://quantum.country/
U tweetove putem weba ili aplikacija drugih proizvođača možete dodati podatke o lokaciji, kao što su grad ili točna lokacija. Povijest lokacija tweetova uvijek možete izbrisati. Saznajte više
Dodajte ovaj Tweet na svoje web-mjesto kopiranjem koda u nastavku. Saznajte više
Dodajte ovaj videozapis na svoje web-mjesto kopiranjem koda u nastavku. Saznajte više
Integracijom Twitterova sadržaja u svoje web-mjesto ili aplikaciju prihvaćate Twitterov Ugovor za programere i Pravila za programere.
| Država | Kod | Samo za korisnike |
|---|---|---|
| Sjedinjene Američke Države | 40404 | (bilo koje) |
| Kanada | 21212 | (bilo koje) |
| Ujedinjeno Kraljevstvo | 86444 | Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2 |
| Brazil | 40404 | Nextel, TIM |
| Haiti | 40404 | Digicel, Voila |
| Irska | 51210 | Vodafone, O2 |
| Indija | 53000 | Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance |
| Indonezija | 89887 | AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata |
| Italija | 4880804 | Wind |
| 3424486444 | Vodafone | |
| » Pogledajte SMS kratke šifre za druge zemlje | ||
Vremenska crta mjesto je na kojem ćete provesti najviše vremena i bez odgode dobivati novosti o svemu što vam je važno.
Prijeđite pokazivačem preko slike profila pa kliknite gumb Pratim da biste prestali pratiti neki račun.
Kada vidite Tweet koji volite, dodirnite srce – to osobi koja ga je napisala daje do znanja da vam se sviđa.
Najbolji je način da podijelite nečiji Tweet s osobama koje vas prate prosljeđivanje. Dodirnite ikonu da biste smjesta poslali.
Pomoću odgovora dodajte sve što mislite o nekom tweetu. Pronađite temu koja vam je važna i uključite se.
Bez odgode pogledajte o čemu ljudi razgovaraju.
Pratite više računa da biste dobivali novosti o temama do kojih vam je stalo.
Bez odgode pogledajte najnovije razgovore o bilo kojoj temi.
Bez odgode pratite kako se razvijaju događaji koje pratite.
This is a fascinating comment in the Economist. It seems obviously wrong, and (they claim) an opinion held by an entire profession. A carbon tax seems like a very good way of partially solving the problem...pic.twitter.com/41WyHKuIjZ
... 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.
It'll only be solved by a combination of many approaches none of which is even capable of being the full solution. We should also expect some approaches to fail or be counter-productive. So seeking one single massive intervention is very unwise. We need many small ones.
That seems likely. Though for both the ozone hole and Clean Air Act I was surprised at how much a relatively small number of ideas proved to be key. I'm not sure they're the ones I would have advocated for at the time, either, which is personally sobering(!)
Me too. Point taken. Nevertheless, massive interventions are risky. And increasing taxes increases our vulnerability to the next emergency. Are we going to meet them *all* by increasing taxes further?
I'm sympathetic to that argument. However, I think it's at least plausible to want Pigouvian taxes whenever there's a negative externality. But that leaves the Q: how on earth do you compute the marginal damage / tax rate? The standard approaches seem v. unsatisfying.
There's no negative CO2 externality because "there is no greenhouse gas effect" <-- Dr M. Connolly https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfRBr7PEawY … A greenhouse gas effect would show as an anomaly in CO2 thermodynamic properties; which it doesn't <-- Gerlich & Tscheuschner https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S021797920904984X …
Curious: that Connolly video seems well-intentioned. But they make the assertion that current climate models assume radiative physics is the main driver. As far as I understand (& I don't understand them well, yet), that's not true - in modern models convection is absolutely key
In particular, my understanding is that modern models assume it's a mistake to regard the troposphere as being in radiative equilibrium, and instead (at a minimum) you need to model a radiative-convective equilibrium. And some models go further still.
A caveat to all of the above: I only understand a few of the simpler models (& not all the details of those), and certainly don't have a good global view of the state of the models.
He also makes the assertion that the IPCC had decided the science is settled in 1988. That is unambiguously wrong: the IPCC's first assessment report (1990) has a high degree of uncertainty:pic.twitter.com/svIyOmNl7p
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.