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
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
What's the correct price? I don't disagree it could subsidize negative emissions, and maybe that's what the Economist meant, but I didn't read it that way. (It also omits the hard part: inventing & scaling suitable NETs).
If carbon was priced at social cost, why wouldn't we get NET investment? Do you see another market failure preventing this?
I don't see how you compute the social cost in a way that is convincing. Admittedly, I've only glanced at the calculations which have been done; they seem on a priori grounds to be doomed. More interesting than angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin, but only slightly.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.