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
I feel myself becoming a reply guy here - not my intention - but it’s ~broadly totally irrelevant what they do with the revenues, since the incentive is created by ‘pricing in’ the social cost of carbon emissions
That only has any chance of being right if it's _net_ emissions which are taxed (not always the case in such proposals). And then there's the problem with computing the social cost of carbon.
Negative emissions technologies would be rewarded for those negative emissions within a normal carbon trading regime – even if you’d need to do more to turn net emissions negative!
I think it's partly because economists have a very limited basic outlook on things that are not part of or naturally costable results/impacts of the productive economy. Latent carbon stocks are currently neither. But also IMHO it's bc NETs are between mititation and adaption.
The policy debate splits carbon measures into mitigation and adaptation, and mititation tends to apply to 'ongoing economic activities' and adaptation tends to apply to 'emerging geophyiscal phenomena' ... and somehow NETs are not quite either, so don't come into focus.
Because taxing cigarettes has prevented people from smoking? Taxing something almost never solves problem because cost is simply offloaded to consumers. The caveat for -almost- being taxing so heavily that more expensive options become cheaper but that will punish poor heavily.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.