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
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.
Definitely a disconnect between the pure ‘Economists want’ carbon tax and proposals that have been seriously considered (cap + trade for eg.) but almost certainly The Economist was describing a pure carbon tax.
‘Social cost’ is pretty wobbly to compute but fairly easy to start by setting price = the marginal difference for FF vs renewables Obviously doesn’t capture methane etc from ag, but would be close enough to shift in right direction Then ratchet price based on emissions progress
Big problem is that you can’t allocate property rights over CO2 concentration - if that was easy then carbon tax wouldn’t be a ‘tax’ it could just be negotiated fee for use a la fishing rights in a lake
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.