... 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
-
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
Can you clarify why you think setting the correct price on carbon isn't enough? A carbon tax could be symmetric and could subsidize negative emissions at the same price it taxes positive emissions.
0 proslijeđenih tweetova 1 korisnik označava da mu se sviđa -
Odgovor korisniku/ci @paulnovosad
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).
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 0 korisnika označava da im se sviđa -
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
If carbon was priced at social cost, why wouldn't we get NET investment? Do you see another market failure preventing this?
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 1 korisnik označava da mu se sviđa -
Odgovor korisniku/ci @paulnovosad
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.
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 0 korisnika označava da im se sviđa -
Odgovor korisnicima @michael_nielsen @paulnovosad
I suppose I'm just in general not terribly convinced by big picture arguments rooted in utilitarianism, or based on discount factors. They're good in lots of contexts, but not for analyzing the long term structure of humanity on earth, IMO.
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 0 korisnika označava da im se sviđa -
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
Don't you have to answer "What social cost?" no matter what approach you choose. If you want public funds for NETs, you still have to answer "how many billions" ? There's a social cost of carbon implicit in that answer as well.
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 0 korisnika označava da im se sviđa -
Odgovor korisnicima @paulnovosad @michael_nielsen
Carbon tax is practical, not philosophical. If you raise the cost of polluting enough, firms abate. If price of negative emissions is high enough, firms will invest. No stance on utilitarianism needed, just on the ability of markets to respond to prices.
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 1 korisnik označava da mu se sviđa -
Odgovor korisnicima @paulnovosad @michael_nielsen
tbc i don't have a stake or strong opinion here, but trying to understand your view that a high (enough) price of carbon would not motivate NET investment
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 1 korisnik označava da mu se sviđa -
Odgovor korisniku/ci @paulnovosad
Ah, if the tax is carefully tied to net emissions, then it would (e.g., as the Sleipner West field shows). But that's certainly not always (or even often) the case. E.g., a straight up gas tax is not related to net emissions.
0 proslijeđenih tweetova 1 korisnik označava da mu se sviđa
I think this is pretty cool:pic.twitter.com/QKdY2Yq4zc
-
-
Odgovor korisnicima @michael_nielsen @paulnovosad
(I do not, however, understand very well how good an idea it is to store CO2 in these formations, and of course that's a concern. Still, as an insight-generating exercise, this seems to have generated a lot!)
0 replies 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 0 korisnika označava da im se sviđaHvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
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.