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?
Quantities need to be able to move more freely, NIMBY vs. wind farms one of the simpler examples here. Or nuclear, etc.
I don't think I followed, Tyler. Can you explain a bit more?
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.