Good question. Markets can be very efficient but one weakness is externalities, e.g. pollution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality … A standard way to address externalities while preserving markets is via taxes or subsidies. That way, is often more efficient than direct regulation.
-
So you think we should have a larger Pigouvian tax on coal and oil to accelerate the switch to cleaner sources like most economists do? I was literally at a conference of economists this morning where this was discussed. Here's a good list:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigou_Club
You have to distinguish pollution and CO2, which are very different things. The Pigouvian tax on CO2 should be quite small. The shortcomings of clean energy are severe. On balance, the best choice is natural gas. Do you disagree?
-
-
I agree that natural gas is good stop-gap if used to replace worse alternatives like coal. I disagree about optimal tax on carbon. I agree with the overwhelming consensus of climate researchers and economists that it should likely be about $40/ton.https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-set-a-price-on-carbon-pollution/ …
-
Note that if the uncertainty about climate effects of CO2 increases (for any given best average estimate) then the expected economic costs are *higher*.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.