Also, the externalities of fossil fuels have been greatly overestimated and those of renewables underestimated, so large subsidies and taxes favoring the latter are bad, but that's a separate point.
-
And FWIW, the externality from burning coal is overwhelmingly bad even before including any cost at all from climate change. Particulate pollution is deadly.
It would be well worth if we had no better choices, but we do (natural gas, for one). Or would you rather go back to pre-industrial times?
-
-
You and I agree then, with Nordhaus et al, that (since we do have better choices) we'd be better off without coal electric generation. A Pigouvian tax would help us get to a better outcome where this category of energy production were replaced.
-
But you don't seem to agree with me or the market that natural gas is better than renewables.
- 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.