Yes, and what I'm pointing out is that, since even with these taxes and subsidies renewables are overwhelmingly not being chosen by the market, they're a lot worse than they're made out to be.
-
Note that if the uncertainty about climate effects of CO2 increases (for any given best average estimate) then the expected economic costs are *higher*.
It's the average estimate that's too high. And uncertainty does *not* necessarily increase economic costs, which could even be negative (e.g., higher agricultural productivity, lower deaths from cold, etc.). (BTW, Gaussians are symmetric - you know that.)
-
-
Based on my non-expert reading of the data and research, I disagree. So do most climate scientists. Symmetric uncertainty increases expected costs when costs are convex. (Jensen's Inequality) as with climate change (4 degrees hotter is more than twice as damaging as 2 degrees)
-
They don't need the subsidies. It's just bad policy
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.