Here are the best estimates of the pollution cost of fossil fuels: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.101.5.1649 … For coal, the externalities are larger than the entire value added – we’d be better off with zero coal production. As we did with acid rain, lead and cfcs, we can address this.
-
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)
And it decreases expected costs when they're concave, which by basic climate science is easily the most likely. (The greenhouse effect of CO2 is logarithmic, so adding more to the atmosphere produces decreasing warming - are you really disputing that?)
-
-
The uncertainty I’m referring to is about how much warming we can expect. There are scenarios where the warming or other bad outcomes are amplified and others where they dampened. For instance, even a small tail risk of a runaway greenhouse effect would be catastrophic.
-
There are tail risks in both directions, and there are tail risks if we attempt to decarbonize the economy. A slightly increased chance of a runaway greenhouse effect is not enough to make the expected cost of CO2 convex instead of concave.
- 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.