|
@michael_nielsen | |||||
|
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
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
michael_nielsen
@michael_nielsen
|
27. sij |
|
... but very unlikely to be the full solution, since net zero or negative emissions is the goal. At some price point, negative emission technologies must become a much better solution.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Mike Solana
@micsolana
|
28. sij |
|
more important question is why are we talking to economists rather than nuclear scientists and geoengineers?
|
||
|
|
||
|
michael_nielsen
@michael_nielsen
|
28. sij |
|
Curious on two questions:
(1) Why do you think nuclear has stagnated so much since the early 80s (when capacity pretty much maxed out)? What can be done to shift that? [I'd love a good answer! I've spent a lot of time searching for one.] pic.twitter.com/pomMuNCnvl
|
||
|
|
||
|
Erik Brynjolfsson
@erikbryn
|
28. sij |
|
To be more precise, a carbon (or GHG)*price* is a huge part of the solution that virtually all economists support. Pay if you emit; collect if you remove.
This can internalize externalities and provide the right incentives for both conservation and innovation.
|
||
|
|
||
|
michael_nielsen
@michael_nielsen
|
28. sij |
|
Yeah, I'm inclined to think the original was just sloppily worded, and left a lot implicit.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Gabriel
@gbrl_dick
|
28. sij |
|
I think the reasoning here is not as bad as it looks - ‘carbon tax’ really just means ‘pricing the negative externalities of emissions’
Once you’ve done this, all other methods of carbon abatement/reduction become *financially incentivised*
|
||
|
|
||
|
Gabriel
@gbrl_dick
|
28. sij |
|
the idea is that after you introduce a global carbon tax, there are v strong financial incentives to find the most cost effective way to reduce emissions
I.e. ‘planting trees’ and ‘renewable energy’ and so on all become cashflow positive (reflecting their social cost)
|
||
|
|
||
|
José Luis Ricón (Artir)
@ArtirKel
|
27. sij |
|
This might come from the Nordhaus work where I'd one assumes some discount factor then it's not that bad and warming can be allowed to continue.
But it also seems odd. Perhaps the profession as a whole didn't even consider negative emissions? Too not mainstream back then?
|
||
|
|
||
|
José Luis Ricón (Artir)
@ArtirKel
|
27. sij |
|
In particular he wants 4°C (!)
|
||
|
|
||
|
Carter Cole
@CarterCole
|
27. sij |
|
i thought planting trees was like orders of magnitude more effective
|
||
|
|
||
|
Ruvi Lecamwasam
@RLecamwasam
|
28. sij |
|
I don't think so unfortunately. To reach the current target of 2C warming, it's estimated we have to remove about 700bn tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere. In comparison, if the entirety of Russia were converted into a giant forest, this would remove 200bn tonnes of CO2.
|
||
|
|
||