Twitter | Pretraživanje | |
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...
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se" More
michael_nielsen 27. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
... 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.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Mike Solana 28. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
more important question is why are we talking to economists rather than nuclear scientists and geoengineers?
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen 28. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @micsolana
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.]
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Erik Brynjolfsson 28. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
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.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen 28. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @erikbryn
Yeah, I'm inclined to think the original was just sloppily worded, and left a lot implicit.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Gabriel 28. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
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*
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Gabriel 28. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
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)
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
José Luis Ricón (Artir) 27. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
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?
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
José Luis Ricón (Artir) 27. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
In particular he wants 4°C (!)
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Carter Cole 27. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
i thought planting trees was like orders of magnitude more effective
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Ruvi Lecamwasam 28. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @CarterCole @michael_nielsen
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.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"