Twitter | Pretraživanje | |
michael_nielsen 27. sij
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"
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" More
David Deutsch 27. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
It'll only be solved by a combination of many approaches none of which is even capable of being the full solution. We should also expect some approaches to fail or be counter-productive. So seeking one single massive intervention is very unwise. We need many small ones.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen 27. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @DavidDeutschOxf
That seems likely. Though for both the ozone hole and Clean Air Act I was surprised at how much a relatively small number of ideas proved to be key. I'm not sure they're the ones I would have advocated for at the time, either, which is personally sobering(!)
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Rob Lewis 27. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
Economists love to create "incentives" and let the magic of the market work out the details. A sufficiently high and rising carbon tax (unlikely) 20 years ago might have been enough. Not any more, obviously. This is just one of many ways the economics profession needs to update.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen 27. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @GRobLewis
No, it wouldn't have been enough 20 years ago, either. It wouldn't have taken us to zero emissions. (Well, not before reaching a price where NETs were obviously a better idea.)
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Paul Novosad 28. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
Can you clarify why you think setting the correct price on carbon isn't enough? A carbon tax could be symmetric and could subsidize negative emissions at the same price it taxes positive emissions.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen 28. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @paulnovosad
What's the correct price? I don't disagree it could subsidize negative emissions, and maybe that's what the Economist meant, but I didn't read it that way. (It also omits the hard part: inventing & scaling suitable NETs).
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen 27. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
Fascinating little tidbit: no WTO case law on carbon leakage:
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen 28. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
Quite a few people have pointed out that maybe the Economist implicitly meant "... and then using those taxes to fund negative emissions technologies, renewable energy, other new regs etc." In which case, fair enough. It wasn't my reading, but it's plausible.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
John Waterson 🌍 27. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
I think most of the economists referred to would recognise that carbon taxes are not a complete solution on their own, but they would be an excellent start. They quickly put a hugely powerful & well understood mechanism (price) to work on the most urgent problems.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen 27. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @jdwaterson
Maybe they would. But that doesn't appear to be what the Economist is claiming.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"