|
@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.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
michael_nielsen
@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... pic.twitter.com/41WyHKuIjZ
|
||
|
|
||
|
David Deutsch
@DavidDeutschOxf
|
27. sij |
|
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.
|
||
|
|
||
|
michael_nielsen
@michael_nielsen
|
27. sij |
|
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(!)
|
||
|
|
||
|
Rob Lewis
@GRobLewis
|
27. sij |
|
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.
|
||
|
|
||
|
michael_nielsen
@michael_nielsen
|
27. sij |
|
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.)
|
||
|
|
||
|
Paul Novosad
@paulnovosad
|
28. sij |
|
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.
|
||
|
|
||
|
michael_nielsen
@michael_nielsen
|
28. sij |
|
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).
|
||
|
|
||
|
michael_nielsen
@michael_nielsen
|
27. sij |
|
Fascinating little tidbit: no WTO case law on carbon leakage: pic.twitter.com/sgG5wxC8uQ
|
||
|
|
||
|
michael_nielsen
@michael_nielsen
|
28. sij |
|
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.
|
||
|
|
||
|
John Waterson 🌍
@jdwaterson
|
27. sij |
|
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.
|
||
|
|
||
|
michael_nielsen
@michael_nielsen
|
27. sij |
|
Maybe they would. But that doesn't appear to be what the Economist is claiming.
|
||
|
|
||