|
@michael_nielsen | |||||
|
Fascinating little tidbit: no WTO case law on carbon leakage: pic.twitter.com/sgG5wxC8uQ
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
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
|
||
|
|
||
|
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.
|
||
|
|
||
|
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.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Gabriel
@gbrl_dick
|
28. sij |
|
also would add - this is not w/r/t carbon leakage, it’s specifically about whether a carbon border adjustment tax (like some countries have now for VAT) would be WTO compliant.
Similar cases about production methods have not been in the past: CF en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_s…
|
||
|
|
||