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 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"
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
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" More
Gabriel 28. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
I feel myself becoming a reply guy here - not my intention - but it’s ~broadly totally irrelevant what they do with the revenues, since the incentive is created by ‘pricing in’ the social cost of carbon emissions
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen 28. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @gbrl_dick
That only has any chance of being right if it's _net_ emissions which are taxed (not always the case in such proposals). And then there's the problem with computing the social cost of carbon.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Now's not the time to talk about extreme weather 28. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
Negative emissions technologies would be rewarded for those negative emissions within a normal carbon trading regime – even if you’d need to do more to turn net emissions negative!
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
John Manoochehri 28. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
I think it's partly because economists have a very limited basic outlook on things that are not part of or naturally costable results/impacts of the productive economy. Latent carbon stocks are currently neither. But also IMHO it's bc NETs are between mititation and adaption.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
John Manoochehri 28. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
The policy debate splits carbon measures into mitigation and adaptation, and mititation tends to apply to 'ongoing economic activities' and adaptation tends to apply to 'emerging geophyiscal phenomena' ... and somehow NETs are not quite either, so don't come into focus.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Shital Shah 29. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
Because taxing cigarettes has prevented people from smoking? Taxing something almost never solves problem because cost is simply offloaded to consumers. The caveat for -almost- being taxing so heavily that more expensive options become cheaper but that will punish poor heavily.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"