Read on Twitter
1. Let me offer a counterpoint to @ScottIrwinUI's thread. https://twitter.com/ScottIrwinUI/status/1354848790272991234
2. The idea that clean energy is too pricey does not really hold.
Clean energy prices are dropping rapidly ( https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth).
Dropping costs of clean tech accelerate when dirty energy becomes relatively more clostly (reflecting its full cost to society).
Clean energy prices are dropping rapidly ( https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth).
Dropping costs of clean tech accelerate when dirty energy becomes relatively more clostly (reflecting its full cost to society).
3. The idea that environmental regulations kill jobs is not supported by research from people who have looked at this closely.
See: https://www.rff.org/news/press-releases/new-research-hafstead-and-williams-jobs-and-environmental-regulations/
See: https://www.rff.org/news/press-releases/new-research-hafstead-and-williams-jobs-and-environmental-regulations/
4. The idea that reducing emissions now to only benefit future generations ignores that there are irreversible catastrophic damages that we may seek to avoid in that distant future.
So mitigation is also insurance against those risks.
See Weitzman: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/weitzman/files/ghgtargetsinsuranceagainst.pdf
So mitigation is also insurance against those risks.
See Weitzman: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/weitzman/files/ghgtargetsinsuranceagainst.pdf
5. Finally let me add that a few years ago my own prior was that recent/contemporary CC damages were likely VERY small.
But my own research on this on the ag sector is changing my views on this matter (paper embargoed, coming soon).
But my own research on this on the ag sector is changing my views on this matter (paper embargoed, coming soon).
