Read on Twitter
It is weird that the same people who are most critical of climate wonk obsessions w optimal policy & econ efficiency (vs politics) when it comes to policy tools (ie pricing) tend to rely v heavily on econ optimized models of tech for decarb as “truth” without blinking an eye.
Models of technological pathways for deep decarb optimize for cost and often have *nothing* to say about broader political challenges. Yet the same people who dunk on pricing often cling to these models about the cost-effectiveness of their fav pathway! Wild.
(I often dunk on pricing as panacea, but I think we need to adopt a risk management frame when it comes to technological pathways because I take the social and political challenges *extremely seriously*!)
There’s an assumed inevitability to certain pathways because of a sense of momentum today, but we are nowhere near where we need to be, even in the power sector! We can’t know for certain what obstacles will emerge. Seems smart to diversify, especially since...
we aren’t dealing w a fixed pool of capital that constrains our ability to invest in this stuff. In fact, including broader techs often *expands the political coalition* for climate.
Anyway, a plea: stop hating on economic optimality for eliding politics at the same time that you use it to support your preferences when it comes to technological choice.
