3 ms·
Its not really new TRILLIONS. Its mostly replacing planned trillions that would have gone to older/carbon-intensive technologies. So much of this is probably "
by yazr 10y ago
Its not really new TRILLIONS. Its mostly replacing planned trillions that would have gone to older/carbon-intensive technologies.
So much of this is probably "earmarked" somewhere for a coal station, an ICE truck or whatever. And now has to be switched to a nuclear, solar or other innovative perpetual-motion investments.
So it is an easier task than it looks.
(This is still a massive challenge of course, free riders, unproven technologies, scaling, agency problems, etc, etc)
- endswapper 10y agoYou have it right when you focus on the fact that this is a massive challenge. The point isn't to create new monetary supply. This money is going somewhere, but how do we channel it to something as fundamental and positive as green investments? This may look easy on the surface, but of course the devil is in the details. If the money is going somewhere then it will be taken away from somewhere. So, environmental policy must be balanced against economic policy, i.e. higher gas prices because of less in oil subsidies. What I find promising is that the conversation has evolved beyond, "if we should do this," to "how we must do this."