> If scenarios with different mixes of CC/DAC and WWS were performed, it would not be possible to conclude whether one is an opportunity cost. Instead, using a

> If scenarios with different mixes of CC/DAC and WWS were performed, it would not be possible to conclude whether one is an opportunity cost. Instead, using a mixture requires assuming that both CC/DAC and WWS should be used before determining whether one has any benefit relative to the other. Seems stupid - they are both being used, so even the business-as-usual scenario is a mixture. If indeed the 100% WWS + 0% CC/DAC scenario is better than than the 95% WWS + 5% CC/DAC scenario, then it is logical to conclude that CC/DAC is useless, but according to the tables and figures, they didn't even look at whether a 50/50 WWS + CC/DAC split would be better or worse. Yet their conclusion is still "policies promoting CC and SDACC should be abandoned". They have these really complex models but at the end of the day it is garbage in, garbage out.