EcoMonkey

4 ms·

1.
by EcoMonkey 4y ago
I fear that you've been misinformed on climate change's impact on agriculture. According to the 2018 National Climate Assessment[0], a rigorous accounting of climate change's impact on the United States by 13 federal agencies
2.
by EcoMonkey 4y ago
Yale's Climate Opinion Maps[0] would suggest that more Americans than not are with the majority of economists, also. It gets less complex politically when you pair it with carbon dividends, which return the revenue back to households.
3.
by EcoMonkey 4y ago
I am not an economist, but I'll point out that all of these economists would respectfully disagree with John Cochrane: https://www.econstatement.org/ Including 28 Nobel laureates, former Federal Reserve chairpeople, an
4.
En-Roads Climate Solutions Simulator v21.9(en-roads.climateinteractive.org)
1 points by EcoMonkey 5y ago|0 comments
5.
by EcoMonkey 5y ago
We'll definitely need carbon removal of some kind. As the article states, we could shut emissions off today, but still deal with the effects of the cumulative emissions for centuries to come. Unfortunately, there isn't a lot that
6.
by EcoMonkey 5y ago
She sounds like some kind of villain from Parks and Recreation.
7.
by EcoMonkey 5y ago
This is a primary reason that we need a carbon tax. Building out renewables and stopping there will just make energy cheaper and induce demand. A carbon tax will actually change the energy mix by making carbon-intensive energy sources more
8.
by EcoMonkey 6y ago
This is exciting to see. Like it or not, we live in a market-driven society, and the biggest climate solutions will ultimately be market based. If business isn't on board, it won't happen. Make no mistake, the government is going
9.
by EcoMonkey 6y ago
Carbon dividends offset the regressive nature of a carbon tax. In fact, even if you exclude the benefits of cleaner air and just look at how the carbon dividend offsets the carbon fee, folks at the lowest incomes tend to come out way ahead,
10.
by EcoMonkey 6y ago
That part about funding unrelated agendas is partially why many leading economists recommend returning the revenue as a flat dividend. The revenue from the carbon tax is just divvied up and given back to everyone as a monthly direct deposit
11.
by EcoMonkey 6y ago
> The best solution would be to bring future costs into the present and charge for co2 emissions. That way the truly valuable uses could still happen and the more optional uses of co2 would be discouraged. Yep. A price on carbon is actua
12.
by EcoMonkey 6y ago
At least on this climate policy simulator built by MIT, planting trees is indeed not a big winner for achieving climate goals. And actually, neither is limiting deforestation. (But we should do those things for other great reasons like pres