5/5 economic development is possible no matter where you start from.
Just look at South Korea.
Therefore even Nordhaus’ tax solution sounds foolish at best.
Spread development not cash.
#climatechange
— Valerius Ander (MM) – Omnologos (@omnologos)
Nov 11, 2021
from Twitter https://twitter.com/omnologos
4/5 at planetary level.
On the other hand it’s a known truism that economic development protects from climate changes and from malaria, malnutrition and preventable diseases and even from killer fumes. Plus, …
— Valerius Ander (MM) – Omnologos (@omnologos)
Nov 11, 2021
from Twitter https://twitter.com/omnologos
3/5 ability to spend $100B and we have not, we should feel a failure of a species.
It’s a lot more likely than humans at this stage of political progress and for the foreseeable future just don’t have any practical way to organize anything of that magnitude …
— Valerius Ander (MM) – Omnologos (@omnologos)
Nov 11, 2021
from Twitter https://twitter.com/omnologos
2/5 other issues with people dying from malaria or malnutrition or preventable diseases. Untold numbers of young children are killed every year by the fumes of unbelievably primitive fires lit in cramped, almost windowless very poor abodes.
If we really had the …
— Valerius Ander (MM) – Omnologos (@omnologos)
Nov 11, 2021
from Twitter https://twitter.com/omnologos
1/5 Economist Nordhaus got a Nobel Prize by estimating an annual optimal cost of $100B a year for combating climate change.
$100B is a lot of money and a lot of money attracts Corruption with capital C. Sounds totally unfeasible.
Besides we’ve got …
— Valerius Ander (MM) – Omnologos (@omnologos)
Nov 11, 2021
from Twitter https://twitter.com/omnologos
UK on the path to demonstrate that renewables are not the future unless you’re filthy rich https://t.co/kkaYvR3Awn
— Valerius Ander (MM) – Omnologos (@omnologos)
Nov 11, 2021
from Twitter https://twitter.com/omnologos