RT @ColumbiaUEnergy: What happens when the federal government drops the social cost of carbon?. 💻 In our latest #EnergyExplained blog, CGEP….

Why is this ⤵️ true in some places but not others? …is a question I’m not sure we grapple with enough.

RT @AshleySchapitl: Must-listen to @JaneAFlegal and @JesseJenkins on @ezraklein talking about where clean energy goes from here and the bra….

RT @atrembath: "In the narrow case of the SCC, Trump may have the better argument.". @noahqk urges liberals not to attempt to reconstitute….

tagging some folks who may be interested (apologies if not): @mattkahn1966 @jasonfurman @econjared @LFFriedman @bradplumer @jendlouhyhc @Ben_Geman.

This blog tries to explain why we can't put a meaningful value on the large benefits of GHG reductions. The idea that the SCC is a reasonable estimate of climate damages, or a reasonable lower bound, does not stand up to scrutiny. Here’s how it ends:.

RT @JaneAFlegal: A person read my dissertation, it’s a great day to be alive (this is an excellent piece, much better than my research).

RT @ColumbiaUEnergy: "I don't think subsidizing electricity just as a general matter necessarily makes sense," CGEP's @noahqk tells @NPR's….

RT @arindube: Economists argue for an American industrial policy to counter a China Shock 2.0. From @davidautor and Gordon Hanson. http….

Reupping my question given the new targets: . In a state like CT, where there's no coal-to-gas shifting and decisions on new carbon-free generation are based on state policy (and not RGGI prices), how is RGGI supposed to drive big emissions reductions? .Or, just a backstop?

This is a good article but man, US climate policy folk are so accustomed to failure that anything but the worst imaginable outcome is seen as a low key win.

I don't share this philosophy. I think it's too defeatist and will lead to inequitable transitions. But it doesn't matter what I think. They've got a coherent view, and they might be right.

For example many climate policy folk, who are smarter than I am, think climate policies should be tech-focused, i.e. enable the innovation, commercialization, and deployment of clean tech solutions around the world. They put less weight on credible domestic climate strategies.

This is an interesting thread. And a good reminder that plenty of people who share the goal of smart climate policy have different views about the best ways to achieve that goal. Which inevitably leads to different takes on policy changes. (1/x).

Lots of thoughtful disagreement to this, which is great. I like the optimism too. But if you are looking at the US climate policy situation right now and concluding things are working out ok…I don’t know what to tell you. We’ve got to learn from failures.

To be clear I thought IRA-style climate policy was very much worth a shot, on the theory that it would be popular and durable. But it didn’t work.

RT @AndreasenJack: I'm back and with a promotion to Carbon Upper Middle Management . I'll be running the Carbon Management Research Initiat….

The culmination of another epic failure of the US climate policy movement. There are plenty of countries and states have reasonable climate policy strategies. Not the USA.

The importance of the Inflation Reduction Act was that, for the first time, if you squinted hard enough, you could make out a national climate strategy from the world's largest economy and largest historical emitter. That’s gone now.

they have such different debates in the UK. .