Jun 18, 2023Liked by Peter Ehrlich

Well done! I’ve not studied climate change solutions much but tax and dividend sounds sensible! The problem of how current policies indirectly subsidize climate disrupting fossil fuel by giving eminent domain more readily to oil and gas lines than electric seems important. Also, states and localities could agree to stop ‘racing to the bottom’ by giving ‘fossil-fuel-friendly’ subsidies out while competing for new corporate developments.

Expand full comment

A friend of mine who's far more experienced with statistical studies pointed out some limitations on the linked study of the economics of British Columbia. E.g. its a student study which doesn't take in to account other economic factors going on (and stops after 2018). So I've linked some more solid studies below:.

1) Can't be shown as a forcer of positive growth, but likely carbon fee & dividend won't do economic damage either:

- https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2958020

- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352882884_The_Impact_of_a_Revenue-Neutral_Carbon_Tax_on_GDP_Dynamics_The_Case_of_British_Columbia

2) Less behavior change after five years in (perhaps b/c of lack of alternative technology at the time?)

- https://www.utpjournals.press/doi/abs/10.3138/cpp.2017-027

- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421519302708

3) Finally, a much higher price than $50/tonne is likely needed. (This is backed up by the EU which has a market-set price to hit net-zero by 2040, and is ~€100/tonne

- https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10640-022-00679-w

Expand full comment