I would guess Roger is trying to stay within the areas where he has developed expertise. For me to say that we must continue to decarbonize requires some follow on statement as to what cost is justified to make that happen. I would like to see much more explicit debate on "cost of carbon" which, presumably would represent the maximum exp…
I would guess Roger is trying to stay within the areas where he has developed expertise. For me to say that we must continue to decarbonize requires some follow on statement as to what cost is justified to make that happen. I would like to see much more explicit debate on "cost of carbon" which, presumably would represent the maximum expense that could be justified. The reason it's important to me is that COC will be much smaller (perhaps negative) where I'm from in Canada than it would be elsewhere. That means the expense directed towards a global target like net zero by 2050 is primarily foreign aid from the Canadian perspective. That doesn't mean we shouldn't help others but that expense ought to ranked appropriately against other foreign aid programs not to mention our NATO commitments.
I would guess Roger is trying to stay within the areas where he has developed expertise. For me to say that we must continue to decarbonize requires some follow on statement as to what cost is justified to make that happen. I would like to see much more explicit debate on "cost of carbon" which, presumably would represent the maximum expense that could be justified. The reason it's important to me is that COC will be much smaller (perhaps negative) where I'm from in Canada than it would be elsewhere. That means the expense directed towards a global target like net zero by 2050 is primarily foreign aid from the Canadian perspective. That doesn't mean we shouldn't help others but that expense ought to ranked appropriately against other foreign aid programs not to mention our NATO commitments.