,
7 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
There are a couple insights in this @sullydish piece (referencing @NiskanenCenter) that are being missed by #energytwitter (yay) and #climatetwitter (yikes), which are easily titillated by invocations of nuclear power 1/ nymag.com/intelligencer/…
The scale of climate is massive and the empirics—shrinking carbon budget—rising emissions) show we are going in exactly the wrong direction. So even if you have moderate tendencies, there is every reason to demand immediate policy changes and shift action. 2/ 
For the moderate, that means less technocratic solutions, but ambition must be similar. So big up to @aoc @DataProgress @newconsensus @rgunns et al for raising the stakes for us all and @PostOpinions for offering a counter 3/ washingtonpost.com/opinions/want-…
The second is that there is real opportunity cost to public spending. @sullydish asks us to ponder the world where we spent $16 tril. on decarbonization instead of foreign misadventures. 4/
The E3 deep decarbonization report estimates the median cost of decarbonizing the economy by 2050 at about 300 bil. per year. Relative costs of decarb are less! Nevermind you'd save a ton of lives. 5/ unsdsn.org/wp-content/upl…
But that same point is troubling if you are designing a GND around massive spending tangential to decarbonization. Social spending is expensive (even when warranted) and will detract from the green part of the GND. The scales are just different! 6/ bloomberg.com/opinion/articl…
Gotta keep those eyes on the prize! /end pwc.co.uk/services/susta…
