Jason responds to the WSJ op-ed that criticized IEA for prioritizing climate...
Jason responds to the WSJ op-ed that criticized IEA for prioritizing climate...
And here @Bob_McNally responds to Jason. It's a good exchange. I'll add one thing... (1/2) linkedin.com/posts/bob-mcna…
@Bob_McNally There is no such thing as a sensible "policy-neutral" baseline scenario for evaluating costs and benefits. A baseline is a projection of the world in the absence of whatever you are studying. There is no policy-neutral world, so there is no policy-neutral baseline scenario.
Thanks @noahqk. I suppose one could philosophically debate whether any policy-neutral scenario can be "sensible" for use in cost-benefit analyses. Forecasting itself, baselines or scenarios, is highly uncertain and speculative. But a reference case baseline that assumes only current, enacted policies is a necessary, if never perfectly sensible, condition for evaluating the costs and benefits of future new policies, no? Here's how IEA defined a policy-neutral baseline (in 2018, hence the mention of the prior year). What's the harm in bringing that back? TheIEAdefinestheCurrentPoliciesScenarioasonlyconsidering“theimpactofthosepoliciesandmeasuresthatarefirmlyenshrinedinlegislationasofmid-2017.Itprovidesacautiousassessmentofwheremomentumfromexistingpoliciesmightleadtheenergysectorintheabsenceofanyotherimpetusfromgovernment.”
@noahqk @Bob_McNally Energy models are inherently political (ducks)