Thanks @noahqk for alerting to this FA issue. I'm finding it .. oddly irritating .. that these choices feel like a a return to a gadfly approach to global climate policy. The truth is, just as there is no tech silver bullet, there is no policy regime silver bullet either 1/n https://twitter.com/noahqk/status/1250218234588139523

No carbon pricing won't work ... all by itself, or without consideration of recycling and political acceptability. But we need it for broad based structural and micro scale innovation. Tech or sector end-use C&C or performance regs, again, won't work solo, but are necessary 2/n

Just as we need explore the kitchen sink of technologies, we need the same for policies. Bring the various policies together pragmatically based on the situation and sector to get the co-job of development and decarbonization done, not based on ideology. 3/n

I tried to do this for heavy industry in the paper below, which has big challenges: highly traded, low profits, long lived facilities, high GHG intensity current tech, etc. All these challenges have to be tackled head on, with pragmatic policy that works https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/wcc.633

I also liked the Victor, Geels and Sharpe paper http://www.energy-transitions.org/content/accelerating-low-carbon-transition, that seemed to bring together a lot of the economy wide complexities and challenges, missing in the "The Paths to Net-zero" paper coauthored by Victor.

People may not like Paris, which is ultimately most threatened by the Trump administration, nothing more sophisticated or sinister. But some level of international directionality is required, a framework for pointing national and sectoral transitions. End of thread.