Dear Philippe, Frank and all
This is a question on Philippe's lecture from last week since we didn't have the time to go back to that lecture. And there is no forum for the instruments lecture so I will use this one, hope that's fine.
On the slide about the typical conditions for acceptability there is one point 'No polluter bears an excessive burden, no firm is threatened in its survival'.
I don't think this is a realistic condition since our economy is based on fossil fuels and oil producers etc. will realistically be threatened, will for a certain time period have to carry excessive burden and most likely will not survive. Instead, it should be communicated that there will be losers from such a transition (there shouldn't be created illusions about this) and that transition and retraining programmes for workers are planned and will be implemented.
Do you think a transition can be desgined that way that no firm is threatened in its survival? What do you think about this different strategy to mitigate this condition?
Best,
Lea
