FP’s estimate for their $ per tonne was something like 0.1, with large error bars. It’s a policy intervention after all. How big an adjustment would each of your issues raise that by? Your “it’s still good” comment seems a bit throw away.
Would you, in total, adjust it by >100x I.e. estimating >$10 per tonne?
Good question. The section towards the end entitled “How material are these concerns” is intended to address this.
In reality it’s hard to say.
The risks to the future of the REDD+ scheme seem unlikely to move the dial by one or two orders of magnitude on their own, I believe—after all it’s baked into the Paris agreement, so a 90%+ chance of failure seems pessimistic.
However the opportunity costs might be that bad, although there’s a lot of uncertainty here.
FP’s estimate for their $ per tonne was something like 0.1, with large error bars. It’s a policy intervention after all. How big an adjustment would each of your issues raise that by? Your “it’s still good” comment seems a bit throw away.
Would you, in total, adjust it by >100x I.e. estimating >$10 per tonne?
Good question. The section towards the end entitled “How material are these concerns” is intended to address this.
In reality it’s hard to say.
The risks to the future of the REDD+ scheme seem unlikely to move the dial by one or two orders of magnitude on their own, I believe—after all it’s baked into the Paris agreement, so a 90%+ chance of failure seems pessimistic.
However the opportunity costs might be that bad, although there’s a lot of uncertainty here.