Ha! The old problem of how to interpret 'everyone optimizes except the energy sector'.

A lot can be fudged by assuming linearity and because models are mostly linear. But if we ever get to linking models where small differences get amplified over time/space we will really need to tighten.

Lack of productivity growth is a big deal in the UK. But there need not be a trade-off between productivity growth and net-zero. In fact the two may be complementary (and this can be modelled!). It’s time to change the story.

This drives productivity growth, almost by definition. We get more electricity, more mobility, more services, for lower cost. We can spend more on other things.

There is a critical difference between fossil fuels and new technologies.

We spend more on fossil fuels, we exhaust cheap supplies and prices go up. We spend more on new technologies, we learn and prices go down.

The paper focuses on two key assumptions that have dominated previous work: 1) green technologies are more expensive; 2) spending on green technologies means less spending on other things. Both are misguided.

Thanks!