Also a bummer that higher ethanol blends appear to increase local ozone pollution. www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1...

Should have been Fig 1.

...
3. Fixed MERs ignore time of day and year, which are really important for variable renewables (because substitution effects)

4. The marginal effect of a particular technology or action under a binding carbon cap is always zero (because substitution effects)

Here is the tl;dr of our 4 main points about quantifying emissions effects:

1. MERs don't make sense for non-marginal changes

2. UNFCCC includes guidance and weights for operating margin and build margin--the build margin is probably much larger especially in places with lots of renewables
...

Nice! Would be cool to see the margin difference on the vertical axis in the second fig.

And who shifted their opinion? Was the shift highest for folks with baseline opinion in the middle or the extremes. I would have scored high in climate concern and the film did not change my mind, but it's not folks like me who matter.

Changes in a 100 point scale doesn't mean anything to me. It definitely doesn't mean a 4.5 percentage point change in voting behavior (which would be gigantic). How should I think about this magnitude?

The difficulty with interpreting these numbers is that this 100 point scale doesn't mean anything to me. I'd rather know who shifted. Specifically if the folks with a lower baseline shifted more than the higher baseline folks.

I'm pleasantly surprised that there is an effect! My guess would be that there is no effect on ppl who already think CC is a problem. I didn't change my views. If so, that 4.5 point change is being diluted by the already converted.