4 ms·

> The suggestions you mentioned all have substantial negative impacts to humanity - arguably as much as climate change itself I think that assertion deserves t

by NickM 10y ago

> The suggestions you mentioned all have substantial negative impacts to humanity - arguably as much as climate change itself I think that assertion deserves to be examined a bit more closely. We are already effectively subsidizing the fossil fuel industry to the tune of 5+ trillion USD per year [1]. This is a figure from the IMF that includes direct monetary subsidies as well as externalities like public health, environmental damage, etc. So the question now becomes this: would switching to renewables cost more than that? If we started dumping that same amount of money into renewables and corresponding infrastructure, how quickly could we switch away from fossil fuels? If we do some impromptu calculations based on current cost of solar panels, batteries, etc., it seems like it might take maybe 20 years. Obviously it's not that simple in practice, but I think this demonstrates that humanity could theoretically switch away from fossil fuels without enduring any severe hardships. This isn't a problem of the technology not being good enough[2], or renewables being too expensive: it's just a political/organizational problem. [1] http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=42940.0 http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=42940.0 [2] With the possible exception of jet planes, for which batteries aren't good enough to provide a compelling alternative yet. But I would guess that when the electric car market really starts to take off, battery tech will start improving a lot faster.

JoBrad 10y ago
We should stop subsidies for all fossil fuels, and begin phasing in taxation of fossil fuels to account for their cost. But the cost I'm talking about it not just about money. There isn't a viable alternative to a whole host of products that we use. Off the top of my head I can think of plastics (huge) and large equipment. Even using energy-reclamation for garbage trucks is an "innovation" for us. We simply couldn't do it with the current paradigm. You also have to consider that the majority of humanity is evolutionarily wired to be change-averse. Overturning our current infrastructure is not easy, and will require trillions of dollars of investment, for essentially the same level of service that we have today. That's hard to convince people to do. And even the best idea is worth nothing if people won't adopt it.
- wang_li 10y ago
  The major players in the fossil fuels industry are all net tax payers. If I'm understanding the summary from the linked paper, it's saying that they're not taxed enough for the satisfaction of the paper's authors. Thus they are being "subsidized".
- ArkyBeagle 10y ago
  Most of the things I have read which accuse energy companies of being subsidized lack a basic understanding of the historical accounting mores of those industries. This is principally because of depletion allowances and industrial depreciation. Both of those still apply and have full standing in the law. I am not saying this should not be changed but rather that it'd be quite a change. As a USAian, I can expect my energy need to be met by cleaner tech than someone in, say Africa. Natural gas is here and will make a difference.
frandroid 10y ago
> 5+ trillion USD per year That's a stupendous number.

by NickM 10y ago

JoBrad 10y ago

We should stop subsidies for all fossil fuels, and begin phasing in taxation of fossil fuels to account for their cost. But the cost I'm talking about it not just about money. There isn't a viable alternative to a whole host of products that we use. Off the top of my head I can think of plastics (huge) and large equipment. Even using energy-reclamation for garbage trucks is an "innovation" for us. We simply couldn't do it with the current paradigm. You also have to consider that the majority of humanity is evolutionarily wired to be change-averse. Overturning our current infrastructure is not easy, and will require trillions of dollars of investment, for essentially the same level of service that we have today. That's hard to convince people to do. And even the best idea is worth nothing if people won't adopt it.

wang_li 10y ago
The major players in the fossil fuels industry are all net tax payers. If I'm understanding the summary from the linked paper, it's saying that they're not taxed enough for the satisfaction of the paper's authors. Thus they are being "subsidized".
ArkyBeagle 10y ago
Most of the things I have read which accuse energy companies of being subsidized lack a basic understanding of the historical accounting mores of those industries. This is principally because of depletion allowances and industrial depreciation. Both of those still apply and have full standing in the law. I am not saying this should not be changed but rather that it'd be quite a change. As a USAian, I can expect my energy need to be met by cleaner tech than someone in, say Africa. Natural gas is here and will make a difference.

frandroid 10y ago

> 5+ trillion USD per year That's a stupendous number.