4 ms·
> And of course, global control of all major industries is always the proposed solution. That's what has troubled me when I've discussed this with people who c
by Stratoscope 10y ago
> And of course, global control of all major industries is always the proposed solution.
That's what has troubled me when I've discussed this with people who clearly know much more than I do about climate. The underlying assumption often seems to be, "Since the science is unquestionable, then surely you must agree that massive government intervention is the only way to solve the problem."
Now that's something I'm pretty skeptical of, after seeing how so many well-intended government programs have not only failed to accomplish their goals but have been actively harmful.
Maybe government action is what's needed here. I don't know. But I sure don't want to assume that it's the answer.
In the eyes of some, this just makes me a skeptic and a denier.
- FreeFull 10y agoI personally feel like the only way out now is some sort of active geoengineering solution. You're not going to convince everyone across the world to cut their emissions of greenhouse gases, and I suspect that even if you manage to do that, we have released too many gases into the atmosphere already.
- api 10y agoThis for whatever reason is even more unpopular than population control and nuclear power. I completely agree though. Emission cuts are just not going to happen fast enough under any even slightly politically plausible scenario. It's a fantasy.
- XorNot 10y agoIt also tends to actually be more expensive then any other solution (other then doing nothing in the short term). The huge sources of SO4 or whatever you plan to use have to actually be produced from somewhere.
- api 10y agoI'm not convinced there are no good options. The problem has not been thoroughly studied.
- jwatte 10y agoWe could turn ourselves around, and then literally nuke those who chose not to. It is technically possible -- we have all the tech, power, and people to do it. Meanwhile: The political focus is on building walls.
- jwatte 10y agoWe could turn ourselves around, and then literally nuke those who chose not to. It is technically possible -- we have all the tech, power, and people to do it. Meanwhile: The political focus is on building walls.
- henrikschroder 10y agoDo you remember the ozone hole and cfc? A combination of massive government regulations and technological improvements got rid of that problem.
- yongjik 10y ago+1. See also acid rains and sulfur emission.
- refurb 10y agoAnd resulted in asthma inhalers becoming super expensive because a corporation was given de facto control over the CFC replacements. And that's just one example.
- jwatte 10y agoAre you saying the ozone hole would be preferable?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- rralian 10y agoSo it only counts if the solution has no other effects? Any trade off means failure? Should we continue to let CFCs destroy the ozone layer so inhalers can be cheaper?
- rralian 10y agoSo it only counts if the solution has no other effects? Any trade off means failure? Should we continue to let CFCs destroy the ozone layer so inhalers can be cheaper?
- henrikschroder 10y agoYes, the choice between widespread skin cancer and expensive asthma inhalers is a really tough one!
- yongjik 10y agoIf your position is "Science is believable, but I believe massive government intervention cannot solve the problem, so we need an alternative solution," then at least you have a logically coherent position. The problem is when people go like this: "Massive government intervention cannot solve anything. Scientists say there is a problem, and massive government intervention is proposed as a solution. Therefore the science must be wrong; ergo, there is no problem." Please educate these people that they aren't making any sense, and then after that we can talk.
- Qwertious 10y agoIt's fundamentally a problem of externalities. It's an absolutely textbook example of tragedy of the commons, and historically the only solutions that work have been government solutions.
- nl 10y agoIs there an alternative to national government intervention? Local intervention can't work - heavy industry will just move to a local jurisdiction that doesn't have those interventions. Even if you accept that nuclear is safe (which isn't as settled as many on HN seem to think!) there is still a pretty significant problem with nuclear proliferation. The only alternative I can see is massive technological change to develop much, much more energy efficient industrial systems which are much, much cheaper than the existing systems. That would mean it was uneconomic to compete with them. But.. hoping for magic is a problematic solution. While we are hoping for magic, maybe someone will develop a cheap, small, workable fusion reactor. That would be nice.
- jwatte 10y agoWe already have the more efficient technologies; the main resistance is those benefiting from the status quo, who have the most money/power.
- nl 10y agoWe already have the more efficient technologies; the main resistance is those benefiting from the status quo, who have the most money/power. This is wrong on many levels. Firstly, I said "much, much more efficient AND much, much cheaper". Both need to be true in order to combat the high costs of setting up an industrial production facility. Secondly, I don't think either of these things are met. What are these more efficient and cheaper technologies for - say - producing cars, or plastic toys, or glass, or.. something. Thirdly, these people benefiting from the status quo in industrial production.. which status quo is that exactly? The one where production moved to Mexico from the US 15 years ago? Or the one where it moved to factories in China? Or the current one where Chinese factory workers are losing jobs to increased automation? Note that I'm not saying that the same people aren't keeping the money and power. I'm saying that they don't care about the place or means of production. They'll be just as happy to make money from cheap, efficient production as from expensive, polluting production.
- tzs 10y agoWhat do you consider to be massive government intervention? A carbon tax, as long as it is in put into place before the problem gets out of hand, would probably solve the problem, but I would not consider that "massive" government intervention. The kind of climate change caused by our greenhouse gas emissions is bad for the country as a whole. In an ideal free market, normal market forces would cause us to move away from causing this kind of climate change. Real markets are not ideal free markets. A carbon tax, by making greenhouse gas produces pay some of the costs that otherwise would be externalities shifted to others, brings the real market closer to an ideal free market. If we wait too long then a carbon tax won't be enough and massive government intervention could become necessary. By "massive" I mean the government stepping in and making decisions like what fuels you must use, setting specific emission caps on specific emitters, and things like that.