4 ms·

Agreed. It's time to get very very excited here. Well if you only care about yourself, then screw it. If you have an ounce of care for the next generation or

Agreed. It's time to get very very excited here. Well if you only care about yourself, then screw it. If you have an ounce of care for the next generation or the ecosystems of the Earth, then it's time to start doing everything possible to replace our power generation with renewables (solar & wind) and our cars with electric cars. It won't cost all that much. Not doing it will cost a whole heck of a lot more.

m_mueller 9y ago
Due to what's happening with Arctic methane I'm becoming more and more convinced that it won't just be the next generation's problem, it will be ours.
humanrebar 9y ago
> It won't cost all that much. Not doing it will cost a whole heck of a lot more. It's possible that it would change 3% year-over-year productivity growth to 0.5%. That "it" might be the difference between a marginally healthy economy and "lost generations" and political upheaval. The "give us the flight controls now or regret it for eternity" position is not necessarily wrong, but there's a real lack of credible evidence with useful confidence intervals that any given combination of approaches will have net desirable outcomes. And there's a justified (I think) lack of trust in that approach. The entire situation is dire, so why don't we see more of a "full court press" on responding to the effects of climate change as well? Investments into dikes and levees, building above sea level more aggressively, more aggressive weatherproofing, relocating populations from increasingly arid to increasingly temperate places, etc.? People worldwide are clearly more and more cynical about centralized seats of power (Washington, Brussels, Davos, etc.), so why are we saying the solution to all this is more special interests (say, 'yes' to American batteries, 'no' to French nuclear tech), more regulation, and more bureaucracy? Alternative plan: If the problem is carbon in the air, just implement and gradually ramp up a (progressive) tax on that, provide a phased-in minimum income to offset general cost-of-living increases, and then just play with those knobs until emissions hit desirable levels.
- twoodfin 9y ago
  The issue is, as I understand it, how to make a carbon tax "progressive". In particular, how to make it so progressive that the developing world will accept it (i.e., it won't condemn their poor to generations of high energy prices and much slower economic growth) but still strong enough to dramatically reduce future emissions growth. Just imposing it on the developed world would help some, but any benefit would be at least partially offset by emissions-heavy industry shifting further to the developing (and higher emissions-intensive) nations.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    Those are fair objections. Concerns I have myself, but the counterproposals seem scientifically unfounded to me: picking certain technologies (and inevitably companies and industries) and deigning them "the green future" based on our still early developments in science and engineering. Worse, people are calling people with concerns about subsidizing, say, certain battery companies (at the expense of alternative approaches and competing battery companies) as "global warming skeptics" and "anti-science". As if subsidizing particular avenues of R&D is a scientifically objective question.
Turing_Machine 9y ago
"It won't cost all that much." You aren't a starving peasant in Bangladesh, dude. Reducing energy consumption to any significant degree will doom millions of people to an unpleasant death. And no, solar and wind won't do it. At least not earth-based solar. Space-based solar might do the trick, but the risks and costs would be extremely high. There is exactly one feasible alternative to fossil fuels, and that is nuclear.
- yongjik 9y ago
  You don't get to say "The Earth will be fine" in one thread and then commiserate with a Bangladeshi peasant in another thread just because you find it convenient. Choose your pick.
  - Turing_Machine 9y ago
    1. What makes you think that "the Earth" and "human beings" are synonymous? 2. You don't get to advocate the end of fossil fuels by spreading disaster scenarios while ignoring the very real human costs that would result from what you are advocating.
    - yongjik 9y ago
      1. They are not, hence your stance is disingenuous. The death of millions would be a statistical blip in geological timescale. By saying "The Earth will be fine," you are saying you don't find millions of deaths and suffering to be important enough to warrant a solution. And then when someone proposes a solution, because you don't like it, you bring out your hypothetical Bangladeshi farmer. 2. If you want to talk about "real human costs" of climate policy, you might want to pick a country that is not built upon a coastal flood plain that is routinely flooded[1]: Bangladesh is going to be among the countries hit hardest by climate change[2]. It makes me suspect that you don't care about human costs at all. On the other hand it did help me writing this rebuttal, so I guess all is well after all. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floods_in_Bangladesh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floods_in_Bangladesh > In 1998, over 75% of the total area of the country was flooded, including half of the capital city Dhaka. ... 30 million people were made homeless and the death toll reached over a thousand. [2] Same page > The difference between historical and projected average temperatures each season throughout the world has revealed that harvests from major staple crops could drop by 40 percent by the end of the 21st century due to high temperatures in the growing seasons.

m_mueller 9y ago

Due to what's happening with Arctic methane I'm becoming more and more convinced that it won't just be the next generation's problem, it will be ours.

humanrebar 9y ago

> It won't cost all that much. Not doing it will cost a whole heck of a lot more. It's possible that it would change 3% year-over-year productivity growth to 0.5%. That "it" might be the difference between a marginally healthy economy and "lost generations" and political upheaval. The "give us the flight controls now or regret it for eternity" position is not necessarily wrong, but there's a real lack of credible evidence with useful confidence intervals that any given combination of approaches will have net desirable outcomes. And there's a justified (I think) lack of trust in that approach. The entire situation is dire, so why don't we see more of a "full court press" on responding to the effects of climate change as well? Investments into dikes and levees, building above sea level more aggressively, more aggressive weatherproofing, relocating populations from increasingly arid to increasingly temperate places, etc.? People worldwide are clearly more and more cynical about centralized seats of power (Washington, Brussels, Davos, etc.), so why are we saying the solution to all this is more special interests (say, 'yes' to American batteries, 'no' to French nuclear tech), more regulation, and more bureaucracy? Alternative plan: If the problem is carbon in the air, just implement and gradually ramp up a (progressive) tax on that, provide a phased-in minimum income to offset general cost-of-living increases, and then just play with those knobs until emissions hit desirable levels.

twoodfin 9y ago
The issue is, as I understand it, how to make a carbon tax "progressive". In particular, how to make it so progressive that the developing world will accept it (i.e., it won't condemn their poor to generations of high energy prices and much slower economic growth) but still strong enough to dramatically reduce future emissions growth. Just imposing it on the developed world would help some, but any benefit would be at least partially offset by emissions-heavy industry shifting further to the developing (and higher emissions-intensive) nations.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  Those are fair objections. Concerns I have myself, but the counterproposals seem scientifically unfounded to me: picking certain technologies (and inevitably companies and industries) and deigning them "the green future" based on our still early developments in science and engineering. Worse, people are calling people with concerns about subsidizing, say, certain battery companies (at the expense of alternative approaches and competing battery companies) as "global warming skeptics" and "anti-science". As if subsidizing particular avenues of R&D is a scientifically objective question.

Turing_Machine 9y ago

"It won't cost all that much." You aren't a starving peasant in Bangladesh, dude. Reducing energy consumption to any significant degree will doom millions of people to an unpleasant death. And no, solar and wind won't do it. At least not earth-based solar. Space-based solar might do the trick, but the risks and costs would be extremely high. There is exactly one feasible alternative to fossil fuels, and that is nuclear.

yongjik 9y ago
You don't get to say "The Earth will be fine" in one thread and then commiserate with a Bangladeshi peasant in another thread just because you find it convenient. Choose your pick.
- Turing_Machine 9y ago
  1. What makes you think that "the Earth" and "human beings" are synonymous? 2. You don't get to advocate the end of fossil fuels by spreading disaster scenarios while ignoring the very real human costs that would result from what you are advocating.
  - yongjik 9y ago
    1. They are not, hence your stance is disingenuous. The death of millions would be a statistical blip in geological timescale. By saying "The Earth will be fine," you are saying you don't find millions of deaths and suffering to be important enough to warrant a solution. And then when someone proposes a solution, because you don't like it, you bring out your hypothetical Bangladeshi farmer. 2. If you want to talk about "real human costs" of climate policy, you might want to pick a country that is not built upon a coastal flood plain that is routinely flooded[1]: Bangladesh is going to be among the countries hit hardest by climate change[2]. It makes me suspect that you don't care about human costs at all. On the other hand it did help me writing this rebuttal, so I guess all is well after all. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floods_in_Bangladesh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floods_in_Bangladesh > In 1998, over 75% of the total area of the country was flooded, including half of the capital city Dhaka. ... 30 million people were made homeless and the death toll reached over a thousand. [2] Same page > The difference between historical and projected average temperatures each season throughout the world has revealed that harvests from major staple crops could drop by 40 percent by the end of the 21st century due to high temperatures in the growing seasons.