3 ms·

Some interesting thoughts. Alternatively, I could see fueling the climate-change-is-fake side in America could benefit China and Russia in totally hypothetical

Some interesting thoughts. Alternatively, I could see fueling the climate-change-is-fake side in America could benefit China and Russia in totally hypothetical ways. 1) We stay dependent on fossil fuels and make it harder for the world to make the transition, allowing Russia to continue making money exporting. 2) We stay out of the renewable energy research and manufacturing business globally, allowing China to corner that market while our traditional industries are propped up longer than they should be (ie, Coal) . 3) Our influence gradually weakens as we're the last holdout, despite being the most powerful and wealthy nation. Who will listen to the US on anything if we're anti-science and the only major holdout on climate change?

benlorenzetti 9y ago
Thanks for honest counter arguments! I agree with (1) from a long term perspective and think we should increase funding to green tech researchers. But I weigh political resistance to developing resources (ice breaking trade lanes, oil wealth, etc.) on the North American side of the Arctic ocean as benefiting Russia more than unquantifiable acceleration (due to more research funding) of the eventual long term, technology based decline of fossil fuels. On (2) and (3) these are basically free market vs. government organized enterprise and left vs. right political arguments, so I'm not sure if I can rebut them articulately. And they probably come down to Putin's and Xi's personal opinions, not ours. But if Xi wants to subsidize worldwide solar power production at the cost of China's other industries, I say go ahead and we'll probably still compete with private actors. They should lead some like us. And again, I'm not saying there shouldn't be any US government organized enterprise in this field. For example I think the US, Russia, China, UK, and others could work together by laying a great circumnavigating high voltage DC cable for solar energy, on which ``the sun never sets''. But still the validity of (2) and (3) is definitely colored by political leanings.

benlorenzetti 9y ago

Thanks for honest counter arguments! I agree with (1) from a long term perspective and think we should increase funding to green tech researchers. But I weigh political resistance to developing resources (ice breaking trade lanes, oil wealth, etc.) on the North American side of the Arctic ocean as benefiting Russia more than unquantifiable acceleration (due to more research funding) of the eventual long term, technology based decline of fossil fuels. On (2) and (3) these are basically free market vs. government organized enterprise and left vs. right political arguments, so I'm not sure if I can rebut them articulately. And they probably come down to Putin's and Xi's personal opinions, not ours. But if Xi wants to subsidize worldwide solar power production at the cost of China's other industries, I say go ahead and we'll probably still compete with private actors. They should lead some like us. And again, I'm not saying there shouldn't be any US government organized enterprise in this field. For example I think the US, Russia, China, UK, and others could work together by laying a great circumnavigating high voltage DC cable for solar energy, on which ``the sun never sets''. But still the validity of (2) and (3) is definitely colored by political leanings.