4 ms·

How do we make renewables more competitive so that we can get our local utilities to invest in them? A carbon fee and dividend. Price carbon at its true cost a

How do we make renewables more competitive so that we can get our local utilities to invest in them? A carbon fee and dividend. Price carbon at its true cost and let the market decide! There is important work being done by Citizen's Climate Lobby. CCL is incredibly effective, but we need the help of the creative minds and energies of HN. Check out citizensclimatelobby.org to get involved in your local chapter.

SamPhillips 9y ago
+1 to CCL, they are a well-respected organization. (disclosure, I work at Google, but not in any way related to this project)
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
jdavis703 9y ago
Can you buy clean energy from your utility? If you're in California PG&E has a program called Solar Choice where it attempts to offset your electrical consumption by building additional renewable capacity. So far it's only added about $2 or $3 to my bill. Many other utilities have similar programs.
- mseebach 9y ago
  At the risk of stating the obvious, if it's only added $2-3 to your bill, then it's only given the energy company $2-3 to build renewable capacity. That's not nearly enough to make any kind of meaningful impact in your carbon footprint (assuming you have somewhat average consumption).
  - jdavis703 9y ago
    I spend about $20-30/month on electricity, so it's about a 10% change. My electrical consumption is about as low as I think one can get it without going without things like refrigerators.
PeanutCurry 9y ago
This might be controversial but I'm genuinely ignorant on the matter. How and why would you do this? Obviously I get that the "why" is because it benefits the planet. But, every nation has a stake in the planet so this seems like it would imply that it's more strategic to hold out until economically persuasive reasons are given to adopt change. Otherwise, we're putting pressure on our own organizations for free when we could instead wait for external forces to offer incentives which would be more beneficial overall. I realize that this is an unapologetically cutthroat strategy but, when most of the high confidence predictions for global warming based disaster are as far as a century out, it seems like there's a lot to lose by doing things voluntarily.
- hwillis 9y ago
  The predictions for global warming are not a century out. They are simulated up to a century out because there is no point to going further. If we are still emitting carbon in 2100, the planet will become uninhabitable. The predictions for global warming are generally based around emissions peaking within the next five years and then declining (RCP 2.6). A peak around 2040 (RCP 4.5) results in a 3-4 C rise over the next 30-40 years causing widespread deaths[1]. The 2003 European heat wave was a +5-10 C anomaly that killed over 70,000 people; every heat wave would become that severe. Summers and winters would kill tens of thousands of people. Postponing will only lead to a weaker economy and higher death toll. And regardless, the US is already behind almost every major country on renewable energy, including china and india. We're already playing catch-up. [1]: https://www.greenfacts.org/en/impacts-global-warming/l-2/1.htm https://www.greenfacts.org/en/impacts-global-warming/l-2/1.h...
  - PeanutCurry 9y ago
    Unless there's a major part I'm overlooking, your link doesn't mean that the entire planet will become uninhabitable by 2100. Nor does it imply that infrastructure accommodations couldn't mitigate the effects of global warming for nations with strong enough economies to construct them. For poor countries that can't adapt to climate change this is obviously a major loss. For nations that are wealthy enough to adapt or, at the least, soak up any losses in order to achieve an advantageous position the implication is still that they would be better of mitigating carbon emissions only when given a financial incentive. Further, while the U.S. is behind in terms of raw production, that doesn't immediately equate to a bad thing. China and India have pollution clouds. This isn't something that the U.S. has really seen at large since L.A. between the 70s and 80s. It's simply less of an issue. Catching up is only good if there's an actual benefit. Otherwise, it seems like the math would dictate that it's better to wait until other countries start offering either money or deals to incentivize reciprocation.
mc32 9y ago
How would world trade view interpret carbon taxation. Say the US or Russia think taxing the carbon impact of products and services would lead to better climatic outcomes. Let's say the US and Russia have assessed the costs for all gods and services and want to levy them on all products foreign and domestic. Would those taxes/levies amount to "trade barriers" or is there a loophole around that?
- wbl 9y ago
  It isn't a trade barrier if levied evenly across all imports and doesn't discriminate against foreign producers.

SamPhillips 9y ago

+1 to CCL, they are a well-respected organization. (disclosure, I work at Google, but not in any way related to this project)

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

jdavis703 9y ago

Can you buy clean energy from your utility? If you're in California PG&E has a program called Solar Choice where it attempts to offset your electrical consumption by building additional renewable capacity. So far it's only added about $2 or $3 to my bill. Many other utilities have similar programs.

mseebach 9y ago
At the risk of stating the obvious, if it's only added $2-3 to your bill, then it's only given the energy company $2-3 to build renewable capacity. That's not nearly enough to make any kind of meaningful impact in your carbon footprint (assuming you have somewhat average consumption).
- jdavis703 9y ago
  I spend about $20-30/month on electricity, so it's about a 10% change. My electrical consumption is about as low as I think one can get it without going without things like refrigerators.

PeanutCurry 9y ago

This might be controversial but I'm genuinely ignorant on the matter. How and why would you do this? Obviously I get that the "why" is because it benefits the planet. But, every nation has a stake in the planet so this seems like it would imply that it's more strategic to hold out until economically persuasive reasons are given to adopt change. Otherwise, we're putting pressure on our own organizations for free when we could instead wait for external forces to offer incentives which would be more beneficial overall. I realize that this is an unapologetically cutthroat strategy but, when most of the high confidence predictions for global warming based disaster are as far as a century out, it seems like there's a lot to lose by doing things voluntarily.

hwillis 9y ago
The predictions for global warming are not a century out. They are simulated up to a century out because there is no point to going further. If we are still emitting carbon in 2100, the planet will become uninhabitable. The predictions for global warming are generally based around emissions peaking within the next five years and then declining (RCP 2.6). A peak around 2040 (RCP 4.5) results in a 3-4 C rise over the next 30-40 years causing widespread deaths[1]. The 2003 European heat wave was a +5-10 C anomaly that killed over 70,000 people; every heat wave would become that severe. Summers and winters would kill tens of thousands of people. Postponing will only lead to a weaker economy and higher death toll. And regardless, the US is already behind almost every major country on renewable energy, including china and india. We're already playing catch-up. [1]: https://www.greenfacts.org/en/impacts-global-warming/l-2/1.htm https://www.greenfacts.org/en/impacts-global-warming/l-2/1.h...
- PeanutCurry 9y ago
  Unless there's a major part I'm overlooking, your link doesn't mean that the entire planet will become uninhabitable by 2100. Nor does it imply that infrastructure accommodations couldn't mitigate the effects of global warming for nations with strong enough economies to construct them. For poor countries that can't adapt to climate change this is obviously a major loss. For nations that are wealthy enough to adapt or, at the least, soak up any losses in order to achieve an advantageous position the implication is still that they would be better of mitigating carbon emissions only when given a financial incentive. Further, while the U.S. is behind in terms of raw production, that doesn't immediately equate to a bad thing. China and India have pollution clouds. This isn't something that the U.S. has really seen at large since L.A. between the 70s and 80s. It's simply less of an issue. Catching up is only good if there's an actual benefit. Otherwise, it seems like the math would dictate that it's better to wait until other countries start offering either money or deals to incentivize reciprocation.

mc32 9y ago

How would world trade view interpret carbon taxation. Say the US or Russia think taxing the carbon impact of products and services would lead to better climatic outcomes. Let's say the US and Russia have assessed the costs for all gods and services and want to levy them on all products foreign and domestic. Would those taxes/levies amount to "trade barriers" or is there a loophole around that?

wbl 9y ago
It isn't a trade barrier if levied evenly across all imports and doesn't discriminate against foreign producers.