4 ms·

This. What got us (is getting us) out of the ozone mess (the climate change of my childhood) was technology and alternatives. No one had to revert to an icebox,

This. What got us (is getting us) out of the ozone mess (the climate change of my childhood) was technology and alternatives. No one had to revert to an icebox, or take any steps back in terms of what they consume. In policy terms, it was (mostly) relatively simple stuff. It was mostly bans, not theoretically sophisticated policy of taxes, subsidies, traceable credits and such. If I was king of the world, I’d think of carbon a similar way. Try to gradually ban carbon fuels, as soon as viable alternatives make this feasible. It seems we are nearing that stage for both electricity grids and cars. Forget about sophisticated economic interventions (I’m dubious of the economics of these anyway). Just change to an apples-to-apples alternative asap, with a focus on the ‘p.’

jjeaff 9y ago
A carbon tax seems like more of a simple solution than: >Try to gradually ban carbon fuels, as soon as viable alternatives make this feasible.
- dalbasal 9y ago
  Carbon tax (as well as the caps, subsidies, tradable credits and such that form parts of the plan) are more complicated, I think. Riskier too. Also, the economic reasoning is (IMO) flawed because in the absence of a viable alternative, we know fuel consumption decreases very, very little with increased costs (that affect poorer people more). If a viable alternative exists, we know that bans work well (e.g. CFCs) and leave less room for policy corruption. The key is viable alternatives. Without them, either policy will probably fail.
- ams6110 9y ago
  "as soon as" will be a long time. There is nothing viable on the horizon to replace carbon fuels in many applications. The energy density of batteries is still far lower than oil.
adrianN 9y ago
If we wait until carbon free replacements naturally displace fossil fuels we won't be able to limit global warming to two degrees. Immediate, massive action is necessary to reach that goal. And unfortunately climate change is not something that easily reverts itself like Ozone depletion. A large part of the atmospheric carbon stays there for thousands of years. I'm no expert, but to me a steadily increasing tax on carbon fuels seems like the simplest and best method to incentivize innovation. You can even incentivize capture technologies by providing a negative tax for all carbon that is safely put back in the ground. By taxing carbon that is pulled from the ground positively and carbon that is put back negatively you indirectly subsidize climate friendly technology without prescribing the shape of the solution.
- dalbasal 9y ago
  I’m not sure what you mean by “naturally.” I’m not proposing no interventions, just simple ones like bans. For example, EVs are starting to look like a viable apples-to-apple alternative across vehicle types. This is partially driven by subsidies and consumer action, but mostly it’s just technology. With the current pro-environment policy approach, we subsidise them (tax exemptions) at a decreasing rate (until it becomes too expensive because there are lots of EVs), along with some other “interventions” from a complex portfolio of policies. I am saying, do the opposite. (1) Pick winners. (2) Subsidise/tax at an increasing rate (or some other transitional plan). (3) Plan for a near term ban.
azernik 9y ago
We did have to take steps back; the new refrigerants were generally more expensive and less efficient, while the ban made old equipment impossible to legally service (no replacement CFC!). It's just that the loss in consumption was small enough to not matter to the general public, because their use was not a super large fraction of the economy. With something as essential as fossil fuels, you have to take a more gradual approach, and market-based economic tweaks are the best way to make those changes in the least costly sectors first.
- dalbasal 9y ago
  I agree that carbon is bigger, riskier, etc. But, in the early 90s, I was being educated at primary school to fight deodorant and watching educational videos about teenagers wearing radiation suits. All that raised awareness, but didn’t fix anything directly. Bans did, and they were relatively painless (compared to industry predictions) because viable alternatives existed. The effects were barely felt outside of a few industries, though I concede that some fridges had to retire early. But people mostly just continued as usual, and we don't need to make those videos any more. It feels analogous (not a perfect analogy, obviously) to now. We have huge campaigns promoting “consumer action” like better insulation, energy moderation & such. At the political/lobby/policy level, we have complicated solutions based on impossibly complex models of the world. They model human behaviour like fuel demand given some portfolio of tax/credit/cap/whatnot interventions (econometrics, basically), including the invention of new technologies. That model feeds into a climate model. It’s all tied together with a pathological ribbon of international politics. All along the way, all sorts of additional interest come into play from industry lobby to municipal transport plans to pet projects. "Market based tweaks" are based on so many assumptions, many of them motivated in all sorts of unhelpful ways. As I hinted above, I don't buy the economics of price-based interventions at all, personally. Regardless, it feels to complicated to be a good idea. I’m basically saying that I think simpler is better. We now have increasingly viable alternatives to carbon grid power and ICE engines. Put together a phase-out plan, based on bans. Subsidize the most severe (or politically connected) end of the spectrum. Tax, regulate or whatnot around the edges. The important part of the “analogy” (IMO) is this: viable alternative=>ban. If alternatives exist, bans can work relatively quickly, painlessly, and with less room for "corruption" of various sorts (remember ethanol?).
dm319 9y ago
Hang on... The ozone layer is now recovering decades after a ban on CFCs. Maybe it would just be simpler to ban man made production of CO2? Technology will find a way round I suppose, and it means we can ditch taxes, subsidies etc... win/win!
matt4077 9y ago
While technology was a necessary condition, it was by no means sufficient to affect wholesale change across industries and the world. Another comment quotes part of the history of this issue, and it shows that NGOs such as Greenpeace created political cooperation, solving the basic collective action problem (or prisoners' dilemma) at the core of this issue–which happens to be the same for global warming. The efforts by environmentalists were also instrumental for scientific organisations and the private sector to invest in alternatives. But even with those technical advances, switching would have ordinarily been a losing proposition: the new technology was more expensive, and often less convenient to consumers. You needed every citizen to willingly inconvenience themselves for the greater good, and you needed assurances that your competitors would not undercut you in the market by continuing to use "dirty" technology. The parallels to climate change are obvious, and if you remember the fight for the ozone layer as anything but a "crusade by first-world environmentalists and the nanny-state trying to kill our industries", that only shows how well it worked.
marcosdumay 9y ago
Bans were only viable because CFCs were used on only a few niches that could be regulated separately. Good luck trying to discover every use of fossil fuels out there and deciding if it can be replaced. A carbon tax can make fossil fuels uncompetitive on the markets where it has competitors, and does not require micro analysis of the entire world. Governments can just push higher and higher taxes until it is niche, and then start banning the niches.

jjeaff 9y ago

A carbon tax seems like more of a simple solution than: >Try to gradually ban carbon fuels, as soon as viable alternatives make this feasible.

dalbasal 9y ago
Carbon tax (as well as the caps, subsidies, tradable credits and such that form parts of the plan) are more complicated, I think. Riskier too. Also, the economic reasoning is (IMO) flawed because in the absence of a viable alternative, we know fuel consumption decreases very, very little with increased costs (that affect poorer people more). If a viable alternative exists, we know that bans work well (e.g. CFCs) and leave less room for policy corruption. The key is viable alternatives. Without them, either policy will probably fail.
ams6110 9y ago
"as soon as" will be a long time. There is nothing viable on the horizon to replace carbon fuels in many applications. The energy density of batteries is still far lower than oil.

adrianN 9y ago

If we wait until carbon free replacements naturally displace fossil fuels we won't be able to limit global warming to two degrees. Immediate, massive action is necessary to reach that goal. And unfortunately climate change is not something that easily reverts itself like Ozone depletion. A large part of the atmospheric carbon stays there for thousands of years. I'm no expert, but to me a steadily increasing tax on carbon fuels seems like the simplest and best method to incentivize innovation. You can even incentivize capture technologies by providing a negative tax for all carbon that is safely put back in the ground. By taxing carbon that is pulled from the ground positively and carbon that is put back negatively you indirectly subsidize climate friendly technology without prescribing the shape of the solution.

dalbasal 9y ago
I’m not sure what you mean by “naturally.” I’m not proposing no interventions, just simple ones like bans. For example, EVs are starting to look like a viable apples-to-apple alternative across vehicle types. This is partially driven by subsidies and consumer action, but mostly it’s just technology. With the current pro-environment policy approach, we subsidise them (tax exemptions) at a decreasing rate (until it becomes too expensive because there are lots of EVs), along with some other “interventions” from a complex portfolio of policies. I am saying, do the opposite. (1) Pick winners. (2) Subsidise/tax at an increasing rate (or some other transitional plan). (3) Plan for a near term ban.

azernik 9y ago

We did have to take steps back; the new refrigerants were generally more expensive and less efficient, while the ban made old equipment impossible to legally service (no replacement CFC!). It's just that the loss in consumption was small enough to not matter to the general public, because their use was not a super large fraction of the economy. With something as essential as fossil fuels, you have to take a more gradual approach, and market-based economic tweaks are the best way to make those changes in the least costly sectors first.

dalbasal 9y ago
I agree that carbon is bigger, riskier, etc. But, in the early 90s, I was being educated at primary school to fight deodorant and watching educational videos about teenagers wearing radiation suits. All that raised awareness, but didn’t fix anything directly. Bans did, and they were relatively painless (compared to industry predictions) because viable alternatives existed. The effects were barely felt outside of a few industries, though I concede that some fridges had to retire early. But people mostly just continued as usual, and we don't need to make those videos any more. It feels analogous (not a perfect analogy, obviously) to now. We have huge campaigns promoting “consumer action” like better insulation, energy moderation & such. At the political/lobby/policy level, we have complicated solutions based on impossibly complex models of the world. They model human behaviour like fuel demand given some portfolio of tax/credit/cap/whatnot interventions (econometrics, basically), including the invention of new technologies. That model feeds into a climate model. It’s all tied together with a pathological ribbon of international politics. All along the way, all sorts of additional interest come into play from industry lobby to municipal transport plans to pet projects. "Market based tweaks" are based on so many assumptions, many of them motivated in all sorts of unhelpful ways. As I hinted above, I don't buy the economics of price-based interventions at all, personally. Regardless, it feels to complicated to be a good idea. I’m basically saying that I think simpler is better. We now have increasingly viable alternatives to carbon grid power and ICE engines. Put together a phase-out plan, based on bans. Subsidize the most severe (or politically connected) end of the spectrum. Tax, regulate or whatnot around the edges. The important part of the “analogy” (IMO) is this: viable alternative=>ban. If alternatives exist, bans can work relatively quickly, painlessly, and with less room for "corruption" of various sorts (remember ethanol?).

dm319 9y ago

Hang on... The ozone layer is now recovering decades after a ban on CFCs. Maybe it would just be simpler to ban man made production of CO2? Technology will find a way round I suppose, and it means we can ditch taxes, subsidies etc... win/win!

matt4077 9y ago

While technology was a necessary condition, it was by no means sufficient to affect wholesale change across industries and the world. Another comment quotes part of the history of this issue, and it shows that NGOs such as Greenpeace created political cooperation, solving the basic collective action problem (or prisoners' dilemma) at the core of this issue–which happens to be the same for global warming. The efforts by environmentalists were also instrumental for scientific organisations and the private sector to invest in alternatives. But even with those technical advances, switching would have ordinarily been a losing proposition: the new technology was more expensive, and often less convenient to consumers. You needed every citizen to willingly inconvenience themselves for the greater good, and you needed assurances that your competitors would not undercut you in the market by continuing to use "dirty" technology. The parallels to climate change are obvious, and if you remember the fight for the ozone layer as anything but a "crusade by first-world environmentalists and the nanny-state trying to kill our industries", that only shows how well it worked.

marcosdumay 9y ago

Bans were only viable because CFCs were used on only a few niches that could be regulated separately. Good luck trying to discover every use of fossil fuels out there and deciding if it can be replaced. A carbon tax can make fossil fuels uncompetitive on the markets where it has competitors, and does not require micro analysis of the entire world. Governments can just push higher and higher taxes until it is niche, and then start banning the niches.