3 ms·

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 se

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?).
- azernik 9y ago
  I agree that public education campaigns are not a solution; but you expressed a lot of skepticism about also the economic interventions short of a total ban on carbon-emitting fuels. Before a ban becomes practical, other methods must be used to reduce usage, and economic interventions like taxes, alternative energy incentives, and properly-designed carbon markets have proven effective (though that last seems pretty hard to get right).
  - dalbasal 9y ago
    I guess we disagree on how well taxes, incentives, and carbon markets have done. II think that most of the wins we got have come from more direct interventions like building public transport (NY & Amsterdam vs Houston or Montreal) and replacing carbon based grid power. ..the skepticism... Basically, the majority of “interventions” are based on price. Higher prices, lower consumption. That’s the economics assumption in a nutshell. The reason I think that this is flawed is “demand elasticity.” We know fuel demand to be “inelastic” meaning that for any change in price, consumption will change very little. To cut consumption by 25-50%, prices will need to increase a lot, more than feasible in a normal political situation. Fuel consumption is inelastic in the medium-long term, very inelastic in the short term. Fuel is often used as a literal textbook example (along with cocaine) for this concept. The only way to change the elasticity is alternatives. The economics of encouraging the invention of alternatives is.. well.. “theory” in the pedestrian sense of the word. Academic ideas that are debated without much resolution. This part is not like the first part (elasticity), which is well understood. So, these interventions might work for creating alternatives, but I dunno. In any case, it looks like alternatives have appeared (regardless of how we think they got here). So, lets cut the BS, trust ourselves to assess the viability of these alternatives , pick winners and go for a 10-20 year phase out culminating in a near total ban. Conceptually, I’m arguing against the idea the economics-based policies should be abstract, general policies that could apply to carbon, sugar, makeup or anything. I’m saying look at this specific market. Picking winners in 2018 is a lot less risky than picking winners in 2008, when EVs or mostly solar grids were still unproven. If we determine that alternatives are viable (I think we are just getting there now) then pull the trigger, ban carbon fuel.
marcosdumay 9y ago
> while the ban made old equipment impossible to legally service (no replacement CFC!) The ban was phased, and there was a decade for old equipment to adapt. I think you still can legally go and buy replacement CFC, but I'm not sure if anybody is still selling.

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?).

azernik 9y ago
I agree that public education campaigns are not a solution; but you expressed a lot of skepticism about also the economic interventions short of a total ban on carbon-emitting fuels. Before a ban becomes practical, other methods must be used to reduce usage, and economic interventions like taxes, alternative energy incentives, and properly-designed carbon markets have proven effective (though that last seems pretty hard to get right).
- dalbasal 9y ago
  I guess we disagree on how well taxes, incentives, and carbon markets have done. II think that most of the wins we got have come from more direct interventions like building public transport (NY & Amsterdam vs Houston or Montreal) and replacing carbon based grid power. ..the skepticism... Basically, the majority of “interventions” are based on price. Higher prices, lower consumption. That’s the economics assumption in a nutshell. The reason I think that this is flawed is “demand elasticity.” We know fuel demand to be “inelastic” meaning that for any change in price, consumption will change very little. To cut consumption by 25-50%, prices will need to increase a lot, more than feasible in a normal political situation. Fuel consumption is inelastic in the medium-long term, very inelastic in the short term. Fuel is often used as a literal textbook example (along with cocaine) for this concept. The only way to change the elasticity is alternatives. The economics of encouraging the invention of alternatives is.. well.. “theory” in the pedestrian sense of the word. Academic ideas that are debated without much resolution. This part is not like the first part (elasticity), which is well understood. So, these interventions might work for creating alternatives, but I dunno. In any case, it looks like alternatives have appeared (regardless of how we think they got here). So, lets cut the BS, trust ourselves to assess the viability of these alternatives , pick winners and go for a 10-20 year phase out culminating in a near total ban. Conceptually, I’m arguing against the idea the economics-based policies should be abstract, general policies that could apply to carbon, sugar, makeup or anything. I’m saying look at this specific market. Picking winners in 2018 is a lot less risky than picking winners in 2008, when EVs or mostly solar grids were still unproven. If we determine that alternatives are viable (I think we are just getting there now) then pull the trigger, ban carbon fuel.

marcosdumay 9y ago

> while the ban made old equipment impossible to legally service (no replacement CFC!) The ban was phased, and there was a decade for old equipment to adapt. I think you still can legally go and buy replacement CFC, but I'm not sure if anybody is still selling.