7 ms·

Regardless of the source, its well known that natural gas and fracking is causing a huge emissions drop. This often flies in the face of peoples cognitive bias

Regardless of the source, its well known that natural gas and fracking is causing a huge emissions drop. This often flies in the face of peoples cognitive bias on the matter, and it should. Reconcile your "faith" with fact. Many can't except the reality that economic incentives vastly outway any government policy. CO2 emissions wont be solved by more regulations, they will be solved by transitioning our economy to cleaner sources, electric cars, lab grown meats, vertical farms, self driving electric planes, ships, trucks (think about the carbon loss of supporting a human operators. Truck stops go away, restaurants and hotels close, etc). The government would be better suited subsidizing or giving tax breaks to the technology we want to see roll out, or simply get out of the way all together, rather than silly ideas like carbon taxes and onerous regulations that just end up targeting the poorest blue collar workers.

sandworm101 8y ago
And all the "blue collar" workers at those hotels and truck stops? Dont assume that everyone supports driverless tech. Many regulations and taxation schemes do effectively protect the blues from the worst behaviors of the white-collared. Dont fall into the trap of thinking that all government is a conspiracy to keep you down. That belief, that a wild west dominated by tech companies can solve all problems, is the stuff of highschool economics papers and Marvel movies. Reality is never that simple.
- imron 8y ago
  > And all the "blue collar" workers at those hotels and truck stops? Don't worry, universal basic income will save them. /s
- noetic_techy 8y ago
  There is a difference between jobs lost from automation and technological advancement, and jobs lost from pointless policy decisions. I don't fall into any traps. I did say some gov subsidy MIGHT be beneficial in order to get technologies that are merely being held back by economies of scale to where they need to be faster. Hardcore libertarians freak at this as well, but I'm a bit more case by case. For example, subsidizing solar panel production until it reaches price parity with natural gas, then start scaling back the subsidy very slowly.
dangjc 8y ago
Carbon taxes are a very market oriented approach, not a silly idea. Natural gas extraction and transmission turns out to emit more methane to the point of negating its lower CO2 emission benefits. https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-climate-activists-failed-to-make-clear-the-problem-with-natural-gas-mckibben https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-climate-activists-failed-...
- sremani 8y ago
  >> https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-climate-activists-failed-.. https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-climate-activists-failed-.... Off the topic! But here is the Author's bio on the article -------------------------------------------------- Bill McKibben is the founder of 350.org, an international environmental organization. His is the author of more than a dozen books about the environment, most recently Oil and Honey: The Education of an Unlikely Activist. --------------------------------------------------- "His is the author of.." WTF Yale! edit: Also as the author's profile reflect he is not a credible neutral authority! Visit the site 350.org, and see for yourself.
- sandworm101 8y ago
  >> a very market oriented approach, not a silly idea. Market approached only make sense where they work. They quickly become silly when the market no longer supports the end goal. A dramatic reduction in the cost of some fossil fuels, which could happen should we all stop burning gas in our cars, may make any market approach seem very silly.
- noetic_techy 8y ago
  I actually admit, after some digging, you may have a point here. My point was more about market solutions vs big government policy. Solar and Wind typically compete with natural gas for replacement of coal plants. I for one would prefer more solar. I think subsidies for the tech we want to see to reach scale and parity faster is a decent middle ground approach that acknowledges the market forces. The problem is we tend to rip that money away all at once, rather than scale it back VERY gradually.
  - 8y ago
adrianN 8y ago
Natural gas and fracking also cause huge Methane leaks, so...
bad_user 8y ago
> lab grown meats, vertical farms Sorry to burst you bubble, but at least these two are a disaster for the environment and potentially for our health as well. And it’s pretty tragic how we tell ourselves fairytales in the face of evidence to the contrary.
- noetic_techy 8y ago
  Got a source for these claims? Because I do: https://www.new-harvest.org/environmental_impacts_of_cultured_meat https://www.new-harvest.org/environmental_impacts_of_culture... "The paper predicted that, based on current published figures and research, complete replacement of conventional meat with cultured meat would result in an incredible 78-98% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, 99% reduction in land use and 82-96% reduction in water use,and 45% reduction in energy use." Likelywise, vertical farms simply need green energy sources to achieve less of a footprint: https://www.eater.com/2018/7/3/17531192/vertical-farming-agriculture-hydroponic-greens https://www.eater.com/2018/7/3/17531192/vertical-farming-agr... "But Vosburg says the company’s priority is to use contextually appropriate renewable energy sources to power the farms, such as wind energy in the Midwest, hydro in the Northwest, and solar in the Southwest... “Yes, it sounds crazy to take the sun and turn it into electricity and turn that electricity back into light. It sounds ridiculous, but that’s what we’ll be doing,” Vosburg says. “It’ll be really efficient and clean and create a better product, and it won’t have the same carbon impact that we’re having today.” ... And energy isn’t even a vertical farm’s top ongoing expense. The companies Civil Eats spoke to say labor is actually their largest budget item. Vertical farms typically pay workers higher, more metropolitan pay rates than both dirt farms—many of which rely heavily on migrant labor—and the more automated smart greenhouses. " That all sounds like technical problems that can be solved with the right equipment, scale, and maybe some automation.

sandworm101 8y ago

And all the "blue collar" workers at those hotels and truck stops? Dont assume that everyone supports driverless tech. Many regulations and taxation schemes do effectively protect the blues from the worst behaviors of the white-collared. Dont fall into the trap of thinking that all government is a conspiracy to keep you down. That belief, that a wild west dominated by tech companies can solve all problems, is the stuff of highschool economics papers and Marvel movies. Reality is never that simple.

imron 8y ago
> And all the "blue collar" workers at those hotels and truck stops? Don't worry, universal basic income will save them. /s
noetic_techy 8y ago
There is a difference between jobs lost from automation and technological advancement, and jobs lost from pointless policy decisions. I don't fall into any traps. I did say some gov subsidy MIGHT be beneficial in order to get technologies that are merely being held back by economies of scale to where they need to be faster. Hardcore libertarians freak at this as well, but I'm a bit more case by case. For example, subsidizing solar panel production until it reaches price parity with natural gas, then start scaling back the subsidy very slowly.

dangjc 8y ago

Carbon taxes are a very market oriented approach, not a silly idea. Natural gas extraction and transmission turns out to emit more methane to the point of negating its lower CO2 emission benefits. https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-climate-activists-failed-to-make-clear-the-problem-with-natural-gas-mckibben https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-climate-activists-failed-...

sremani 8y ago
>> https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-climate-activists-failed-.. https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-climate-activists-failed-.... Off the topic! But here is the Author's bio on the article -------------------------------------------------- Bill McKibben is the founder of 350.org, an international environmental organization. His is the author of more than a dozen books about the environment, most recently Oil and Honey: The Education of an Unlikely Activist. --------------------------------------------------- "His is the author of.." WTF Yale! edit: Also as the author's profile reflect he is not a credible neutral authority! Visit the site 350.org, and see for yourself.
sandworm101 8y ago
>> a very market oriented approach, not a silly idea. Market approached only make sense where they work. They quickly become silly when the market no longer supports the end goal. A dramatic reduction in the cost of some fossil fuels, which could happen should we all stop burning gas in our cars, may make any market approach seem very silly.
noetic_techy 8y ago
I actually admit, after some digging, you may have a point here. My point was more about market solutions vs big government policy. Solar and Wind typically compete with natural gas for replacement of coal plants. I for one would prefer more solar. I think subsidies for the tech we want to see to reach scale and parity faster is a decent middle ground approach that acknowledges the market forces. The problem is we tend to rip that money away all at once, rather than scale it back VERY gradually.
- 8y ago

adrianN 8y ago

Natural gas and fracking also cause huge Methane leaks, so...

bad_user 8y ago

> lab grown meats, vertical farms Sorry to burst you bubble, but at least these two are a disaster for the environment and potentially for our health as well. And it’s pretty tragic how we tell ourselves fairytales in the face of evidence to the contrary.

noetic_techy 8y ago
Got a source for these claims? Because I do: https://www.new-harvest.org/environmental_impacts_of_cultured_meat https://www.new-harvest.org/environmental_impacts_of_culture... "The paper predicted that, based on current published figures and research, complete replacement of conventional meat with cultured meat would result in an incredible 78-98% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, 99% reduction in land use and 82-96% reduction in water use,and 45% reduction in energy use." Likelywise, vertical farms simply need green energy sources to achieve less of a footprint: https://www.eater.com/2018/7/3/17531192/vertical-farming-agriculture-hydroponic-greens https://www.eater.com/2018/7/3/17531192/vertical-farming-agr... "But Vosburg says the company’s priority is to use contextually appropriate renewable energy sources to power the farms, such as wind energy in the Midwest, hydro in the Northwest, and solar in the Southwest... “Yes, it sounds crazy to take the sun and turn it into electricity and turn that electricity back into light. It sounds ridiculous, but that’s what we’ll be doing,” Vosburg says. “It’ll be really efficient and clean and create a better product, and it won’t have the same carbon impact that we’re having today.” ... And energy isn’t even a vertical farm’s top ongoing expense. The companies Civil Eats spoke to say labor is actually their largest budget item. Vertical farms typically pay workers higher, more metropolitan pay rates than both dirt farms—many of which rely heavily on migrant labor—and the more automated smart greenhouses. " That all sounds like technical problems that can be solved with the right equipment, scale, and maybe some automation.