4 ms·

Well, I can sympathise with the “this is going to be unpopular but...” cos that’s where I’m going too, though a bit different to you. A very large number of hu

Well, I can sympathise with the “this is going to be unpopular but...” cos that’s where I’m going too, though a bit different to you. A very large number of human beings, even among those that accept the science of climate change and it’s likely consequences, have proven remarkably resistant to ANY persuasion to voluntarily moderate their lifestyles even a little to make the kind of changes that, if they were made en-masse, could mitigate the worst impacts. They are even MORE resistant to even mild attempts to impose change by way of a carbon pricing mechanism. God forbid I may have to pay 5% more for certain goods, or that I should sacrifice one of my SUVs. My main gripe therefore with these geoengineering proposals is twofold. 1. On what planet where we we’re not willing to pay even a modest price on carbon, are we going to be willing to pay trillions for geoengineering projects? 2. Geoengineering is yet another reflection of that innate human desire to externalise costs as much as possible. Whether that be the cost of labour, pollution, or climate change. It’s always the ‘other’ that should bear the worst costs - the third world, the whales, the forests, whatever. The attitude of placing greater importance on ‘us’ over everything and everyone else is exactly what got us into this fine mess, AND STILL IS. You may think your view is unpopular but only insofar as people don’t actually want to hear the truth about themselves. Note: I’m already aware that my two points may be slightly contradictory.

throwawayjava 8y ago
> 1. On what planet where we we’re not willing to pay even a modest price on carbon, are we going to be willing to pay trillions for geoengineering projects? So. Much. Fucking. Carbon. Trillions is nothing if it means no consumer-level caps on carbon output for the next generation or two.
- phs318u 8y ago
  > ...it means no consumer-level caps on carbon output for the next generation or two. So not a permanent fix then. Just kick that can down the road and let your grandkids sort it out. That’s exactly what I meant by externalising costs and getting someone else to pay, in this case the future.
nine_k 8y ago
There is a very simple way to make people pay for CO2 they produce by e.g. burning things: add a tax on it, so that the price increases. Tax oil-based fuels, firewood, coal. This will send the signal down every industry, adjusting price of goods accordingly. Use the money for the anti-warming geoengineering. How popular might it be? Like, kill the whole coal industry around the world; who would mind? Make fuel, say, 2x as expensive; who would mind? Make barbecue coals as expensive as the meat; would anyone notice? Also, enforce it globally, including places like India, Russia, or China, the latter critically dependent on coal-based electricity. Now compare to building some walls around glaciers, maybe mere thousands of miles. I heard somewhere a great parable. Imagine that some aviation specialist would analyze plane hijacking data and recommend to install strong locked doors to pilot cabins on airliners. It would have prevented 9/11, saved thousands of lives, and would have been incomparably cheaper than all those security measures implemented in the aftermath. But likely every airline would be against this unneeded expense, and it would be very hard to push this measure. Same thing with the global warming, wars, and various other (impending) catastrophes: people hope that they'll get by somehow; how bad it can really be? You see, nothing is happening! When it hits, the view changes drastically, but it's too late already.
- phs318u 8y ago
  The meme that an effective carbon tax would ruin entire economies is pretty much just scaremongering. For a brief period in Australia's recent history, we had a carbon tax with quite a moderate impact economically which measurably reduced our carbon output. http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/carbon-price-helped-curb-emissions-anu-study-finds-20140716-ztuf6.html http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/carbon-pric... The other point I'll make about huge big-bang projects is that in recent decades they've only ever been achieved by authoritarian regimes that don't need the kind of consensus that kills such projects in western democracies. We live in a world where a significant fraction (perhaps majority?) of the citizenry is largely ignorant, anti-science, distrusts authority, believes in outrageous conspiracy theories and lacks the ability to form coherent thoughts about most things. I put it to you that your chance of getting a large-scale geo-engineering project supported by that majority at a direct cost to them (a cost that can't be moderated by behaviour changes by the way) is practically zero outside an outright dictatorship.
King-Aaron 8y ago
> The attitude of placing greater importance on ‘us’ over everything and everyone else is exactly what got us into this fine mess, AND STILL IS. You may think your view is unpopular but only insofar as people don’t actually want to hear the truth about themselves. I certainly don't disagree with you. I should make note that while I am a conservationist at heart, this was more a 'devils advocate' position I was bringing up.

throwawayjava 8y ago

> 1. On what planet where we we’re not willing to pay even a modest price on carbon, are we going to be willing to pay trillions for geoengineering projects? So. Much. Fucking. Carbon. Trillions is nothing if it means no consumer-level caps on carbon output for the next generation or two.

phs318u 8y ago
> ...it means no consumer-level caps on carbon output for the next generation or two. So not a permanent fix then. Just kick that can down the road and let your grandkids sort it out. That’s exactly what I meant by externalising costs and getting someone else to pay, in this case the future.

nine_k 8y ago

There is a very simple way to make people pay for CO2 they produce by e.g. burning things: add a tax on it, so that the price increases. Tax oil-based fuels, firewood, coal. This will send the signal down every industry, adjusting price of goods accordingly. Use the money for the anti-warming geoengineering. How popular might it be? Like, kill the whole coal industry around the world; who would mind? Make fuel, say, 2x as expensive; who would mind? Make barbecue coals as expensive as the meat; would anyone notice? Also, enforce it globally, including places like India, Russia, or China, the latter critically dependent on coal-based electricity. Now compare to building some walls around glaciers, maybe mere thousands of miles. I heard somewhere a great parable. Imagine that some aviation specialist would analyze plane hijacking data and recommend to install strong locked doors to pilot cabins on airliners. It would have prevented 9/11, saved thousands of lives, and would have been incomparably cheaper than all those security measures implemented in the aftermath. But likely every airline would be against this unneeded expense, and it would be very hard to push this measure. Same thing with the global warming, wars, and various other (impending) catastrophes: people hope that they'll get by somehow; how bad it can really be? You see, nothing is happening! When it hits, the view changes drastically, but it's too late already.

phs318u 8y ago
The meme that an effective carbon tax would ruin entire economies is pretty much just scaremongering. For a brief period in Australia's recent history, we had a carbon tax with quite a moderate impact economically which measurably reduced our carbon output. http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/carbon-price-helped-curb-emissions-anu-study-finds-20140716-ztuf6.html http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/carbon-pric... The other point I'll make about huge big-bang projects is that in recent decades they've only ever been achieved by authoritarian regimes that don't need the kind of consensus that kills such projects in western democracies. We live in a world where a significant fraction (perhaps majority?) of the citizenry is largely ignorant, anti-science, distrusts authority, believes in outrageous conspiracy theories and lacks the ability to form coherent thoughts about most things. I put it to you that your chance of getting a large-scale geo-engineering project supported by that majority at a direct cost to them (a cost that can't be moderated by behaviour changes by the way) is practically zero outside an outright dictatorship.

King-Aaron 8y ago

> The attitude of placing greater importance on ‘us’ over everything and everyone else is exactly what got us into this fine mess, AND STILL IS. You may think your view is unpopular but only insofar as people don’t actually want to hear the truth about themselves. I certainly don't disagree with you. I should make note that while I am a conservationist at heart, this was more a 'devils advocate' position I was bringing up.