5 ms·

i dont understand. you completely omit laws in your suggested solution. we need to pass laws that prevent businesses from fucking everything up worse than they

i dont understand. you completely omit laws in your suggested solution. we need to pass laws that prevent businesses from fucking everything up worse than they already have. you can innovate all you want, but i think you should also not elect people who are fucking STUPID about climate change.

chosenbreed 8y ago
> but i think you should also not elect people who are fucking STUPID about climate change. Sure...but that would require getting enough people who are not "fucking STUPID about climate" to vote appropriately :-)
toomuchtodo 8y ago
This is hard. Like, really hard. It definitely needs to be done, but it takes tens, hundreds really, of millions of dollars and a vast network of candidates who can run for office and win (US-specific outlook). Whereas driving coal and natural gas out of the generation mix is "as easy" as getting PPAs signed with electrical consumers and getting solar and wind installed as fast as possible. You don't need to convince people in this case, as the actors (large corporations and utilities) are economically rational (cheap renewables->huge cost savings->yes please kthx). More of this is needed, for example: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-06/negative-prices-in-power-market-as-wind-solar-cut-electricity https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-06/negative-... > Power Worth Less Than Zero Spreads as Green Energy Floods the Grid > Wind and solar farms are glutting networks more frequently, prompting a market signal for coal plants to shut off
- picsao 8y ago
  You could euthanize large parts of the physical goods economy with a really good AR Google set. Kind of like the cellphone already made a dent into every carryable daily good supplying information. You wristwatch and paper notebook where are they?
nutjob2 8y ago
Great theory, but have you tried to get a climate change law through Congress lately? People vote for people who reflect their views, or at least freely, for whoever they want, so ultimately responsibility rests with the voters for the quality of government.
CamTin 8y ago
Laws are a reasonable (thought still incredibly difficult) solution in the parts of the planet that have the rule of law. Large parts don't, and we need different solutions in those places because this is a global problem. As an example, see this report about cheating on an international agreement about CFCs (https://www.nrdc.org/experts/david-doniger/chilling-news-spotlight-illegal-cfc-production-and-use https://www.nrdc.org/experts/david-doniger/chilling-news-spo... which) were supposed to have been phased out worldwide by 2007. Unfortunately, we don't have the international governance in place to attack this problem, and we might not until its too late. Still, you go to war with the army you have, and this is the one we've got.
- tomp 8y ago
  If Trump was waging a smarter trade war, and EU helped, we could be taxing China and the rest of the "lawless" countries more effectively - e.g. tax all goods (local and imported) based on their carbon footprint - and thus effect global change.
  - tyleraldrich 8y ago
    Unfortunately for us, Trump doesn't think climate change exists, so he would never do this.
- hodgesrm 8y ago
  The best laws will help guide the economy to find solutions so we get everyone rowing in the same direction. Carbon taxes are an obvious solution though currently hard to pass in many places. BTW I would not assume that just because such laws are hard to pass now that they will be in a few years. Climate changes are reaching a point where an increasing number of people are experiencing the costs directly.
Woberto 8y ago
Based on the current political climate, this kind of action also seems to be a ways off. While a clean revolution in laws like that of the 1970s would do much to bring about change, it will be a while before things are bad enough for enough people to care and push for these laws. In a capitalist society, I think money talks more and it talks faster. I think op is right that innovative solutions that are cheap will do more to bring about change.
steego 8y ago
I don't understand. You completely omit laws and specific policy suggestions in your criticism. I'd love to see you advance this discussion by adding something to it. What laws and policies would you suggest? If you don't feel like you can articulate your position well, do you have any books/articles you recommend we read?

chosenbreed 8y ago

> but i think you should also not elect people who are fucking STUPID about climate change. Sure...but that would require getting enough people who are not "fucking STUPID about climate" to vote appropriately :-)

toomuchtodo 8y ago

This is hard. Like, really hard. It definitely needs to be done, but it takes tens, hundreds really, of millions of dollars and a vast network of candidates who can run for office and win (US-specific outlook). Whereas driving coal and natural gas out of the generation mix is "as easy" as getting PPAs signed with electrical consumers and getting solar and wind installed as fast as possible. You don't need to convince people in this case, as the actors (large corporations and utilities) are economically rational (cheap renewables->huge cost savings->yes please kthx). More of this is needed, for example: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-06/negative-prices-in-power-market-as-wind-solar-cut-electricity https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-06/negative-... > Power Worth Less Than Zero Spreads as Green Energy Floods the Grid > Wind and solar farms are glutting networks more frequently, prompting a market signal for coal plants to shut off

picsao 8y ago
You could euthanize large parts of the physical goods economy with a really good AR Google set. Kind of like the cellphone already made a dent into every carryable daily good supplying information. You wristwatch and paper notebook where are they?

nutjob2 8y ago

Great theory, but have you tried to get a climate change law through Congress lately? People vote for people who reflect their views, or at least freely, for whoever they want, so ultimately responsibility rests with the voters for the quality of government.

CamTin 8y ago

Laws are a reasonable (thought still incredibly difficult) solution in the parts of the planet that have the rule of law. Large parts don't, and we need different solutions in those places because this is a global problem. As an example, see this report about cheating on an international agreement about CFCs (https://www.nrdc.org/experts/david-doniger/chilling-news-spotlight-illegal-cfc-production-and-use https://www.nrdc.org/experts/david-doniger/chilling-news-spo... which) were supposed to have been phased out worldwide by 2007. Unfortunately, we don't have the international governance in place to attack this problem, and we might not until its too late. Still, you go to war with the army you have, and this is the one we've got.

tomp 8y ago
If Trump was waging a smarter trade war, and EU helped, we could be taxing China and the rest of the "lawless" countries more effectively - e.g. tax all goods (local and imported) based on their carbon footprint - and thus effect global change.
- tyleraldrich 8y ago
  Unfortunately for us, Trump doesn't think climate change exists, so he would never do this.
hodgesrm 8y ago
The best laws will help guide the economy to find solutions so we get everyone rowing in the same direction. Carbon taxes are an obvious solution though currently hard to pass in many places. BTW I would not assume that just because such laws are hard to pass now that they will be in a few years. Climate changes are reaching a point where an increasing number of people are experiencing the costs directly.

Woberto 8y ago

Based on the current political climate, this kind of action also seems to be a ways off. While a clean revolution in laws like that of the 1970s would do much to bring about change, it will be a while before things are bad enough for enough people to care and push for these laws. In a capitalist society, I think money talks more and it talks faster. I think op is right that innovative solutions that are cheap will do more to bring about change.

steego 8y ago

I don't understand. You completely omit laws and specific policy suggestions in your criticism. I'd love to see you advance this discussion by adding something to it. What laws and policies would you suggest? If you don't feel like you can articulate your position well, do you have any books/articles you recommend we read?