4 ms·

> no actionable way worldwide to reduce CO2 production fast enough. People disagree about that one, but OK, your view is certainly one that a fair number of pe

> no actionable way worldwide to reduce CO2 production fast enough. People disagree about that one, but OK, your view is certainly one that a fair number of people agree with.

ekianjo 8y ago
I know that some people claim we could but it is often because they do not look at every angle, especially economics, and scalability. Global scale endeavors tend to be complex and require long timelines.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  There is a known straight-forward way to solve the economic problem. You impose a large carbon tax per ton of CO2 and use 100% of the money to subsidize power generation from non-fossil energy sources per KWh. Schedule regular increases in the rate over time, announced years in advance. There are only two real impediments to this happening. The first is lobbying from oil and coal companies (especially in the United States). The only solution for it is to have the will to tell them off and do it anyway. The second is that nobody wants to do it alone. Having a carbon tax is a relative disadvantage -- if everybody does it then everybody is in the same boat, but if only you do it then everyone else is going to out-compete you, so you need some coordination method. In particular, what keeps happening is that Europe and China are willing to reduce emissions but not if the United States won't and the United States has a large oil industry that it doesn't want to see destroyed even though that's what needs to happen. The answer is for the other countries to be serious about it and not take no for an answer -- literally stop trading with countries that won't do it. Give the US the choice between the oil industry and literally every other industry and the choice is easy. That doesn't work for everyone. It isn't going to get a random African dictatorship to reduce its emissions. But none of the countries it wouldn't work on are major carbon emitters to begin with. The problem is that nobody is willing to put their foot down.
  - listenallyall 8y ago
    > lobbying from oil and coal companies (especially in the United States) Ooooh, blame those evil, all-powerful, unstoppable, puppet-master "lobbyists." How about reality: China uses 4x the coal as the USA. https://www.theatlas.com/charts/Nya6gW4s https://www.theatlas.com/charts/Nya6gW4s
    - wk_end 8y ago
      China’s well more than 4x the population of the US. Those stats, from 2012, are quite outdated, too; while still the largest users of coal (but again, largest country) they’re rapidly and aggressively investing in green energy and cutting back on coal use. The Chinese produce much less carbon per capita than Americans do [1] and recently hit their carbon reduction targets well ahead of schedule [2]. [1] https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/sc... [2] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-climatechange-carbon/china-meets-2020-carbon-target-ahead-of-schedule-xinhua-idUSKBN1H312U https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-climatechange-carbo...
      - listenallyall 8y ago
        Great for China! The point is that the OP used the all-too-common, purposefully-vague "lobbyist" argument into his rant, as if a profession (rather than the oil and gas companies for whom they work) is responsible for all the global warming problems in the world. Further, the OP obscures the simple fact that even with large shifts in power production over the next few decades, China is, and will remain, the largest coal consumer in the world by far. And yet his suggestion is to cut off the USA, not China, from all global trading.
        wk_end 8y ago
        The oil and gas companies employ lobbyists as a means to effect policy changes (or inaction), so...well, despite your snippy attempt to clarify I'm still not sure exactly what your point here is? Yes, the oil and gas companies are the bad guys, I doubt anyone (myself or OP included) would disagree; the problem is that the tens of millions of dollars each year they spend lobbying is apparently a very effective weapon (that they probably shouldn't have) to prevent collective climate action. And yes, the proper global action is to punish climate hogs like the US. And to be clear, once again, relatively speaking China's not a climate hog: it's inane to demand a country of 1.5 billion reduce its total coal usage to less than that of a country less than a quarter of the size before demanding the smaller country to do anything at all, and even more inane to try to punish countries who are aggressively working towards a solution (Europe, China), instead of those actively fighting against one (the US). From some kind of top-down perspective, where you have total control over all aspects of policy in all countries, then yes, I suppose the focus should be on China. But that's not the way the global economy works; it's a game where no one country will be gladly willing to sacrifice its competitive advantage, and that's why per capita figures matter more than raw numbers.
- greglindahl 8y ago
  One thing that I do know is that wind and solar have more installations and lower cost than every projection. So they're projected to not be enough... eh?
  - jabl 8y ago
    Indeed. It's awesome that they are beating projections, but even so, the rate is far below what is needed to decarbonize the energy sector by mid-century which is what we need to keep warming below 2C.
    - greglindahl 8y ago
      It is? That's because we aren't spending very much on wind+solar, because the projections said that the wind+solar industry couldn't grow fast enough. It's all circular reasoning. Me, I'm for spending more on what's working.

> no actionable way worldwide to reduce CO2 production fast enough. People disagree about that one, but OK, your view is certainly one that a fair number of people agree with.

ekianjo 8y ago

I know that some people claim we could but it is often because they do not look at every angle, especially economics, and scalability. Global scale endeavors tend to be complex and require long timelines.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago
There is a known straight-forward way to solve the economic problem. You impose a large carbon tax per ton of CO2 and use 100% of the money to subsidize power generation from non-fossil energy sources per KWh. Schedule regular increases in the rate over time, announced years in advance. There are only two real impediments to this happening. The first is lobbying from oil and coal companies (especially in the United States). The only solution for it is to have the will to tell them off and do it anyway. The second is that nobody wants to do it alone. Having a carbon tax is a relative disadvantage -- if everybody does it then everybody is in the same boat, but if only you do it then everyone else is going to out-compete you, so you need some coordination method. In particular, what keeps happening is that Europe and China are willing to reduce emissions but not if the United States won't and the United States has a large oil industry that it doesn't want to see destroyed even though that's what needs to happen. The answer is for the other countries to be serious about it and not take no for an answer -- literally stop trading with countries that won't do it. Give the US the choice between the oil industry and literally every other industry and the choice is easy. That doesn't work for everyone. It isn't going to get a random African dictatorship to reduce its emissions. But none of the countries it wouldn't work on are major carbon emitters to begin with. The problem is that nobody is willing to put their foot down.
- listenallyall 8y ago
  > lobbying from oil and coal companies (especially in the United States) Ooooh, blame those evil, all-powerful, unstoppable, puppet-master "lobbyists." How about reality: China uses 4x the coal as the USA. https://www.theatlas.com/charts/Nya6gW4s https://www.theatlas.com/charts/Nya6gW4s
  - wk_end 8y ago
    China’s well more than 4x the population of the US. Those stats, from 2012, are quite outdated, too; while still the largest users of coal (but again, largest country) they’re rapidly and aggressively investing in green energy and cutting back on coal use. The Chinese produce much less carbon per capita than Americans do [1] and recently hit their carbon reduction targets well ahead of schedule [2]. [1] https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/sc... [2] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-climatechange-carbon/china-meets-2020-carbon-target-ahead-of-schedule-xinhua-idUSKBN1H312U https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-climatechange-carbo...
    - listenallyall 8y ago
      Great for China! The point is that the OP used the all-too-common, purposefully-vague "lobbyist" argument into his rant, as if a profession (rather than the oil and gas companies for whom they work) is responsible for all the global warming problems in the world. Further, the OP obscures the simple fact that even with large shifts in power production over the next few decades, China is, and will remain, the largest coal consumer in the world by far. And yet his suggestion is to cut off the USA, not China, from all global trading.
      - wk_end 8y ago
        The oil and gas companies employ lobbyists as a means to effect policy changes (or inaction), so...well, despite your snippy attempt to clarify I'm still not sure exactly what your point here is? Yes, the oil and gas companies are the bad guys, I doubt anyone (myself or OP included) would disagree; the problem is that the tens of millions of dollars each year they spend lobbying is apparently a very effective weapon (that they probably shouldn't have) to prevent collective climate action. And yes, the proper global action is to punish climate hogs like the US. And to be clear, once again, relatively speaking China's not a climate hog: it's inane to demand a country of 1.5 billion reduce its total coal usage to less than that of a country less than a quarter of the size before demanding the smaller country to do anything at all, and even more inane to try to punish countries who are aggressively working towards a solution (Europe, China), instead of those actively fighting against one (the US). From some kind of top-down perspective, where you have total control over all aspects of policy in all countries, then yes, I suppose the focus should be on China. But that's not the way the global economy works; it's a game where no one country will be gladly willing to sacrifice its competitive advantage, and that's why per capita figures matter more than raw numbers.
greglindahl 8y ago
One thing that I do know is that wind and solar have more installations and lower cost than every projection. So they're projected to not be enough... eh?
- jabl 8y ago
  Indeed. It's awesome that they are beating projections, but even so, the rate is far below what is needed to decarbonize the energy sector by mid-century which is what we need to keep warming below 2C.
  - greglindahl 8y ago
    It is? That's because we aren't spending very much on wind+solar, because the projections said that the wind+solar industry couldn't grow fast enough. It's all circular reasoning. Me, I'm for spending more on what's working.