5 ms·

Yet initiatives like Carbon tax have been shot down (Australia) by big money, putting dangerous delays into the schedule.

jlarocco 7y ago
I think carbon taxes are the opposite of what the OP is talking about. Carbon taxes are artificial barriers to using fossil fuels. On the other hand, when technology improves so that electric cars cost less per mile than gasoline cars, people won't necessarily buy them to be green, they'll buy them because they're a cheaper form of transportation that happens to be greener. Same with wind and solar power. When a solar farm on 10 acres of land can produce more energy than a coal plant on the same 10 acres, then power companies will build them instead of coal - not to be "green", but to make more money.
- sundvor 7y ago
  Fair point, and an important one! As we're running out of time we ideally need both to happen, but it's good that green tech is becoming increasingly more financially viable. As a little gem, just about all reports from the SA Tesla battery installation make for simply fantastic reading.
  - kebman 7y ago
    Cars are a red herring. Even gasoline and diesel car aren't really contributing that much to world pollution compared to the real culprits, such as ocean liners and huge cargo ships. These ships alone pollute more than all the cars on Earth. What do you think about going after the things that are actually harmful, instead of following a red herring? I mean, sure, cars should of course be dealt with also, but if you really want to lower carbon emissions fast, then shouldn't we go for the big fish first?
    - johnr2 7y ago
      > These ships alone pollute more than all the cars on Earth. Do you have a link to figures that show this?
      - TranceMan 7y ago
        I was intrigued - seems it could be because ships use heavy oil https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-the-15-biggest-ships-in-the-world-produce-more-pollution-than-all-the-cars https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-the-15-biggest-ships-i...
        johnr2 7y ago
        > https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-the-15-biggest-ships-i.. https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-the-15-biggest-ships-i.... Thanks for the link. So it isn't carbon emissions that exceed those of cars but SOx and NOx (which are still a problem).
- daveFNbuck 7y ago
  Carbon taxes aren't artificial barriers. There are real costs to emitting carbon. Putting a price on negative externalities helps align incentives properly so the people making the coal plant have to consider the full costs of their actions.
  - kebman 7y ago
    Why not talk to the coal plant owner directly? Or how about the other 100(!) private citizens living around the world who control the companies that are responsible 70% of the greenhouse emissions of the entire Earth?
    - pjc50 7y ago
      > Why not talk to the coal plant owner directly? Well, merely talking to them isn't going to achieve any change, so the plan is to tax them?
    - daveFNbuck 7y ago
      Talking to them doesn't change the economic incentives. No matter how stern of a talking to I give them, they'll still be making a large personal profit at the expense of a larger cost spread across everyone else. Do you think no one has tried talking to any of these people about climate change yet?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- pjc50 7y ago
  > When a solar farm on 10 acres of land can produce more energy than a coal plant on the same 10 acres This is energetically impossible, I'm afraid. Even if you count the area of the plant plus the area of its corresponding mine and the transport links between them. Because the energy density of coal is so incredibly high. On the other hand, now that Drax has switched to burning wood, you might get more energy efficiency from the same (huge) area of woodland by direct solar farming instead. Annoyingly I can't find any numbers, other than an estimate that if Drax was limited to domestic wood (rather than importing it from the US, using oil-fired shipping) it would consume every tree in the UK within a year.
- nathan_long 7y ago
  > Carbon taxes are artificial barriers to using fossil fuels. > On the other hand, when technology improves so that electric cars cost less per mile than gasoline cars, people won't necessarily buy them to be green, they'll buy them because they're a cheaper form of transportation that happens to be greener. Carbon taxes are like trash disposal fees. If your business dumps trash into the landfill or carbon into the atmosphere, the public should not have to subsidize your business by paying for that. You should pay to manage your own waste. Gas cars are cheaper than electric at least partly because we're all subsidizing them by allowing them to dump waste for free into the air that we all own, and paying on their behalf for all the damages that causes (asthma, climate change, flooding, etc). A carbon tax would remove that subsidy and make fossil fuels compete on a level playing field. And yes, once the subsidy is removed, the market can sort it out.
kebman 7y ago
Politicians trying to save the environment: Policitian #1: Um, I can't think of anything. Can you? Policitian #2: I got it! Let's make a new tax! It'll annoy these guys, while we'll insure our state jobs, and it'll make state finances look a ton better for all posterity! Policitian #1: Yeah, that sounds really great and all, umm, but will it fix the problem with greenhouse gases? Policitian #2: Don't be silly! This is as good a reason to make the state richer than any.

jlarocco 7y ago

I think carbon taxes are the opposite of what the OP is talking about. Carbon taxes are artificial barriers to using fossil fuels. On the other hand, when technology improves so that electric cars cost less per mile than gasoline cars, people won't necessarily buy them to be green, they'll buy them because they're a cheaper form of transportation that happens to be greener. Same with wind and solar power. When a solar farm on 10 acres of land can produce more energy than a coal plant on the same 10 acres, then power companies will build them instead of coal - not to be "green", but to make more money.

sundvor 7y ago
Fair point, and an important one! As we're running out of time we ideally need both to happen, but it's good that green tech is becoming increasingly more financially viable. As a little gem, just about all reports from the SA Tesla battery installation make for simply fantastic reading.
- kebman 7y ago
  Cars are a red herring. Even gasoline and diesel car aren't really contributing that much to world pollution compared to the real culprits, such as ocean liners and huge cargo ships. These ships alone pollute more than all the cars on Earth. What do you think about going after the things that are actually harmful, instead of following a red herring? I mean, sure, cars should of course be dealt with also, but if you really want to lower carbon emissions fast, then shouldn't we go for the big fish first?
  - johnr2 7y ago
    > These ships alone pollute more than all the cars on Earth. Do you have a link to figures that show this?
    - TranceMan 7y ago
      I was intrigued - seems it could be because ships use heavy oil https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-the-15-biggest-ships-in-the-world-produce-more-pollution-than-all-the-cars https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-the-15-biggest-ships-i...
      - johnr2 7y ago
        > https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-the-15-biggest-ships-i.. https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-the-15-biggest-ships-i.... Thanks for the link. So it isn't carbon emissions that exceed those of cars but SOx and NOx (which are still a problem).
daveFNbuck 7y ago
Carbon taxes aren't artificial barriers. There are real costs to emitting carbon. Putting a price on negative externalities helps align incentives properly so the people making the coal plant have to consider the full costs of their actions.
- kebman 7y ago
  Why not talk to the coal plant owner directly? Or how about the other 100(!) private citizens living around the world who control the companies that are responsible 70% of the greenhouse emissions of the entire Earth?
  - pjc50 7y ago
    > Why not talk to the coal plant owner directly? Well, merely talking to them isn't going to achieve any change, so the plan is to tax them?
  - daveFNbuck 7y ago
    Talking to them doesn't change the economic incentives. No matter how stern of a talking to I give them, they'll still be making a large personal profit at the expense of a larger cost spread across everyone else. Do you think no one has tried talking to any of these people about climate change yet?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
pjc50 7y ago
> When a solar farm on 10 acres of land can produce more energy than a coal plant on the same 10 acres This is energetically impossible, I'm afraid. Even if you count the area of the plant plus the area of its corresponding mine and the transport links between them. Because the energy density of coal is so incredibly high. On the other hand, now that Drax has switched to burning wood, you might get more energy efficiency from the same (huge) area of woodland by direct solar farming instead. Annoyingly I can't find any numbers, other than an estimate that if Drax was limited to domestic wood (rather than importing it from the US, using oil-fired shipping) it would consume every tree in the UK within a year.
nathan_long 7y ago
> Carbon taxes are artificial barriers to using fossil fuels. > On the other hand, when technology improves so that electric cars cost less per mile than gasoline cars, people won't necessarily buy them to be green, they'll buy them because they're a cheaper form of transportation that happens to be greener. Carbon taxes are like trash disposal fees. If your business dumps trash into the landfill or carbon into the atmosphere, the public should not have to subsidize your business by paying for that. You should pay to manage your own waste. Gas cars are cheaper than electric at least partly because we're all subsidizing them by allowing them to dump waste for free into the air that we all own, and paying on their behalf for all the damages that causes (asthma, climate change, flooding, etc). A carbon tax would remove that subsidy and make fossil fuels compete on a level playing field. And yes, once the subsidy is removed, the market can sort it out.

kebman 7y ago

Politicians trying to save the environment: Policitian #1: Um, I can't think of anything. Can you? Policitian #2: I got it! Let's make a new tax! It'll annoy these guys, while we'll insure our state jobs, and it'll make state finances look a ton better for all posterity! Policitian #1: Yeah, that sounds really great and all, umm, but will it fix the problem with greenhouse gases? Policitian #2: Don't be silly! This is as good a reason to make the state richer than any.