7 ms·

...the problem is, I'm not really convinced that we really know of a specific "something" that we can do that wouldn't backfire and make emissions even worse by

by drcode 7y ago

...the problem is, I'm not really convinced that we really know of a specific "something" that we can do that wouldn't backfire and make emissions even worse by creating perverse incentives elsewhere in the economy. The only idea I've heard that would likely help in a meaningful way would be to simply make all domestic oil and natural gas extraction 100% illegal and try to convince some other nations to do the same. That one thing would raise world energy prices enough to curb consumption and would also slow down the economy enough to decrease emissions. (But the economic consequences of doing this would be brutal)

fullshark 7y ago
Technology is the only way. Even slightly curbing economic activity to decrease emissions will not be politically popular enough to be implemented (see: yellow vest protests). Additionally global coordination is required meaning a system where individual countries can cheat to get economic gains will fail.
- drcode 7y ago
  I agree that technological solutions are probably the only thing that is viable. my point is mainly to say that these silly half measures such as carbon taxes are a waste of time and are possibly just making the problem even worse. The only way to make sure that oil doesn't get turned into CO2 is to simply leave the oil in the ground.
toomuchtodo 7y ago
http://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank http://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank
- drcode 7y ago
  So, I know people that create lists like this think they're helping things, but the people that created this site are basically "think tank" people, and I don't really think they have the expertise to make such precise quantitative claims- Almost no one on their staff has strong economics training as far as I can tell. Yes, they have science expertise, but none of the science is really in dispute anymore among reasonable people- The problem is how to turn the science into appropriate policy actions, and I am not very convinced these sort of "policy experts" who spend their time reading and writing white papers really have any greater insight into the problem than the rest of us- Having people with supposed authority make such laughable statements like "Refrigerant management will reduce carbon emissions exactly 89.74 CO2-Eq" is dangerous, in my opinion, because it greatly oversimplifies the problem.
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    Have a better suggestion? You have to start somewhere.
    - drcode 7y ago
      I have outlined my concrete suggestions elsewhere in this comments section (though they don't carry much weight since I am stumped just as much as everyone else) ...but a specific suggestion for these folks would be to simply not publish claims on these sorts of matters with 4 significant digits of precision.
HeWhoLurksLate 7y ago
That doesn't even sound feasible, to be honest- humanity currently needs plastic for a billion medical things, for one- and if you outlaw extraction, then another company will go "gee, thanks!", open the valves, charge more, and make a ton of money. Getting things off of oil is going to take a long time.
- drcode 7y ago
  You would still allow imports of oil from countries that don't participate in the ban, with high tariffs added. This would still make oil available for medical use cases etc. The bottom line is the only way to prevent oil from being turned into CO2 is to simply leave the oil in the ground.
chris_va 7y ago
(disclaimer: I'm part of a climate&energy research group) While climate change seems like a daunting and unsolvable problem at an individual level, to be honest it is fairly easy to solve with political solutions provided you could unblock the political machinery. I used to be fairly pessimistic about this, as a researcher, but now I think it's mostly a matter of getting political interest to align at the same time. In our society, the simplest and most effective way to get something done is to just make it profitable. You can try to do things by fiat, but if you make something profitable it tends to encourage massive innovation and is usually faster. For climate change, the easiest thing would be to just add a carbon tax that ramps up over time (or cap+trade, they have the same economic outcome, though cap+trade is a lot more complex to manage). You can even make it revenue neutral, though you do need tariffs on any goods not meeting the standard (which eventually encourages other countries to follow suit when the tax increases past a certain point). Anyway, this gives you price discovery, as it eventually becomes cheaper to pay someone to take the carbon instead of emitting it. From a climate perspective, I do not really care if natural gas+sequestration wins over PV+batteries, but with a ramping price we can be confident that at least one of those will win over dumping Co2 into the atmosphere. There was actually a bill this year (DOA, presumably due to republican distaste) that would have done exactly this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Innovation_and_Carbon_Dividend_Act_of_2019 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Innovation_and_Carbon_D... ... that basically would have solved the problem.
- selimthegrim 7y ago
  Canada tried that with a rebate to boot at the federal level. Look at what’s happening in Alberta and Ontario.
  - chris_va 7y ago
    That's a great start, but from my understanding that legislation stops at $50/ton, which is a problem. You really need it to keep ramping up to get the price discovery. It's possible that at $51/ton the problem would solve itself (e.g. someone sells a way to pull Co2 out of a flue-gas stack, which then becomes profitable and marches down the learning curve), but wouldn't occur at $50. By itself, $50/ton would make a huge difference in the PV learning curve in the US, but since Canada has such a terrible generation profile it doesn't even help that much. You might get lucky, but most analysis I've seen puts the initial price point optimistically at $70-80/ton (flue-gas), and $130/ton for the walk-away and be happy knowing you saved the earth solution (DAC). Before that point, it mostly just shifts around accounting.

by drcode 7y ago

fullshark 7y ago

Technology is the only way. Even slightly curbing economic activity to decrease emissions will not be politically popular enough to be implemented (see: yellow vest protests). Additionally global coordination is required meaning a system where individual countries can cheat to get economic gains will fail.

drcode 7y ago
I agree that technological solutions are probably the only thing that is viable. my point is mainly to say that these silly half measures such as carbon taxes are a waste of time and are possibly just making the problem even worse. The only way to make sure that oil doesn't get turned into CO2 is to simply leave the oil in the ground.

toomuchtodo 7y ago

http://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank http://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank

drcode 7y ago
So, I know people that create lists like this think they're helping things, but the people that created this site are basically "think tank" people, and I don't really think they have the expertise to make such precise quantitative claims- Almost no one on their staff has strong economics training as far as I can tell. Yes, they have science expertise, but none of the science is really in dispute anymore among reasonable people- The problem is how to turn the science into appropriate policy actions, and I am not very convinced these sort of "policy experts" who spend their time reading and writing white papers really have any greater insight into the problem than the rest of us- Having people with supposed authority make such laughable statements like "Refrigerant management will reduce carbon emissions exactly 89.74 CO2-Eq" is dangerous, in my opinion, because it greatly oversimplifies the problem.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  Have a better suggestion? You have to start somewhere.
  - drcode 7y ago
    I have outlined my concrete suggestions elsewhere in this comments section (though they don't carry much weight since I am stumped just as much as everyone else) ...but a specific suggestion for these folks would be to simply not publish claims on these sorts of matters with 4 significant digits of precision.

HeWhoLurksLate 7y ago

That doesn't even sound feasible, to be honest- humanity currently needs plastic for a billion medical things, for one- and if you outlaw extraction, then another company will go "gee, thanks!", open the valves, charge more, and make a ton of money. Getting things off of oil is going to take a long time.

drcode 7y ago
You would still allow imports of oil from countries that don't participate in the ban, with high tariffs added. This would still make oil available for medical use cases etc. The bottom line is the only way to prevent oil from being turned into CO2 is to simply leave the oil in the ground.

chris_va 7y ago

(disclaimer: I'm part of a climate&energy research group) While climate change seems like a daunting and unsolvable problem at an individual level, to be honest it is fairly easy to solve with political solutions provided you could unblock the political machinery. I used to be fairly pessimistic about this, as a researcher, but now I think it's mostly a matter of getting political interest to align at the same time. In our society, the simplest and most effective way to get something done is to just make it profitable. You can try to do things by fiat, but if you make something profitable it tends to encourage massive innovation and is usually faster. For climate change, the easiest thing would be to just add a carbon tax that ramps up over time (or cap+trade, they have the same economic outcome, though cap+trade is a lot more complex to manage). You can even make it revenue neutral, though you do need tariffs on any goods not meeting the standard (which eventually encourages other countries to follow suit when the tax increases past a certain point). Anyway, this gives you price discovery, as it eventually becomes cheaper to pay someone to take the carbon instead of emitting it. From a climate perspective, I do not really care if natural gas+sequestration wins over PV+batteries, but with a ramping price we can be confident that at least one of those will win over dumping Co2 into the atmosphere. There was actually a bill this year (DOA, presumably due to republican distaste) that would have done exactly this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Innovation_and_Carbon_Dividend_Act_of_2019 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Innovation_and_Carbon_D... ... that basically would have solved the problem.

selimthegrim 7y ago
Canada tried that with a rebate to boot at the federal level. Look at what’s happening in Alberta and Ontario.
- chris_va 7y ago
  That's a great start, but from my understanding that legislation stops at $50/ton, which is a problem. You really need it to keep ramping up to get the price discovery. It's possible that at $51/ton the problem would solve itself (e.g. someone sells a way to pull Co2 out of a flue-gas stack, which then becomes profitable and marches down the learning curve), but wouldn't occur at $50. By itself, $50/ton would make a huge difference in the PV learning curve in the US, but since Canada has such a terrible generation profile it doesn't even help that much. You might get lucky, but most analysis I've seen puts the initial price point optimistically at $70-80/ton (flue-gas), and $130/ton for the walk-away and be happy knowing you saved the earth solution (DAC). Before that point, it mostly just shifts around accounting.