4 ms·

Action on climate change is not about a reasonable discuss. I mean we can save the future of the earth for lets say worst case 20% of our productivity and it is

Action on climate change is not about a reasonable discuss. I mean we can save the future of the earth for lets say worst case 20% of our productivity and it is not like the money will be just gone, it will just go to other people. And that is the point, the people that are benefitting from the current system wants to do so as long as possible and are powerful enough that governments listens mostly to them. Also it is a coordination problem Moloch style: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

bryanlarsen 7y ago
Nordhaus's climate club plan solves the global coordination problem.
dashundchen 7y ago
When people fret about the economic cost of transitioning to a low-carbon economy in the US, I think of two things: 1. The enormous amount of low-hanging fruit for energy savings in the US - huge poorly insulated houses, fuel guzzling cars and development patterns, ancient fossil fuel plants subsidized past their useful lives 2. Tens of trillions spent on Iraq and Afghanistan. If we were somehow ok with that money going up into smoke (or the pockets of the defense industry), then surely we should be able to spend the same amount transforming the economy into a sustainable one and rebuilding our infrastructure, with the bonus of a huge domestic stimulus and job creation and technology program. We have the technology today, we know the solutions, the problem is political.
- kmonsen 7y ago
  Yeah, that is what I was trying say. The money is available but we choose to spend it on other things that seem less important but have powerful vested interests behind it. If we spend it on fighting climate change instead someone else will get that money, and the people currently getting it is not going to let them happen without a fight.
ThaJay 7y ago
nice article
hackeraccount 7y ago
"it is not like the money will be just gone, it will just go to other people." I don't think that's true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window There's an opportunity cost being paid and it's going to no one.

bryanlarsen 7y ago

Nordhaus's climate club plan solves the global coordination problem.

dashundchen 7y ago

When people fret about the economic cost of transitioning to a low-carbon economy in the US, I think of two things: 1. The enormous amount of low-hanging fruit for energy savings in the US - huge poorly insulated houses, fuel guzzling cars and development patterns, ancient fossil fuel plants subsidized past their useful lives 2. Tens of trillions spent on Iraq and Afghanistan. If we were somehow ok with that money going up into smoke (or the pockets of the defense industry), then surely we should be able to spend the same amount transforming the economy into a sustainable one and rebuilding our infrastructure, with the bonus of a huge domestic stimulus and job creation and technology program. We have the technology today, we know the solutions, the problem is political.

kmonsen 7y ago
Yeah, that is what I was trying say. The money is available but we choose to spend it on other things that seem less important but have powerful vested interests behind it. If we spend it on fighting climate change instead someone else will get that money, and the people currently getting it is not going to let them happen without a fight.

ThaJay 7y ago

nice article

hackeraccount 7y ago

"it is not like the money will be just gone, it will just go to other people." I don't think that's true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window There's an opportunity cost being paid and it's going to no one.