4 ms·

If you want to better understand the argument take a look at Bjorn Lomborg's talks https://www.lomborg.com https://www.lomborg.com, basically the argument is th

by chr1 7y ago

If you want to better understand the argument take a look at Bjorn Lomborg's talks https://www.lomborg.com https://www.lomborg.com, basically the argument is that even the strictest regulations are going to have a very small effect on the climate in 100 years, and for every dollar spent now we save merely cents in the future. So instead of implementing economically non-profitable measures, it is better to invest much more into research, and into helping poor countries, which will allow us to find better technologies to fight with climate change. I am not sure what i think about this argument yet, but it seems like it may be reasonable.

bryanlarsen 7y ago
Yet Bjorn Lomborg is pro carbon tax.
- Filligree 7y ago
  A carbon tax doesn't imply spending money, only moving it and changing the incentives. Money is only spent once it pays for some limited resource, whether that's human time or a truckload of ore.
- chr1 7y ago
  There are many different ways to implement carbon tax. His proposal to replace other regulations with a small and uniform carbon tax, is bound to make both proponents and opponents of carbon tax unhappy (which may be a sign that it is a reasonable proposal:) https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/how-we-could-get-mired-in-the-political-pitfalls-of-carbon-taxes/article36683771/ https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-comm...
gregknicholson 7y ago
> technologies to fight with climate change Climate change isn't a technical problem; it's a social problem. “Advanced” economies rely on otherwise-unnecessary consumption of resources, irrespective of environmental damage, because there's no effective social penalty for harming the environment. Clean energy won't help: demand always increases at least as fast as supply.
- chr1 7y ago
  There is a social penalty. If you try to burn garbage in your yard your neighbours will not allow it. But the price cannot be larger than life, so when it is freezing outside and there is nothing else to burn, they won't mind the smoke, and will come to the warmth of fire instead. Even if we stopped all unnecessary consumption, and kept only the minimum necessary for life, we would not make significant impact on climate change, because with the current number of people CO2 will still accumulate, and would become problem some time later. If energy is clean, it simply will not cause global warming, independently of demand, but we do not even need to make it clean, we simply need to use the CO2 (e.g. by creating forests in deserts) or to use some other technology to gain fine grained control over the climate.

by chr1 7y ago

bryanlarsen 7y ago

Yet Bjorn Lomborg is pro carbon tax.

Filligree 7y ago
A carbon tax doesn't imply spending money, only moving it and changing the incentives. Money is only spent once it pays for some limited resource, whether that's human time or a truckload of ore.
chr1 7y ago
There are many different ways to implement carbon tax. His proposal to replace other regulations with a small and uniform carbon tax, is bound to make both proponents and opponents of carbon tax unhappy (which may be a sign that it is a reasonable proposal:) https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/how-we-could-get-mired-in-the-political-pitfalls-of-carbon-taxes/article36683771/ https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-comm...

gregknicholson 7y ago

> technologies to fight with climate change Climate change isn't a technical problem; it's a social problem. “Advanced” economies rely on otherwise-unnecessary consumption of resources, irrespective of environmental damage, because there's no effective social penalty for harming the environment. Clean energy won't help: demand always increases at least as fast as supply.

chr1 7y ago
There is a social penalty. If you try to burn garbage in your yard your neighbours will not allow it. But the price cannot be larger than life, so when it is freezing outside and there is nothing else to burn, they won't mind the smoke, and will come to the warmth of fire instead. Even if we stopped all unnecessary consumption, and kept only the minimum necessary for life, we would not make significant impact on climate change, because with the current number of people CO2 will still accumulate, and would become problem some time later. If energy is clean, it simply will not cause global warming, independently of demand, but we do not even need to make it clean, we simply need to use the CO2 (e.g. by creating forests in deserts) or to use some other technology to gain fine grained control over the climate.