4 ms·

The United States is enormously influential throughout the world. We have the highest per capita emissions. If we make changes, it has ripple effects across the

by gdubs 7y ago

The United States is enormously influential throughout the world. We have the highest per capita emissions. If we make changes, it has ripple effects across the globe. We define what it means to live a wealthy, “middle class” lifestyle. Also, Nigeria and just about the rest of the world is part of the Paris accord, the US is not. China is poised to enact carbon taxes on a significant chunk of global emissions... We might be left with no choice but to experiment with a technological “hail mary” — but so far, none are very attractive. Two decades ago we could have solved the problem at a relatively low cost compared to what we’ll pay now, or what we’ll pay if we do nothing. Every year it gets more expensive. It’s like the old adage, fitting to this discussion: the best time to plant a tree is five years ago. The next best time is today.

rayiner 7y ago
> Two decades ago we could have solved the problem at a relatively low cost compared to what we’ll pay now, or what we’ll pay if we do nothing. Every year it gets more expensive. This is utterly false. Two decades ago we could have solved the problem if economic growth in the rest of the world stopped. (And maybe not even then.) It was never a solution.
- gdubs 7y ago
  A carbon tax is a viable solution. Last year’s Nobel winner in economics believes that even today, if a carbon tax were implemented we would be, paraphrasing, “stunned at how quickly the world would change”. Had we implemented a carbon tax two decades ago, enforced through global trade agreements, we could have started slow and ratcheted up over time. We need to move beyond the scare tactic that it’s a choice between the economy and solving climate change. We already solved this on a small scale with the ozone layer.
- wolfgke 7y ago
  > Two decades ago we could have solved the problem if economic growth in the rest of the world stopped. So stop the economic growth in the rest of the world to save the climate.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    This would have to be forced through war, and even if somehow the developing world agreed to it without being held at gunpoint, it would still cause lots of suffering and death in short-term. Economic growth is not just zeroes on executives' bank accounts; it's food on the tables of regular people. Instead, IMO we should double-down on clean tech and then give it away for free, or even with subsidies attached, to the developing world. This way they get to develop even faster, while reducing their contribution to climate issues.

by gdubs 7y ago

rayiner 7y ago

> Two decades ago we could have solved the problem at a relatively low cost compared to what we’ll pay now, or what we’ll pay if we do nothing. Every year it gets more expensive. This is utterly false. Two decades ago we could have solved the problem if economic growth in the rest of the world stopped. (And maybe not even then.) It was never a solution.

gdubs 7y ago
A carbon tax is a viable solution. Last year’s Nobel winner in economics believes that even today, if a carbon tax were implemented we would be, paraphrasing, “stunned at how quickly the world would change”. Had we implemented a carbon tax two decades ago, enforced through global trade agreements, we could have started slow and ratcheted up over time. We need to move beyond the scare tactic that it’s a choice between the economy and solving climate change. We already solved this on a small scale with the ozone layer.
wolfgke 7y ago
> Two decades ago we could have solved the problem if economic growth in the rest of the world stopped. So stop the economic growth in the rest of the world to save the climate.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  This would have to be forced through war, and even if somehow the developing world agreed to it without being held at gunpoint, it would still cause lots of suffering and death in short-term. Economic growth is not just zeroes on executives' bank accounts; it's food on the tables of regular people. Instead, IMO we should double-down on clean tech and then give it away for free, or even with subsidies attached, to the developing world. This way they get to develop even faster, while reducing their contribution to climate issues.