3 ms·

The existence of non-complaint countries shouldn't be a reason to give up or stop improving. We need to accept a reality where some parts of the world will nee

by phire 7y ago

The existence of non-complaint countries shouldn't be a reason to give up or stop improving. We need to accept a reality where some parts of the world will need to be massively carbon negative to compensate for other parts which are carbon positive. We need to be investing in technology, polices and structures which can achieve this. Once we reach the technology/policy level where a country can choose to be massively carbon negative, we can implement the international policies to create an international carbon trading scheme. The countries that don't want to become carbon neutral can choose to financially compensate the countries who become carbon negative. And then once we have this international carbon trading scheme, countries that refuse to take part can have penalties equal to their estimated carbon emissions leaved against their imports/exports. Though this mechanism, the world can become carbon neutral (or perhaps even carbon negative) without every country having to be carbon neutral itself.

pnako 7y ago
If we think it's an existential crisis, there are things that we could that would cost almost nothing: * abandon any claim on patents related to nuclear power * open source all software related to civilian nuclear power * offer to train nuclear engineers and build, on a pure cost basis, nuclear reactors in every stable country that asks France could do that because its nuclear technology is entirely government-owned or controlled, the President has a lot of discretionary power, and he's been bombastic and defiant about global warming. Just do it. Just transfer all the nuclear technology to countries like India, Brazil, etc. They already have a nuclear industry, but through this technology transfer they'd be able to boost it, and build more efficient and safer reactors. Yet he's not doing that. And he's probably going to buy a house 50 meters from sea shore once he retires. So pardon me for thinking that this entire thing is just "foutage de gueule". edit: actually you can generalize my argument for technology transfer to renewable technology too.

by phire 7y ago

pnako 7y ago

If we think it's an existential crisis, there are things that we could that would cost almost nothing: * abandon any claim on patents related to nuclear power * open source all software related to civilian nuclear power * offer to train nuclear engineers and build, on a pure cost basis, nuclear reactors in every stable country that asks France could do that because its nuclear technology is entirely government-owned or controlled, the President has a lot of discretionary power, and he's been bombastic and defiant about global warming. Just do it. Just transfer all the nuclear technology to countries like India, Brazil, etc. They already have a nuclear industry, but through this technology transfer they'd be able to boost it, and build more efficient and safer reactors. Yet he's not doing that. And he's probably going to buy a house 50 meters from sea shore once he retires. So pardon me for thinking that this entire thing is just "foutage de gueule". edit: actually you can generalize my argument for technology transfer to renewable technology too.