3 ms·

Meanwhile in the UK, nearly half of Conservative voters and a majority of the country think we should be aiming to decarbonise far faster[1]. Namely by 2030 and

Meanwhile in the UK, nearly half of Conservative voters and a majority of the country think we should be aiming to decarbonise far faster[1]. Namely by 2030 and not kicked off into the long grass of 2050 as the government committed to. Committed to purely because they don't have to _do_ anything. Apparently even their voters aren't properly signed up to the denial hymn sheet. Yellow vest protests were far more about inequality than a modest increase in fuel taxes. If government makes an equitable policy that spares the poorest in society the disproportionate impact that would naturally fall on them, there need be no riots - especially if they had a warm, well insulated house for the first time. The middle classes don't, generally speaking, riot. So what luxuries are you expecting to be taken? Decarbonising doesn't mean deindustrialising. It means winding back some of the excesses of capitalism and consumerism. Done properly we should expect better made, longer lasting but sustainable products. Which I suppose should have the multinationals rioting if we take away planned obsolescence... :) [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/07/majority-of-uk-public-back-2030-zero-carbon-target-poll https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/07/majority...

javagram 7y ago
In terms of luxuries being taken away, I’d point to electricity and transportation as the #1. For those calling for immediate decarbonization, that would mean shutting down all our coal, gas, and oil burning power plants and scrapping our gas burning cars. Electric heating costs more than gas heating, electric cars cost more than gas cars, and so on. All of these costs hit ordinary people directly in the pocketbook. Economists estimate a carbon tax high enough to force fossil fuel plants offline in a couple decades would need to be quite high. Meanwhile, in democratic societies like the USA it’s very difficult to even raise the gas tax a few cents to fund needed repairs to bridges and other infrastructure. To get people out of their SUV’s and into Teslas, for instance, you’d need to put multi-dollar taxes on gas to make it make sense (e.g. Norway where Tesla is doing well because they put a 100% tax on normal gas cars). Democratic elections often result in the rejection of such taxes because voters value their immediate standard of living over that of future decades (e.g. WA state initiatives for carbon taxes, which were soundly rejected at the ballot box in 2016 and 2018). And to do all this without affecting the standard of living of the poor and middle classes, and without slowing down the growth of developing countries and China - I think it’s a bit of a dream. There’s a reason market-based societies selected to use fossil fuel technology and it’s because it’s cheaper than other energy generation tech. Transitioning off of it is now a massive capital investment and will hurt. You say the yellow vest protest were about inequality - but the result of them was that the fuel tax was put on hold and the speed limit was kept high.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  That doesn't make sense though. If you're outside the USA, ending coal is coming. It might just take a little longer in the US and Poland. The UK has, I think, five remaining coal plants - all spending 90% of their time idling as source of last resort. They'll all be gone before 2025. Offshore wind is already competitive with gas, and the expectation is it will be cheaper than existing gas in the next round of auctions, i.e. electricity will cost less from closing and demolishing gas plants and building new offshore wind. There we do get to a slight issue - UK doesn't currently have enough pumped hydro or other storage to underpin 100% renewables, so gas will probably survive a while as the fill in source, in lieu of batteries and pumped storage. That has been done with a low carbon tax - $25 per ton[1][2]. Brought in under the Conservative coalition government - not one you'd expect to tax excessively. Democratic societies in Europe manage to tax petrol and diesel enough to bring it to double or more the US price. You're conflating far too much though. Elections come with hundreds of promises and policies - there are multiple issues, and multiple often conflicting policies that get or lose a vote. It is exceptionally rare for a single point to swing a vote one way or another. Thus despite winning politicians of every nation trying to claim 100% support of every controversial policy, nothing could be further from the truth. As far as being equitable is concerned, it's perfectly feasible to bring a carbon tax that spends the take subsidising the poorest to enable them to insulate their home, get solar panels, or replace their car with an EV. Maybe with a policy to build out or subsidise more public transport. Car taxes based on a combination of weight and emissions should help push the rest toward EVs. If voters consistently claim they want more action, and far faster, then it's reasonable to suppose that at least most realise that will come with a cost, whether in increased state borrowing or adjusted taxes. The magic money tree only gets brought out for illegal military adventures in Iraq. Without going into growth as an unwise Ponzi scheme, there's no reason to suppose huge spending on modern sustainable infrastructure would hurt economies - it would boost a new and growing sector in place of an incumbent. Growth would probably surge due to the additional government funded activity. The New Deal was an attempt to boost the economy though didn't spend enough - ultimately it was spending on WW2 rearming that brought the necessary effect. Little wonder some transition policies have been labelled Green New Deal - attempting to achieve similar during a transition to sustainability. The logic is sound, though I don't know enough detail to know if the numbers add up. Fossil simply isn't the cheapest fuel any more, far from it. Which is why the transition is happening anyway, even without policies to encourage or require it. [1] https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/10/uk-renewables-out-generate-fossil-fuels-for-an-entire-quarter/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/10/uk-renewables-out-ge... [2] https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uk-renewables-generate-more-electricity-than-fossil-fuels-for-first-time https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uk-renewables-generate-...

javagram 7y ago

In terms of luxuries being taken away, I’d point to electricity and transportation as the #1. For those calling for immediate decarbonization, that would mean shutting down all our coal, gas, and oil burning power plants and scrapping our gas burning cars. Electric heating costs more than gas heating, electric cars cost more than gas cars, and so on. All of these costs hit ordinary people directly in the pocketbook. Economists estimate a carbon tax high enough to force fossil fuel plants offline in a couple decades would need to be quite high. Meanwhile, in democratic societies like the USA it’s very difficult to even raise the gas tax a few cents to fund needed repairs to bridges and other infrastructure. To get people out of their SUV’s and into Teslas, for instance, you’d need to put multi-dollar taxes on gas to make it make sense (e.g. Norway where Tesla is doing well because they put a 100% tax on normal gas cars). Democratic elections often result in the rejection of such taxes because voters value their immediate standard of living over that of future decades (e.g. WA state initiatives for carbon taxes, which were soundly rejected at the ballot box in 2016 and 2018). And to do all this without affecting the standard of living of the poor and middle classes, and without slowing down the growth of developing countries and China - I think it’s a bit of a dream. There’s a reason market-based societies selected to use fossil fuel technology and it’s because it’s cheaper than other energy generation tech. Transitioning off of it is now a massive capital investment and will hurt. You say the yellow vest protest were about inequality - but the result of them was that the fuel tax was put on hold and the speed limit was kept high.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago
That doesn't make sense though. If you're outside the USA, ending coal is coming. It might just take a little longer in the US and Poland. The UK has, I think, five remaining coal plants - all spending 90% of their time idling as source of last resort. They'll all be gone before 2025. Offshore wind is already competitive with gas, and the expectation is it will be cheaper than existing gas in the next round of auctions, i.e. electricity will cost less from closing and demolishing gas plants and building new offshore wind. There we do get to a slight issue - UK doesn't currently have enough pumped hydro or other storage to underpin 100% renewables, so gas will probably survive a while as the fill in source, in lieu of batteries and pumped storage. That has been done with a low carbon tax - $25 per ton[1][2]. Brought in under the Conservative coalition government - not one you'd expect to tax excessively. Democratic societies in Europe manage to tax petrol and diesel enough to bring it to double or more the US price. You're conflating far too much though. Elections come with hundreds of promises and policies - there are multiple issues, and multiple often conflicting policies that get or lose a vote. It is exceptionally rare for a single point to swing a vote one way or another. Thus despite winning politicians of every nation trying to claim 100% support of every controversial policy, nothing could be further from the truth. As far as being equitable is concerned, it's perfectly feasible to bring a carbon tax that spends the take subsidising the poorest to enable them to insulate their home, get solar panels, or replace their car with an EV. Maybe with a policy to build out or subsidise more public transport. Car taxes based on a combination of weight and emissions should help push the rest toward EVs. If voters consistently claim they want more action, and far faster, then it's reasonable to suppose that at least most realise that will come with a cost, whether in increased state borrowing or adjusted taxes. The magic money tree only gets brought out for illegal military adventures in Iraq. Without going into growth as an unwise Ponzi scheme, there's no reason to suppose huge spending on modern sustainable infrastructure would hurt economies - it would boost a new and growing sector in place of an incumbent. Growth would probably surge due to the additional government funded activity. The New Deal was an attempt to boost the economy though didn't spend enough - ultimately it was spending on WW2 rearming that brought the necessary effect. Little wonder some transition policies have been labelled Green New Deal - attempting to achieve similar during a transition to sustainability. The logic is sound, though I don't know enough detail to know if the numbers add up. Fossil simply isn't the cheapest fuel any more, far from it. Which is why the transition is happening anyway, even without policies to encourage or require it. [1] https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/10/uk-renewables-out-generate-fossil-fuels-for-an-entire-quarter/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/10/uk-renewables-out-ge... [2] https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uk-renewables-generate-more-electricity-than-fossil-fuels-for-first-time https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uk-renewables-generate-...