5 ms·

Or laws/taxes are passed, which incorporate the externalities, and subventions for detrimental efforts are cut. That is "just" a matter of political will.

by yokaze 7y ago

Consultant32452 7y ago
How much war are you willing to wage to force other countries to do the same? I think that's really the only question that matters when it comes to the "everybody pass laws" plan.
- blackflame 7y ago
  You can never know when the tipping point is because either you haven't yet hit it, or you already have but don't know at which point in the past the death spiral could have been prevented, if at all.
- windexh8er 7y ago
  This is an ineffective approach. No country can assume any other will fall in line to "do the same". This creates a do nothing approach because it turns doing the right thing, by taking the first steps, into a game of finger pointing. War is definitely not the answer and is 100% counterproductive to the end goal. If all countries, that are supposedly interested in being the best climate change affectors, all competed to truly be the best - we'd be in a far better spot. The war you allude to is not international in nature. It's national. If the US, for example, actually removed campaign contributions and lobbying allowances from organizations responsible for a majority of annual pollution we'd already be down the road. But instead it is national politics, and those legislators, that are the real roadblock to starting the snowball move towards clean technology.
  - Consultant32452 7y ago
    The problem with this approach, which I was trying to highlight, is that as long as "doing better by climate change" implies "economic disadvantage" there will be major polluters who do not get on board. What will you do with them? If you really believe this is an existential crisis for humanity, you must be willing to destroy these countries. Choose your poison: bomb them to oblivion or sanction/starve them to death. That is why this is a failed approach.
    - windexh8er 7y ago
      Your logic assumes everything in the world to be equal. The world is messy. If we don't start we all lose. The Internet wasn't bootstrapped because the world's countries all agreed on exactly the right way to implement networks and protocols and there are countries that have both contributed very little opposed to those that have contributed a lot. Moving to clean energy has huge economic advantage. So, again, your get on board or be destroyed is counterproductive and irrational. Heavy, one off, polluters can be dealt with after the fact.
      - Consultant32452 7y ago
        >If we don't start we all lose. I didn't suggest we don't start. I suggested the "everyone pass laws" plan has a fatal flaw the size of China and India. >your get on board or be destroyed is counterproductive and irrational. That's not my plan, it's yours. "Laws" are the get on board or be destroyed approach. You can do it domestically pretty easy, but it's much harder across national boundaries. >Heavy, one off, polluters can be dealt with after the fact. China already emits more than twice the US CO2. China is on track to double its emissions by 2030. How far are you willing to go to stop them? It's a very simple question.
        imtringued 7y ago
        Why would you need to stop China? They have invested more into renewable energy and electric transportation than any other country.
        Consultant32452 7y ago
        If we accept the axiom that CO2 emissions are an eminent threat to the existence of humanity, then I think the answer is obvious. This isn't a friendly competition for who can invest the most in green tech. This is a life or death race to rid the world of carbon emissions. The world's largest polluter doubling its emissions over the next decade cannot be accepted under those conditions.
        7y ago
- everybodyknows 7y ago
  More generally, enforcement of the agreed mandates, whether laws within countries, or treaties without. Here in the US, the selection of laws receiving effective enforcement seems a rather small sample of the vast pile typed out in dusty books.
- X0Refraction 7y ago
  With just a few big markets making the changes the rest of the world could be steered in the correct direction surely? If the US/EU etc. required that products coming in from China (or other countries where we offload our carbon use to) were created with less than X carbon released (differing per product) and with independent verification then they'd make the changes I'd imagine. Prices would go up of course which is likely why the political will isn't there, but I think it's disingenuous to say that the only way is war. You could take that further too, say a 10% tariff on products coming from countries that buy beef from other countries who are cutting down the rainforest. I realise it would quickly become legislatively complicated, but isn't this the kind of hard problem we elect representatives for?
  - Consultant32452 7y ago
    This is a very happy path engineering design. What will you do with countries who refuse to comply? Will you bomb them? Will you sanction/starve them to death? Is this really an existential crisis for our species? I want to know what cards you're willing to put on the table.
    - xoa 7y ago
      >What will you do with countries who refuse to comply? What are you on about? They can't "refuse to comply" in the above scenario, because it's a matter of pricing in carbon on imports. They can either comply with a process to verify that all carbon inputs have already been neutralized, pay the cost to neutralize them, or else America/EU/Japan/whoever else participates will simply slap on a very conservative carbon price themselves. No cooperation is necessary, if they don't want to bother their products will simply be priced somewhat higher than if they had and thus they'll probably sell less. >Is this really an existential crisis for our species? Well, yeah, but at this point a lot could be done just by the first world fixing its markets to properly internalize carbon emissions and make all fossil fuels carbon neutral, which will then also help make a path for ramping up of negative emissions. China is certainly one of the biggest economies, but even they aren't in a position to just give up on all exports to the first world without more expense than just participating in a proper free market. It's in their interest too anyway.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  As the EU has recently hinted, climate may (I'd say pretty much guaranteed, only question is when) become a key point in any trading arrangements. Others will follow. Whether soon enough remains to be seen. Want to sell to us? Prove your climate credentials, carbon accounting etc. No? Ok, your goods get the carbon levy. What's eventually left is only the rogue states that refuse where sanctions, blockade or ultimately war may actually be the answer. Really only comes down to how deep is the abyss we appear to be staring into... Though this can sometimes prompt enough action to get international laws passed.
- bryanlarsen 7y ago
  No war necessary. Make it a condition of trade, a carbon tariff. If a sizable block of countries requires this any country without a carbon tax will be at a significant trade disadvantage.
- mistermann 7y ago
  I'd say another question worth asking is whether waging war, or antagonism of any kind, is the optimal way to approach this problem. This seems to be the overwhelmingly preferred approach, but my intuition tells me that seeking a mutually agreeable path of cooperation would be a wiser approach. Not that this is easy of course - heck, even getting people to realize that we aren't actually doing this seems fairly impossible.

Or laws/taxes are passed, which incorporate the externalities, and subventions for detrimental efforts are cut. That is "just" a matter of political will.

by yokaze 7y ago

Or laws/taxes are passed, which incorporate the externalities, and subventions for detrimental efforts are cut. That is "just" a matter of political will.

Consultant32452 7y ago

How much war are you willing to wage to force other countries to do the same? I think that's really the only question that matters when it comes to the "everybody pass laws" plan.

blackflame 7y ago
You can never know when the tipping point is because either you haven't yet hit it, or you already have but don't know at which point in the past the death spiral could have been prevented, if at all.
windexh8er 7y ago
This is an ineffective approach. No country can assume any other will fall in line to "do the same". This creates a do nothing approach because it turns doing the right thing, by taking the first steps, into a game of finger pointing. War is definitely not the answer and is 100% counterproductive to the end goal. If all countries, that are supposedly interested in being the best climate change affectors, all competed to truly be the best - we'd be in a far better spot. The war you allude to is not international in nature. It's national. If the US, for example, actually removed campaign contributions and lobbying allowances from organizations responsible for a majority of annual pollution we'd already be down the road. But instead it is national politics, and those legislators, that are the real roadblock to starting the snowball move towards clean technology.
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  The problem with this approach, which I was trying to highlight, is that as long as "doing better by climate change" implies "economic disadvantage" there will be major polluters who do not get on board. What will you do with them? If you really believe this is an existential crisis for humanity, you must be willing to destroy these countries. Choose your poison: bomb them to oblivion or sanction/starve them to death. That is why this is a failed approach.
  - windexh8er 7y ago
    Your logic assumes everything in the world to be equal. The world is messy. If we don't start we all lose. The Internet wasn't bootstrapped because the world's countries all agreed on exactly the right way to implement networks and protocols and there are countries that have both contributed very little opposed to those that have contributed a lot. Moving to clean energy has huge economic advantage. So, again, your get on board or be destroyed is counterproductive and irrational. Heavy, one off, polluters can be dealt with after the fact.
    - Consultant32452 7y ago
      >If we don't start we all lose. I didn't suggest we don't start. I suggested the "everyone pass laws" plan has a fatal flaw the size of China and India. >your get on board or be destroyed is counterproductive and irrational. That's not my plan, it's yours. "Laws" are the get on board or be destroyed approach. You can do it domestically pretty easy, but it's much harder across national boundaries. >Heavy, one off, polluters can be dealt with after the fact. China already emits more than twice the US CO2. China is on track to double its emissions by 2030. How far are you willing to go to stop them? It's a very simple question.
      - imtringued 7y ago
        Why would you need to stop China? They have invested more into renewable energy and electric transportation than any other country.
        Consultant32452 7y ago
        If we accept the axiom that CO2 emissions are an eminent threat to the existence of humanity, then I think the answer is obvious. This isn't a friendly competition for who can invest the most in green tech. This is a life or death race to rid the world of carbon emissions. The world's largest polluter doubling its emissions over the next decade cannot be accepted under those conditions.
      - 7y ago
everybodyknows 7y ago
More generally, enforcement of the agreed mandates, whether laws within countries, or treaties without. Here in the US, the selection of laws receiving effective enforcement seems a rather small sample of the vast pile typed out in dusty books.
X0Refraction 7y ago
With just a few big markets making the changes the rest of the world could be steered in the correct direction surely? If the US/EU etc. required that products coming in from China (or other countries where we offload our carbon use to) were created with less than X carbon released (differing per product) and with independent verification then they'd make the changes I'd imagine. Prices would go up of course which is likely why the political will isn't there, but I think it's disingenuous to say that the only way is war. You could take that further too, say a 10% tariff on products coming from countries that buy beef from other countries who are cutting down the rainforest. I realise it would quickly become legislatively complicated, but isn't this the kind of hard problem we elect representatives for?
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  This is a very happy path engineering design. What will you do with countries who refuse to comply? Will you bomb them? Will you sanction/starve them to death? Is this really an existential crisis for our species? I want to know what cards you're willing to put on the table.
  - xoa 7y ago
    >What will you do with countries who refuse to comply? What are you on about? They can't "refuse to comply" in the above scenario, because it's a matter of pricing in carbon on imports. They can either comply with a process to verify that all carbon inputs have already been neutralized, pay the cost to neutralize them, or else America/EU/Japan/whoever else participates will simply slap on a very conservative carbon price themselves. No cooperation is necessary, if they don't want to bother their products will simply be priced somewhat higher than if they had and thus they'll probably sell less. >Is this really an existential crisis for our species? Well, yeah, but at this point a lot could be done just by the first world fixing its markets to properly internalize carbon emissions and make all fossil fuels carbon neutral, which will then also help make a path for ramping up of negative emissions. China is certainly one of the biggest economies, but even they aren't in a position to just give up on all exports to the first world without more expense than just participating in a proper free market. It's in their interest too anyway.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
As the EU has recently hinted, climate may (I'd say pretty much guaranteed, only question is when) become a key point in any trading arrangements. Others will follow. Whether soon enough remains to be seen. Want to sell to us? Prove your climate credentials, carbon accounting etc. No? Ok, your goods get the carbon levy. What's eventually left is only the rogue states that refuse where sanctions, blockade or ultimately war may actually be the answer. Really only comes down to how deep is the abyss we appear to be staring into... Though this can sometimes prompt enough action to get international laws passed.
bryanlarsen 7y ago
No war necessary. Make it a condition of trade, a carbon tariff. If a sizable block of countries requires this any country without a carbon tax will be at a significant trade disadvantage.
mistermann 7y ago
I'd say another question worth asking is whether waging war, or antagonism of any kind, is the optimal way to approach this problem. This seems to be the overwhelmingly preferred approach, but my intuition tells me that seeking a mutually agreeable path of cooperation would be a wiser approach. Not that this is easy of course - heck, even getting people to realize that we aren't actually doing this seems fairly impossible.