4 ms·

Very clear explanation, love the diagrams. To me this is a more sensible way than carbon tax, or even better use carbon tax to fund research like this. I don'

Very clear explanation, love the diagrams. To me this is a more sensible way than carbon tax, or even better use carbon tax to fund research like this. I don't think that economic incentives alone might fix the situation, and maybe not even slow it down sufficiently. We need political focus, and high investment in research.

akie 7y ago
The benefit of a carbon tax is that you can introduce it immediately, provided that there's enough political will. If the carbon tax is sufficiently high I'm convinced there can be a very big net benefit. The approach from the article will take many years to provide any benefits, assuming 1) they get the efficiency increase they're aiming for 2) they can roll out these new & better plants on a large enough scale to make a difference 3) that the mass-introduction of these new plants doesn't have any unforeseen side-effects
- GordonS 7y ago
  I wonder if carbon tax revenues should be ring-fenced, and spent solely on endeavours just like the onein the article?
  - adrianN 7y ago
    A large part of the carbon tax should be paid out as a dividend. Otherwise poor people can't afford to live anymore. Political acceptance is important for any climate policies.
    - barry-cotter 7y ago
      This is why I have no hope for anything other than a technological solution to climate change. Anything else would require either a very large decrease in the standard of living in the developed world, contributed poverty in the developing world or both.
      - adrianN 7y ago
        Replacing fossil fuels with renewables doesn't require a very large decrease in the standard of living. So we already have a technological solution for 80% or so of the problem. Steel, cement, and long distance flying seem to be tricky without releasing CO2, but we should probably only seriously worry about those once we're well on our way with the things that can be replaced without changing quality of life at all.
        TeMPOraL 7y ago
        But that a) is only happening because technology lowers costs, changing the economics of renewables so that it makes short-term, self-interest sense to install them, and b) alone it still doesn't solve the problem.
  - barry-cotter 7y ago
    Ring fencing is always pointless in the long run because the government isn’t stupid. For things they actually want to spend money on they’ll find a way. If there’s political will to spend money on something it’ll be funded, ring fencing or no. In the short run ring fencing can provide a temporary boost in spending but in the long run all sources of funding are fungible.
    - gitanovic 7y ago
      Very true. But still, in the current situation fencing might actually be a good thing: a boost in research in the right direction. Also if temporary, it might be just enough to make the step needed, and it is anyhow better than nothing.
- gitanovic 7y ago
  Yes carbon tax would be a good thing, but it has to be part of a balanced tax-intervention, and the benefit is a slow down on the collision path, but we need something to reverse the direction, and carbon tax is not it, is just buying additional time to figure out a real solution. (I also wrote down a more articulated answer to what I thing about carbon-tax)
- bluGill 7y ago
  If the carbon tax is sufficiently high many things happen: Production of high carbon goods will move elsewhere (read people will lose their jobs). Prices of common goods (like food!) will go up ensuring that the common people have less cash to buy "things", resulting in a recession. All this adds up to a successful campaign by those who pay it the most to ensure that you are voted out next election. You can play with the edges, but attempts to go to far with tax policy work against you.
  - gitanovic 7y ago
    This analysis has quite a few assumptions in it, for example the carbon-tax might (and should) not come "alone" and many of the things stated can be tamed increasing social spending, subsidizing basic needs etc. With the net effect that something like flight travel and secondary needs are going to be more expensive, while keeping the primary one at current cost-levels. Politics should (and often does) play a game of weights and counter-weights in economical terms to steer the society. So yes just introducing a heavy carbon-tax is not the right solution, and I also think that long term is useless: as an example, I live in Europe where the cost of fuel is significantly higher than in the US, but traffic and fuel usage is comparable. Most likely it was lower than US in the past, but society tend to catch up anyway. I think that something like the idea in the article is a good solution because it is not just a mere reduction, but could make carbon sequestration (via plants) useful to produce food, therefore fixing a present problem and as a byproduct also reducing a future problem. I still think that Carbon tax is needed, but it should come in a very well thought-out packet of reforms.
GordonS 7y ago
I was also impressed by the clarity of the article - I know next to nothing about photosynthesis and phenotyping, yet I found the article easy to understand and very imformative. The use of diagrams and tables also worked really well. Great job!

akie 7y ago

The benefit of a carbon tax is that you can introduce it immediately, provided that there's enough political will. If the carbon tax is sufficiently high I'm convinced there can be a very big net benefit. The approach from the article will take many years to provide any benefits, assuming 1) they get the efficiency increase they're aiming for 2) they can roll out these new & better plants on a large enough scale to make a difference 3) that the mass-introduction of these new plants doesn't have any unforeseen side-effects

GordonS 7y ago
I wonder if carbon tax revenues should be ring-fenced, and spent solely on endeavours just like the onein the article?
- adrianN 7y ago
  A large part of the carbon tax should be paid out as a dividend. Otherwise poor people can't afford to live anymore. Political acceptance is important for any climate policies.
  - barry-cotter 7y ago
    This is why I have no hope for anything other than a technological solution to climate change. Anything else would require either a very large decrease in the standard of living in the developed world, contributed poverty in the developing world or both.
    - adrianN 7y ago
      Replacing fossil fuels with renewables doesn't require a very large decrease in the standard of living. So we already have a technological solution for 80% or so of the problem. Steel, cement, and long distance flying seem to be tricky without releasing CO2, but we should probably only seriously worry about those once we're well on our way with the things that can be replaced without changing quality of life at all.
      - TeMPOraL 7y ago
        But that a) is only happening because technology lowers costs, changing the economics of renewables so that it makes short-term, self-interest sense to install them, and b) alone it still doesn't solve the problem.
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  Ring fencing is always pointless in the long run because the government isn’t stupid. For things they actually want to spend money on they’ll find a way. If there’s political will to spend money on something it’ll be funded, ring fencing or no. In the short run ring fencing can provide a temporary boost in spending but in the long run all sources of funding are fungible.
  - gitanovic 7y ago
    Very true. But still, in the current situation fencing might actually be a good thing: a boost in research in the right direction. Also if temporary, it might be just enough to make the step needed, and it is anyhow better than nothing.
gitanovic 7y ago
Yes carbon tax would be a good thing, but it has to be part of a balanced tax-intervention, and the benefit is a slow down on the collision path, but we need something to reverse the direction, and carbon tax is not it, is just buying additional time to figure out a real solution. (I also wrote down a more articulated answer to what I thing about carbon-tax)
bluGill 7y ago
If the carbon tax is sufficiently high many things happen: Production of high carbon goods will move elsewhere (read people will lose their jobs). Prices of common goods (like food!) will go up ensuring that the common people have less cash to buy "things", resulting in a recession. All this adds up to a successful campaign by those who pay it the most to ensure that you are voted out next election. You can play with the edges, but attempts to go to far with tax policy work against you.
- gitanovic 7y ago
  This analysis has quite a few assumptions in it, for example the carbon-tax might (and should) not come "alone" and many of the things stated can be tamed increasing social spending, subsidizing basic needs etc. With the net effect that something like flight travel and secondary needs are going to be more expensive, while keeping the primary one at current cost-levels. Politics should (and often does) play a game of weights and counter-weights in economical terms to steer the society. So yes just introducing a heavy carbon-tax is not the right solution, and I also think that long term is useless: as an example, I live in Europe where the cost of fuel is significantly higher than in the US, but traffic and fuel usage is comparable. Most likely it was lower than US in the past, but society tend to catch up anyway. I think that something like the idea in the article is a good solution because it is not just a mere reduction, but could make carbon sequestration (via plants) useful to produce food, therefore fixing a present problem and as a byproduct also reducing a future problem. I still think that Carbon tax is needed, but it should come in a very well thought-out packet of reforms.

GordonS 7y ago

I was also impressed by the clarity of the article - I know next to nothing about photosynthesis and phenotyping, yet I found the article easy to understand and very imformative. The use of diagrams and tables also worked really well. Great job!