4 ms·

The solution to climate change is not to make energy producers like oil and gas companies go out of business. The way these companies became so successful was b

The solution to climate change is not to make energy producers like oil and gas companies go out of business. The way these companies became so successful was by providing something of value at a low cost. Do you really want to pay substantially more for heating/cool, gas, and almost every good? Instead, the Tesla model is the way to go. Build products that are 10x better than their fossil fuel reliant competitors. This way, consumers benefit as well. The government can impose a cost on carbon somehow, so the market is forced to consider the societal cost of carbon. Also, it can incentivize clean energy by providing loans, lower taxes, etc to companies. It can increase R&D spending on clean energy.

larkeith 7y ago
> Do you really want to pay substantially more for heating/cool, gas, and almost every good? Until carbon taxes become ubiquitous, this seems like the only viable option to combat climate change. The current model is functionally subsidizing goods and energy at the cost of future and current environmental damage. While I certainly agree that government solutions (carbon taxes, subsidies for clean energy) are optimal, they are not currently in place - that they may someday does not excuse inaction (or actively damaging action) in the present day. Improving alternatives and choosing not to support fossil fuel companies are not mutually exclusive.
- veeralpatel979 7y ago
  The solution isn't bankrupting fossil fuel companies. The solution is finding viable replacements for these companies, whether it's solar, wind, nuclear, or something else, and then scaling them so they can serve everyone. Finding viable replacements that people _want_ to use, along with carbon taxes, subsidies, etc should be sufficient to force some oil and gas companies to pivot to clean energy and make the rest die out or become substantially smaller. And, this way, we would avoid a massive decrease in our quality of life, it would actually be practical, and consumers would benefit.
einpoklum 7y ago
> The solution to climate change is not to make energy producers like oil and gas companies go out of business. They're going to go out of business in several decades because there won't be any more oil and gas to extract (or rather, there will be a lot less and it'll be difficult and expensive to extract). > The way these companies became so successful was by providing something of value at a low cost. The cost is not low if you consider the decades of suffering by people in the middle east and other oil-producing countries due to oppressive regimes put in place so that oil and gas could be extracted at "low cost". But even regardless of that - so what? > Do you really want to pay substantially more for heating/cool, gas, and almost every good? 1. If the alternative is even worse climate change, meters of sea level rise, destruction of huge natural habitats etc. then - yes. 2. If you account for the costs of climate change, it's not more expensive to use renewable energy. And there's the cost and detrimental effects of immediate environmental pollution... 3. Renewable energy is no longer that expensive, and it's getting cheaper. In fact, it's become quite competitive: https://cleantechnica.com/2019/11/22/solar-costs-wind-costs-now-so-low-theyre-competitive-with-existing-coal-nuclear-lazard-lcoe-report/ https://cleantechnica.com/2019/11/22/solar-costs-wind-costs-... > The government can impose a cost ... it can incentivize... Yeah, well, maybe those were relevant solutions 40 or 30 years ago. The time is up for that kind of stuff. Far-reaching action is required immediately, since we are on overtime w.r.t. climate effects, and markets be damned.
triceratops 7y ago
> Do you really want to pay substantially more for heating/cool, gas, and almost every good? Yes, if everyone else does too. It seems like the only way to drive greater efficiency in transportation, construction, housing, and manufacturing.
JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
A Tesla doesn't seem 10x better from getting to Point A to B. In fact, my only experience in an electric vehicle (driving along the California coast) was having to stop, get lunch, as vehicle charged for ~30 minutes. I didn't mind the stop, but it certainly isn't 10x better than a combustion engine commuter vehicle.
viklove 7y ago
> The solution to climate change is not to make energy producers like oil and gas companies go out of business. It absolutely is... Or at least make them change into non-oil and non-gas companies.
room271 7y ago
Yes, except: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality.
dangus 7y ago
Can you build a Tesla without fossil fuels? Think of the production chain, top to bottom. Where did the steel come from? It’s hypocritical to quit a company over selling products to oil and gas companies when one is themselves unwilling to completely stop consuming oil and gas. Modern life is essentially made possible by oil, coal, and gas. Nobody, not even the Amish return 100% to the pre-industrial age. There are alternatives but they aren’t complete solutions, not yet. That’s just the reality.

larkeith 7y ago

> Do you really want to pay substantially more for heating/cool, gas, and almost every good? Until carbon taxes become ubiquitous, this seems like the only viable option to combat climate change. The current model is functionally subsidizing goods and energy at the cost of future and current environmental damage. While I certainly agree that government solutions (carbon taxes, subsidies for clean energy) are optimal, they are not currently in place - that they may someday does not excuse inaction (or actively damaging action) in the present day. Improving alternatives and choosing not to support fossil fuel companies are not mutually exclusive.

veeralpatel979 7y ago
The solution isn't bankrupting fossil fuel companies. The solution is finding viable replacements for these companies, whether it's solar, wind, nuclear, or something else, and then scaling them so they can serve everyone. Finding viable replacements that people _want_ to use, along with carbon taxes, subsidies, etc should be sufficient to force some oil and gas companies to pivot to clean energy and make the rest die out or become substantially smaller. And, this way, we would avoid a massive decrease in our quality of life, it would actually be practical, and consumers would benefit.

einpoklum 7y ago

> The solution to climate change is not to make energy producers like oil and gas companies go out of business. They're going to go out of business in several decades because there won't be any more oil and gas to extract (or rather, there will be a lot less and it'll be difficult and expensive to extract). > The way these companies became so successful was by providing something of value at a low cost. The cost is not low if you consider the decades of suffering by people in the middle east and other oil-producing countries due to oppressive regimes put in place so that oil and gas could be extracted at "low cost". But even regardless of that - so what? > Do you really want to pay substantially more for heating/cool, gas, and almost every good? 1. If the alternative is even worse climate change, meters of sea level rise, destruction of huge natural habitats etc. then - yes. 2. If you account for the costs of climate change, it's not more expensive to use renewable energy. And there's the cost and detrimental effects of immediate environmental pollution... 3. Renewable energy is no longer that expensive, and it's getting cheaper. In fact, it's become quite competitive: https://cleantechnica.com/2019/11/22/solar-costs-wind-costs-now-so-low-theyre-competitive-with-existing-coal-nuclear-lazard-lcoe-report/ https://cleantechnica.com/2019/11/22/solar-costs-wind-costs-... > The government can impose a cost ... it can incentivize... Yeah, well, maybe those were relevant solutions 40 or 30 years ago. The time is up for that kind of stuff. Far-reaching action is required immediately, since we are on overtime w.r.t. climate effects, and markets be damned.

triceratops 7y ago

> Do you really want to pay substantially more for heating/cool, gas, and almost every good? Yes, if everyone else does too. It seems like the only way to drive greater efficiency in transportation, construction, housing, and manufacturing.

JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago

A Tesla doesn't seem 10x better from getting to Point A to B. In fact, my only experience in an electric vehicle (driving along the California coast) was having to stop, get lunch, as vehicle charged for ~30 minutes. I didn't mind the stop, but it certainly isn't 10x better than a combustion engine commuter vehicle.

viklove 7y ago

> The solution to climate change is not to make energy producers like oil and gas companies go out of business. It absolutely is... Or at least make them change into non-oil and non-gas companies.

room271 7y ago

Yes, except: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality.

dangus 7y ago

Can you build a Tesla without fossil fuels? Think of the production chain, top to bottom. Where did the steel come from? It’s hypocritical to quit a company over selling products to oil and gas companies when one is themselves unwilling to completely stop consuming oil and gas. Modern life is essentially made possible by oil, coal, and gas. Nobody, not even the Amish return 100% to the pre-industrial age. There are alternatives but they aren’t complete solutions, not yet. That’s just the reality.