4 ms·

This hits well on my biggest problem with a lot of liberal solutions to climate change: not enough systems thinking. In Europe and elsewhere, politicians got to

This hits well on my biggest problem with a lot of liberal solutions to climate change: not enough systems thinking. In Europe and elsewhere, politicians got to celebrate the adoption of biofuel, and now they also get to be righteous about banning it. Given how terrible almond production is for the environment as well, I could see a similar move being made there. Who is responsible for evaluating risk in these situations? Who is modeling effects on our ecosystem when they promote $SOLUTION as panacea?

cjblomqvist 7y ago
Couldn't agree more. That's why simple policies which do not dabble into the how, just the end effect, typically works better (sorry for no references, but AFAIK from my Master's on the subject it's pretty well established). That's why carbon tax (especially a global one) is such an attractive policy. Of course, there are issues with that as well, but generally it'll probably (and seems to) have the largest and best effect long term.
- kazagistar 7y ago
  Only if the carbon tax is applied retroactively, with interest, to make up for the dramatic economic inequality generated by countries who already got ahead economically by wrecking the atmosphere. Otherwise, it's just another way developed countries are using to keep themselves ahead of the rest of the world artificially with inhumane international policy.
  - ars 7y ago
    If you're going to do that, you'll also have to figure out a way to "charge" less developed countries for all the technology the developed countries invented. Like the cell phone: Developing countries never bothered with phone wires, they went straight to cell phones. Obviously I think both ideas are bad, but if you're going to advocate for your idea, you need to include everything.
  - aaronblohowiak 7y ago
    Baloney. If your line of reasoning held, Venezuela would be in a great place. Obviously, the differences between countries of various levels of economic development go far beyond who can put the most co2 in the air. Additionally, we are already seeing renewables become cheaper than fossil fuels. A great outcome would be leapfrogging - just like with cell phones vs landlines.
    - anthonypasq 7y ago
      > Obviously, the differences between countries of various levels of economic development go far beyond who can put the most co2 in the air. not really. Everything is about energy
- chasd00 7y ago
  let's say a global carbon tax comes to be. Where does the money go and who decides where it goes? Does it just sit in an account? Does the taxpayer get anything for their money?
  - aianus 7y ago
    In Canada the carbon tax revenue is given back to the taxpayers as a credit. If you pollute less than average you end up richer and if you pollute more than average you end up poorer.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
scarejunba 7y ago
Especially since the real solution is staring Europe in the face and they don’t want to do it for the same reason the Indonesians don’t want to: loss of wealth. Europe is more deforested than Asia or South America. Do your part, Europe. Give your cities back to the Earth. Plant trees there.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  Europe's forest cover has been increasing for a while. Europe has 25% of the world's forests while being 6.8% of the world's total landmass.[0] Europe, as a continent, is only about 20% larger than Australia. South America is 75% larger than Europe with a lower population. [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/264665/world-forest-area-by-continent/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/264665/world-forest-area...
  - scarejunba 7y ago
    Yeah, but they have two centuries of industrialization plus the preceding three centuries of forest clear-cutting to account for and reintroduction of native species. This is the alcoholic having been clean for 3 days. I'm not ready to take advice on keeping my liver healthy from him yet.
Mirioron 7y ago
>Who is responsible for evaluating risk in these situations? Nobody. This is one of the downsides of a democracy: the leadership changes enough that by the time long-term consequences hit those leaders are not in politics anymore. It's a bit like LLCs in that they spread the liability around on a nebulous concept of "government". Here's a related question: what's the long-term environmental impact of solar cells and wind turbines? Let's say we switch largely to those renewables... What happens when the first batch of them have exceeded their lifetime? What about the nth batch? We recently had an article about how wind turbine blades are sent to landfills. This is unlikely to have much of an impact, but if we scale this up then will it still have negligible impact? I rarely ever hear this aspect discussed even though now would be the time to do it. This way we won't be in for a nasty surprise in the future. But careers can't be built on something like this. So we ignore it until the next big problem arrives.
adrianN 7y ago
What makes these solutions liberal?

cjblomqvist 7y ago

Couldn't agree more. That's why simple policies which do not dabble into the how, just the end effect, typically works better (sorry for no references, but AFAIK from my Master's on the subject it's pretty well established). That's why carbon tax (especially a global one) is such an attractive policy. Of course, there are issues with that as well, but generally it'll probably (and seems to) have the largest and best effect long term.

kazagistar 7y ago
Only if the carbon tax is applied retroactively, with interest, to make up for the dramatic economic inequality generated by countries who already got ahead economically by wrecking the atmosphere. Otherwise, it's just another way developed countries are using to keep themselves ahead of the rest of the world artificially with inhumane international policy.
- ars 7y ago
  If you're going to do that, you'll also have to figure out a way to "charge" less developed countries for all the technology the developed countries invented. Like the cell phone: Developing countries never bothered with phone wires, they went straight to cell phones. Obviously I think both ideas are bad, but if you're going to advocate for your idea, you need to include everything.
- aaronblohowiak 7y ago
  Baloney. If your line of reasoning held, Venezuela would be in a great place. Obviously, the differences between countries of various levels of economic development go far beyond who can put the most co2 in the air. Additionally, we are already seeing renewables become cheaper than fossil fuels. A great outcome would be leapfrogging - just like with cell phones vs landlines.
  - anthonypasq 7y ago
    > Obviously, the differences between countries of various levels of economic development go far beyond who can put the most co2 in the air. not really. Everything is about energy
chasd00 7y ago
let's say a global carbon tax comes to be. Where does the money go and who decides where it goes? Does it just sit in an account? Does the taxpayer get anything for their money?
- aianus 7y ago
  In Canada the carbon tax revenue is given back to the taxpayers as a credit. If you pollute less than average you end up richer and if you pollute more than average you end up poorer.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

scarejunba 7y ago

Especially since the real solution is staring Europe in the face and they don’t want to do it for the same reason the Indonesians don’t want to: loss of wealth. Europe is more deforested than Asia or South America. Do your part, Europe. Give your cities back to the Earth. Plant trees there.

Mirioron 7y ago
Europe's forest cover has been increasing for a while. Europe has 25% of the world's forests while being 6.8% of the world's total landmass.[0] Europe, as a continent, is only about 20% larger than Australia. South America is 75% larger than Europe with a lower population. [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/264665/world-forest-area-by-continent/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/264665/world-forest-area...
- scarejunba 7y ago
  Yeah, but they have two centuries of industrialization plus the preceding three centuries of forest clear-cutting to account for and reintroduction of native species. This is the alcoholic having been clean for 3 days. I'm not ready to take advice on keeping my liver healthy from him yet.

Mirioron 7y ago

>Who is responsible for evaluating risk in these situations? Nobody. This is one of the downsides of a democracy: the leadership changes enough that by the time long-term consequences hit those leaders are not in politics anymore. It's a bit like LLCs in that they spread the liability around on a nebulous concept of "government". Here's a related question: what's the long-term environmental impact of solar cells and wind turbines? Let's say we switch largely to those renewables... What happens when the first batch of them have exceeded their lifetime? What about the nth batch? We recently had an article about how wind turbine blades are sent to landfills. This is unlikely to have much of an impact, but if we scale this up then will it still have negligible impact? I rarely ever hear this aspect discussed even though now would be the time to do it. This way we won't be in for a nasty surprise in the future. But careers can't be built on something like this. So we ignore it until the next big problem arrives.

adrianN 7y ago

What makes these solutions liberal?