5 ms·

It's just so interesting how the same event could lead people to such drastically different observations and take aways. For instance, > the importance of glo

It's just so interesting how the same event could lead people to such drastically different observations and take aways. For instance, > the importance of global cooperation, For me, and many others, this pandemic has highlighted the need to be less centralized and dependent on foreign nations, especially with respects to China. Relying on them for our global pharmaceutical supply chain, for instance, seems like a terrible decision to have had made now. > democratic values You would be excluding the majority of the world's population, who aren't under a system of primarily democratic values. > the more expensive it is and the narrower our options become. That is, until a new or emerging technology opens up a plethora of new options! Have some optimism! Because what is clear to me is, even with this current shutdown which has caused the lower pollution is, we cannot afford the cost it takes to do the kinds of drastic, immediate changes needed to lower the C02 emissions to what the majority of climatologists say it needs to be. Technology must be the answer here.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> Technology must be the answer here. This doesn't require new technology. We know how to make electric cars, electric heat pumps, solar panels, nuclear reactors etc. This is all existing technology. But take a look at oil prices right now. That's what happens if you start to reduce world demand for oil, and that's the real problem. All we need from governments is to put a sufficient tax on carbon that keeps carbon more expensive than alternatives even as the demand for oil and coal falls off a cliff. Which doesn't even make oil dramatically more expensive -- it only keeps it at least as expensive as it was last year against declining demand, as economies of scale pick up for carbon alternatives and they become cheaper and thus more customers choose them. A carbon tax doesn't destroy the economy, all it does is destroy the oil industry (faster).
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  All great points, and the time to start taxing carbon is now at this low price, as the shock to consumers won’t be as great.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    You could make a great case for carbon tax + dividend right now, because people aren't driving as much and the people staying at home get the dividend too, so in addition to the economic impact of the tax being blunted by the low oil prices, you're also creating a net transfer to the people most impacted by having to stay at home. And giving people more financial incentive to stay at home instead of going out and spreading the infection.
    - specialist 7y ago
      "great case for carbon tax + dividend" Squint a bit and Canada's carbon dividend looks like UBI. I'm fully on board.
      - nogabebop23 7y ago
        >> Squint a bit and Canada's carbon dividend looks like UBI. As an Albertan I'm not super-happy about paying for the country's party over the past 20 years and now being kicked out of the house when we're out of beer.
        specialist 7y ago
        That's such a great analogy. FWIW I am (was) seriously considering moving to Wyoming or other net beneficiary of our own federal largess. Noting your work in asset planning, I'd love to find a counterpoint to VOX's David Roberts coverage of the energy industry, with respect to climate crisis, renewables, governance, financials, etc.
  - alharith 7y ago
    But it's not a great point. The oil industry has had a 100 year head start on the art of money, power, and influence. Human power dynamics are the primary drivers of societal and global change. That is to say, the reality is you have a zilch chance of passing a carbon tax in the US government sufficient enough to facilitate the change you are hoping to see. The only way oil and gas goes for a carbon tax is if it ends up being a net benefit to them, and as long as there is oil to burn, I don't see that happening any time soon. I would think California, for as progressive and liberal as it claims to be on the outset would pass something like this, but it's tough for me to be too optimistic there considering the influence and power Chevron has over the state.
- kube-system 7y ago
  > This doesn't require new technology. We know how to make electric cars, electric heat pumps, solar panels, nuclear reactors etc. This is all existing technology. We have some of the problems solved. While batteries are energy dense enough to support passenger cars, there's still a lot of progress to be made before the tech can meet the demands of shipping/bulk-cargo/intercontinental transport. For example, batteries still need to be 20 times more dense before we can build a cargo/passenger aircraft with one.
  - akiselev 7y ago
    > For example, batteries still need to be 20 times more dense before we can build a cargo/passenger aircraft with one. Significantly more than 20 times I'd bet. The airframe will have to be significantly reinforced to support a design where the maximum takeoff weight is equal to the maximum landing weight. At that point, aerodynamics start to look a lot more like a rocket equation where you can't dump stages. I think medium to long term, nuclear or renewable powered synthetic fuel is far more likely, especially since we already have a lot of generic infrastructure applicable to fossil fuels and carbon taxes could be the thing that pushes synthetic fuel into the market.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    Who says you have to use batteries for everything? For trains you electrify the tracks. For container ships you install a nuclear reactor on the ship the same as a submarine, or burn wood pellets or some other biomass in a steam boiler like the old days. For aircraft you use biofuels, or just buy offsets if that's cheaper (and aircraft are only a small percentage of fossil fuel use). This doesn't require alien technology, it just requires carbon to be priced so that it isn't artificially cheaper than existing alternatives.
    - kube-system 7y ago
      Centrally generated nuclear power with batteries at the point of use is the safest and cleanest tech that we have. The state of biofuel today leaves a lot to be desired as far as the ability to scale without causing other environmental disasters, and many of them aren't even carbon neutral. As for nuclear cargo ships -- I'd love to see them, but the liability and political hurdles are insane. You'd probably need a really big carbon tax before we'd see them.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago

> Technology must be the answer here. This doesn't require new technology. We know how to make electric cars, electric heat pumps, solar panels, nuclear reactors etc. This is all existing technology. But take a look at oil prices right now. That's what happens if you start to reduce world demand for oil, and that's the real problem. All we need from governments is to put a sufficient tax on carbon that keeps carbon more expensive than alternatives even as the demand for oil and coal falls off a cliff. Which doesn't even make oil dramatically more expensive -- it only keeps it at least as expensive as it was last year against declining demand, as economies of scale pick up for carbon alternatives and they become cheaper and thus more customers choose them. A carbon tax doesn't destroy the economy, all it does is destroy the oil industry (faster).

toomuchtodo 7y ago
All great points, and the time to start taxing carbon is now at this low price, as the shock to consumers won’t be as great.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  You could make a great case for carbon tax + dividend right now, because people aren't driving as much and the people staying at home get the dividend too, so in addition to the economic impact of the tax being blunted by the low oil prices, you're also creating a net transfer to the people most impacted by having to stay at home. And giving people more financial incentive to stay at home instead of going out and spreading the infection.
  - specialist 7y ago
    "great case for carbon tax + dividend" Squint a bit and Canada's carbon dividend looks like UBI. I'm fully on board.
    - nogabebop23 7y ago
      >> Squint a bit and Canada's carbon dividend looks like UBI. As an Albertan I'm not super-happy about paying for the country's party over the past 20 years and now being kicked out of the house when we're out of beer.
      - specialist 7y ago
        That's such a great analogy. FWIW I am (was) seriously considering moving to Wyoming or other net beneficiary of our own federal largess. Noting your work in asset planning, I'd love to find a counterpoint to VOX's David Roberts coverage of the energy industry, with respect to climate crisis, renewables, governance, financials, etc.
- alharith 7y ago
  But it's not a great point. The oil industry has had a 100 year head start on the art of money, power, and influence. Human power dynamics are the primary drivers of societal and global change. That is to say, the reality is you have a zilch chance of passing a carbon tax in the US government sufficient enough to facilitate the change you are hoping to see. The only way oil and gas goes for a carbon tax is if it ends up being a net benefit to them, and as long as there is oil to burn, I don't see that happening any time soon. I would think California, for as progressive and liberal as it claims to be on the outset would pass something like this, but it's tough for me to be too optimistic there considering the influence and power Chevron has over the state.
kube-system 7y ago
> This doesn't require new technology. We know how to make electric cars, electric heat pumps, solar panels, nuclear reactors etc. This is all existing technology. We have some of the problems solved. While batteries are energy dense enough to support passenger cars, there's still a lot of progress to be made before the tech can meet the demands of shipping/bulk-cargo/intercontinental transport. For example, batteries still need to be 20 times more dense before we can build a cargo/passenger aircraft with one.
- akiselev 7y ago
  > For example, batteries still need to be 20 times more dense before we can build a cargo/passenger aircraft with one. Significantly more than 20 times I'd bet. The airframe will have to be significantly reinforced to support a design where the maximum takeoff weight is equal to the maximum landing weight. At that point, aerodynamics start to look a lot more like a rocket equation where you can't dump stages. I think medium to long term, nuclear or renewable powered synthetic fuel is far more likely, especially since we already have a lot of generic infrastructure applicable to fossil fuels and carbon taxes could be the thing that pushes synthetic fuel into the market.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  Who says you have to use batteries for everything? For trains you electrify the tracks. For container ships you install a nuclear reactor on the ship the same as a submarine, or burn wood pellets or some other biomass in a steam boiler like the old days. For aircraft you use biofuels, or just buy offsets if that's cheaper (and aircraft are only a small percentage of fossil fuel use). This doesn't require alien technology, it just requires carbon to be priced so that it isn't artificially cheaper than existing alternatives.
  - kube-system 7y ago
    Centrally generated nuclear power with batteries at the point of use is the safest and cleanest tech that we have. The state of biofuel today leaves a lot to be desired as far as the ability to scale without causing other environmental disasters, and many of them aren't even carbon neutral. As for nuclear cargo ships -- I'd love to see them, but the liability and political hurdles are insane. You'd probably need a really big carbon tax before we'd see them.