6 ms·

Unless we can come up with carbon neutral energy sources that are cheaper than (untaxed) fossil fuels, we are going to wind up needing something like this.

electricviolet 6y ago
Carbon-neutral energy sources are already cheaper than fossil fuels. The problem is inertia. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/06/15/renewable-energy-is-now-the-cheapest-option-even-without-subsidies/#33524985a6b2 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/06/15/renewa...
- PaulHoule 6y ago
  On a bright and windy day renewables can drive the market price of electricity at the busbar below zero. You need something to fill the gap when renewables are not available. Grid scale storage is in sight but adds to the cost. Right now in U.S. And Euro zones we burn methane in gas turbines which is better than coal unless you are losing more than 1% of the methane on the way from the well.
Barrin92 6y ago
It's always fascinating that people are willing to consider geoengineering the climate of the entire planet instead of re-engineering the tax code. Tells us a lot about the system we're living in. We can block the sun out or shoot ourselves to Mars, but apparently can't pass a law on the consumption of oil
- throw9555 6y ago
  It's easier to imagine and end to the world than an end to capitalism. Indeed!
- MattGaiser 6y ago
  > but apparently can't pass a law on the consumption of oil Geoengineering requires no other change on anyone's part. Except for the funding (which could fit into any government budget with little notice), nothing changes for most people.
  - elygre 6y ago
    It feels to me that the basic idea is that something changes for pretty much all the people, but nobody really knows what.
- baggy_trough 6y ago
  The problem is global, so taxes in the United States that reduce fossil fuel consumption will move consumption elsewhere while incurring a political cost. It's going to be very hard to get, for example, Peru to increase its fossil fuel taxes to match. Perhaps the United States and other rich countries could subsidize Peru and friends. The political cost for that will be very high.

electricviolet 6y ago

Carbon-neutral energy sources are already cheaper than fossil fuels. The problem is inertia. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/06/15/renewable-energy-is-now-the-cheapest-option-even-without-subsidies/#33524985a6b2 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/06/15/renewa...

PaulHoule 6y ago
On a bright and windy day renewables can drive the market price of electricity at the busbar below zero. You need something to fill the gap when renewables are not available. Grid scale storage is in sight but adds to the cost. Right now in U.S. And Euro zones we burn methane in gas turbines which is better than coal unless you are losing more than 1% of the methane on the way from the well.

Barrin92 6y ago

It's always fascinating that people are willing to consider geoengineering the climate of the entire planet instead of re-engineering the tax code. Tells us a lot about the system we're living in. We can block the sun out or shoot ourselves to Mars, but apparently can't pass a law on the consumption of oil

throw9555 6y ago
It's easier to imagine and end to the world than an end to capitalism. Indeed!
MattGaiser 6y ago
> but apparently can't pass a law on the consumption of oil Geoengineering requires no other change on anyone's part. Except for the funding (which could fit into any government budget with little notice), nothing changes for most people.
- elygre 6y ago
  It feels to me that the basic idea is that something changes for pretty much all the people, but nobody really knows what.
baggy_trough 6y ago
The problem is global, so taxes in the United States that reduce fossil fuel consumption will move consumption elsewhere while incurring a political cost. It's going to be very hard to get, for example, Peru to increase its fossil fuel taxes to match. Perhaps the United States and other rich countries could subsidize Peru and friends. The political cost for that will be very high.