5 ms·
The only realistic solution to carbon removal is massive government investment, like most other major Silicon Valley core technologies. We need the Green New De
by abalone 6y ago
The only realistic solution to carbon removal is massive government investment, like most other major Silicon Valley core technologies. We need the Green New Deal. Anything less is posturing. I would even go so far as to say that on an issue of this importance, where we have maybe a decade left to turn the tide, giving the impression that private enterprise can solve it is irresponsible.
Put those donations into GND activism — it’s a political problem.
- antr 6y agoI'm an energy investor (primarily focused on renewables), and I couldn't disagree more. I could go on an on with examples of how government intervention has created busts across the renewables space for the past 20 years, and has thrown down the drain billions of tax payer money. I'd like to keep governments out of something that works without them.
- defterGoose 6y agoIt almost certainly doesnt though, and your personal experience over the last two decades or whatever probably means squat. If the US government is/was capable of succeeding with the Manhattan and Apollo projects, there's no reason to believe that the same wouldn't be true of similar gargantuan efforts today. I'm not saying that the US can solve AGCC by itself, but I am saying that uncoordinated efforts by loosely coupled private entities cannot.
- gwright 6y ago> It almost certainly doesnt though, and your personal experience over the last two decades or whatever probably means squat. We all know that an anecdote is not data, but being so dismissive towards someone with specific industry knowledge seems inappropriate.
- falcolas 6y agoFWIW, the grandparent's industry specific knowledge is in investment into developing renewable energy companies. This isn't very applicable to the article or problem at hand.
- gwright 6y ago1) doesn't justify telling someone their experience means "squat" 2) since when do you have to be vetted/credentialed to participate in a discussion here?
- falcolas 6y ago> since when do you have to be vetted/credentialed to participate in a discussion here Since they're using their credentials to try and lend credulity to their argument. Specifically, it's an "appeal to [their] authority" on the subject, but they don't have that requisite 'authority'.
- gwright 6y agoSince when is providing some background about your experience considered a negative? You should try to be a bit more generous and not assume, on almost non-existent evidence, that someone is being disingenuous.
- lefrenchy 6y agoPrivate investment makes companies go bust too, that's not isolated to government intervention. But honestly how well is this really working without governments? We're running out of time by certain metrics.
- ianmobbs 6y agoAn energy investor who doesn't support the GND? What a surprise
- abalone 6y agoMy god this is an irresponsible comment. Where to begin? First, it fundamentally misunderstands the history of Silicon Valley tech development, which has been primarily funded by government institutions such as DARPA at its core. This is true for sustainable energy as well — it is federally funded research that is advancing solar panel efficiency, for example.[1] Second, you have a profit motive to rewrite this narrative and position private tech investors as the key innovation enablers. This happens all the time. The reality is the VC industry cherry picks the fruit that DARPA and related agencies invest in or sustain through government procurement. It takes billions over decades of failures to produce something that can be brought to market, and it’s done at taxpayer expense. The profits are privatized. I say it is irresponsible in this case because we are literally facing the doom of our planet. This is not time to screw around with easily disproven self-aggrandizing Liberterian narratives that would detract from the political activism we need to solve this problem. We must understand how our system really works if we hope to save ourselves. [1] https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/nrel-darpa-both-claim-record-solar-efficiency-1310 https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/nrel-darpa-both...
- lefrenchy 6y agoSadly I think far too many people will not evaluate the Green New Deal on it's actual merits and instead write it off because Bernie Sanders, AOC, and others have written/supported it. The strife and division we are seeing in the US will be a significant impact to climate action. We've already seen its impact on something as simple as mask wearing becoming politicized and difficult to coordinate on.
- defterGoose 6y agoI can only hope that those driving the division (older people) will be dead soon, so that the younger generations who are by and large more eco-friendly can get on with the difficult work that needs to be done. Its past time for the old, rotten way of thinking to be plowed under.
- lefrenchy 6y agoI'm not entirely convinced older people are driving the division.
- defterGoose 6y agoThe average age of congressional representatives is roughly 60, and has been creeping up for 40 years. Im not sure how to not analyze that as a problem with ideological stagnation. Additionally, people from younger generations never experienced the relative boom period of the 50s and 60s so there's not as much dogmatic inertia there.
- imtringued 6y agoI think the split is among party lines. The closer to the political right you go the more resistance against solutions of climate change you're going to see at any age group. Trump is pretty much the poster child but not because he is old, it's simply because he is a republican.
- ihm 6y agoYeah, it's a class conflict and class/wealth is correlated with age. Bernie (who is old last I checked) being one of the biggest supporters gives the lie to this.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoIt seems pretty unlikely that a very specific bundle of proposed legislation is the only way to address climate change. Are all other countries doomed to failure because they don't have the Green New Deal?
- ta1234567890 6y agoNot because of not having a GND, but if the US doesn't take drastic measures soon, yes all other countries are doomed. Because the US alone is the 2nd biggest contributor to carbon emissions in the world, and probably the only country that can make China (the 1st carbon emitter) cut theirs.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoI agree that it's important to take lots of action on climate change as soon as possible. That's why it seems counterproductive to tell a company they should stop taking direct action and start promoting the Green New Deal. It's too urgent of a problem to insist that only people with a particular political stance should help. Maybe the specifics of the Green New Deal are getting lost in translation here? The package isn't just about climate change; like its namesake, the Green New Deal includes provisions about labor rights, education, healthcare, etc. Not everyone who wants to address climate change will necessarily agree with the Green New Deal proponents on those other problems. (And that glosses over a lot of disagreement even on climate change - for example, the Green New Deal doesn't include nuclear power which many people feel is essential.)
- ta1234567890 6y agoYou are completely right. If individuals and companies can contribute in any way possible that's great. Personally I don't care if it's the GND or whatever, but the government needs to take climate change very very seriously.
- smnrchrds 6y ago> the Green New Deal includes provisions about labor rights, education, healthcare, etc. Interesting. So it is the IPv6 of climate policies.
- leoedin 6y agoGovernment investment is essentially a form of planned economy. There's lots of examples of that not working so well. I'd argue that the most effective solution is a carbon tax, applied on any carbon which leaves the ground. That would create incredibly strong market conditions for energy saving technologies, and provide a big cost advantage to renewable energy. We know that pricing effects consumer behaviour. The oil price increases of the 70s and late 2000s reduced miles driven and changed car buying behaviour. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/business/19gas.html?ref=business https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/business/19gas.html?ref=b... When the right conditions in the market exist, the rate of development will be so much faster than any inefficient direct investment program every will. https://concretecuts.xyz/articles/green-tech-market/ https://concretecuts.xyz/articles/green-tech-market/
- abalone 6y ago> Government investment is essentially a form of planned economy. There's lots of examples of that not working so well. You mean like this? https://unherd.com/2018/06/government-agency-made-silicon-valley/ https://unherd.com/2018/06/government-agency-made-silicon-va...
- donw 6y agoThe politicians pushing the GND do not care about climate change. We need a clean bill that only reduces or outright zeros net carbon output, including carbon generated from imports and exports. It's no good if we just export pollution somewhere else. The Green New Deal is not that bill. It is packed with a massive pile of changes to healthcare, finance, and labor laws which are totally unrelated to addressing carbon emissions. Not to mention the call for Venezuela-style nationalization. That's a non-starter, and rightly so. If you can't put aside power-grabs and partisan politics to tackle climate change, then you clearly do not care about fixing climate change. If the GND passes, the important-to-humans part (carbon) will go to the back of the political bus, and the important-to-the-oligarchs part (more power! more money!) will be put in the drivers' seat.
- abalone 6y agoThat’s a failed theory. This is what happens when you try to address carbon output without looking at healthcare, finance, labor laws and the impacts on the working class: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_movement It failed. We have to approach this as a complex sociopolitical problem and it will likely require some broader changes to our 200 plus year old economic system. (And did you say you think GND calls for more power to oligarchs? That’s a weird take.)
- donw 6y agoThe first line of your linked Wikipedia article[1] reads: > "The yellow vests movement or yellow jackets movement (French: Mouvement des gilets jaunes, pronounced [muvmɑ̃ de ʒilɛ ʒon]) is a populist,[64] grassroots[65] protest movement for economic justice[66]" The goals listed for the movement, also from that article: > Increase in the French minimum wage[37], End to austerity measures[38], Improved standard of living[38], Government transparency and accountability[38], Improved government services for rural areas[38], and Constitutional proposal for Citizens' initiative referendum, including constitutional, legislative, abrogative, and recall initiatives[39] The words "climate change" appear once in the entire article. Looks to me like climate change was told to sit at the back of the political bus. [1] http://archive.today/RGUVx http://archive.today/RGUVx