3 ms·
> takes real effort which then needs to be paid for Verses the many climate change options that are free and without any effort?
by snicker7 6y ago
> takes real effort which then needs to be paid for
Verses the many climate change options that are free and without any effort?
- Retric 6y agoAgain orders of magnitude. Investing in solar and wind essentially pays for itself. Programs like Energy Star leverage market forces to make enormous changes essentially for free. Directly taxing carbon and adding it to general revenue would make a huge difference without spending that money on climate. Directing that revenue to carbon sequestration however requires continuously paying 100’s of thousands of people and building infrastructure etc. The benefit is definitely there, but the cost benefit ratio is vastly harder to justify. After a 90% reduction in CO2 emissions sequestering the last 10% of CO2 might be more economically viable. But, for now better options exist.
- Qwertious 6y agoEnergy star doesn't necessarily reduce emissions - it improves efficiency, but that makes people less worried about wasting electricity and so they use it more often. Jevon's Paradox was basically this but applied to coal.
- Retric 6y agoJevon’s Paradox would suggest an increase in the US electrical energy use over time, but that stalled out. Take a step back and consider what using electricity means. Home heating for example doesn’t benefit from increasing indoor temperatures to 100f. 100” TV’s use more energy than 40” TV’s, but they also cost a lot more to buy. Essentially people only have so much money and significant improvements in efficiency mean other costs become more important. They might be able to heat a larger house, but they can’t afford the house to be heated.