4 ms·

I think that you're leaving out economic factors - when better and cleaner technology becomes cheaper than the alternatives, politics becomes largely irrelevant

I think that you're leaving out economic factors - when better and cleaner technology becomes cheaper than the alternatives, politics becomes largely irrelevant. And to get to that point economically, you need technological innovation.

adrianN 6y ago
That's a lot harder to do when fossil fuels benefit from massive subsidies.
hannob 6y ago
Not gonna happen. This is a popular idea, I think people are a bit deluded by the fact that Wind+Solar got so cheap. Don't get me wrong: This is great. We'll likely be able to get rid of fossil-based electricity simply due to costs (even though it's too slow). But it's simply not plausible that you will find a cheaper technology in every area. Finding a way to fly a plane without carbon emissions is a challenge to begin with. Doing it cheaper than with kerosene - there isn't even a faint of an idea how to do that. In some areas like cement the only option seems to be carbon capture and storage. There's no way whatsoever that a cement plant + a ccs plant is cheaper than a cement plant alone.
- imgabe 6y ago
  It doesn't need to happen in every area. It just needs to happen in enough areas that the carbon output is brought below a threshold that the environment can safely absorb. Sure, maybe you can't make efficient electric planes. But maybe you can replace 90% of short range flights with trains and make electric planes unnecessary.
  - hannob 6y ago
    > It doesn't need to happen in every area. It just needs to happen in enough areas that the carbon output is brought below a threshold that the environment can safely absorb. That is actually a misconception. There is no such threshold, at least not for carbon dioxide (it's a bit more complicated for methane and some other greenhouse gases). It accumulates in the atmosphere. There is some uptake of co2 by natural processes, but that's roughly relative to the amount you put in. If you put in more co2 the concentration of co2 in the atmosphere will keep growing.
    - imtringued 6y ago
      The hope is that we buy ourselves additional time to figure out the truly difficult problems.
- masta 6y ago
  Thats why there is a need for a global Carbon Tax/Pricing System. This would internalise the cost of pollution and make engineering solution more important from a market perspective.
  - abyssin 6y ago
    Why not simply make it illegal to exploit fossil fuels? The result is the same, except that making it illegal has a certain result, as opposed to a tax that is less direct. Of course it's very hard to make it illegal, but I don't think it's easier to enforce a carbon tax that actually works.
    - imtringued 6y ago
      Making things illegal is prone to micromanagement. If there are ten thousand industries dependent on CO2 emissions how are you going to pick the non essential ones and only ban the ones that are truly bad for the environment? What's the likely hood that officials will simply misjudge a specific industry? (maybe even on purpose?) The reasoning behind the carbon tax is simply that every participant can make a decision for themselves. "Do I need CO2 emissions to run my business?" "Does a different business have a greater need to emit CO2 emissions?" This is the type of thinking one is trying to encourage with the introduction of a CO2 tax.
    - adrianN 6y ago
      Making things illegal is roughly equivalent to putting a very high price on them. A steadily increasing carbon tax is the economically feasible way of stopping extraction.
- marcosdumay 6y ago
  > In some areas like cement the only option seems to be carbon capture and storage. There's no way whatsoever that a cement plant + a ccs plant is cheaper than a cement plant alone. Yet, improving the cement plant and the carbon capture one makes it much easier for a government to intervene and require zero emissions. We'll get aviation and steel production to use synthetic fuels in due time, and we will have plastics produced from captured CO2. Yes, those are more expensive, but nobody is saying that the solution should be left entirely to the market. But neither of them make any sense right now, and that's because the technology isn't there.

adrianN 6y ago

That's a lot harder to do when fossil fuels benefit from massive subsidies.

hannob 6y ago

Not gonna happen. This is a popular idea, I think people are a bit deluded by the fact that Wind+Solar got so cheap. Don't get me wrong: This is great. We'll likely be able to get rid of fossil-based electricity simply due to costs (even though it's too slow). But it's simply not plausible that you will find a cheaper technology in every area. Finding a way to fly a plane without carbon emissions is a challenge to begin with. Doing it cheaper than with kerosene - there isn't even a faint of an idea how to do that. In some areas like cement the only option seems to be carbon capture and storage. There's no way whatsoever that a cement plant + a ccs plant is cheaper than a cement plant alone.

imgabe 6y ago
It doesn't need to happen in every area. It just needs to happen in enough areas that the carbon output is brought below a threshold that the environment can safely absorb. Sure, maybe you can't make efficient electric planes. But maybe you can replace 90% of short range flights with trains and make electric planes unnecessary.
- hannob 6y ago
  > It doesn't need to happen in every area. It just needs to happen in enough areas that the carbon output is brought below a threshold that the environment can safely absorb. That is actually a misconception. There is no such threshold, at least not for carbon dioxide (it's a bit more complicated for methane and some other greenhouse gases). It accumulates in the atmosphere. There is some uptake of co2 by natural processes, but that's roughly relative to the amount you put in. If you put in more co2 the concentration of co2 in the atmosphere will keep growing.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    The hope is that we buy ourselves additional time to figure out the truly difficult problems.
masta 6y ago
Thats why there is a need for a global Carbon Tax/Pricing System. This would internalise the cost of pollution and make engineering solution more important from a market perspective.
- abyssin 6y ago
  Why not simply make it illegal to exploit fossil fuels? The result is the same, except that making it illegal has a certain result, as opposed to a tax that is less direct. Of course it's very hard to make it illegal, but I don't think it's easier to enforce a carbon tax that actually works.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    Making things illegal is prone to micromanagement. If there are ten thousand industries dependent on CO2 emissions how are you going to pick the non essential ones and only ban the ones that are truly bad for the environment? What's the likely hood that officials will simply misjudge a specific industry? (maybe even on purpose?) The reasoning behind the carbon tax is simply that every participant can make a decision for themselves. "Do I need CO2 emissions to run my business?" "Does a different business have a greater need to emit CO2 emissions?" This is the type of thinking one is trying to encourage with the introduction of a CO2 tax.
  - adrianN 6y ago
    Making things illegal is roughly equivalent to putting a very high price on them. A steadily increasing carbon tax is the economically feasible way of stopping extraction.
marcosdumay 6y ago
> In some areas like cement the only option seems to be carbon capture and storage. There's no way whatsoever that a cement plant + a ccs plant is cheaper than a cement plant alone. Yet, improving the cement plant and the carbon capture one makes it much easier for a government to intervene and require zero emissions. We'll get aviation and steel production to use synthetic fuels in due time, and we will have plastics produced from captured CO2. Yes, those are more expensive, but nobody is saying that the solution should be left entirely to the market. But neither of them make any sense right now, and that's because the technology isn't there.