5 ms·
The more fossil fuel infrastructure we build out, the harder it will be to make the transition to clean energy. Adding costs to fossil fuels is not a bad thing.
by ArkanExplorer 5y ago
The more fossil fuel infrastructure we build out, the harder it will be to make the transition to clean energy. Adding costs to fossil fuels is not a bad thing.
- toomuchtodo 5y agoAbsolutely. We should be exploring ways to financially disadvantage refineries and fueling stations as well. Have to find every weak point in fossil infra to exploit towards a failure mode. This drives the cost up, making electrified options (that don’t emit carbon) more competitive sooner.
- hogFeast 5y agoMust be nice to be so rich that you can choose to pay more for things.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- toomuchtodo 5y agoI don’t have a solution for the species constantly borrowing from the future. The bill comes due eventually. If you think being poor sucks now, wait for water shortages and crop failures. I get it, everyone wants the benefits without the costs. But there are costs. Obligatory “we should have carbon taxes and cap and trade to help make the transition fair and equitable”. I’m aware the wealthy are culpable for higher per capita CO2 emissions, and as such they should bear a greater burden in this regard. Life ain’t fair unfortunately.
- ericd 5y agoCould always make the carbon tax revenue neutral. Then it mostly becomes a subsidy for the poor who aren't jumping on planes 10x/year.
- skeeter2020 5y ago>> This drives the cost up, making electrified options (that don’t emit carbon) more competitive sooner. Interesting take on "competitive". I guess we could encourage renewables or capture externalities, but why do that when we can rig the entire system "for fairness"?
- toomuchtodo 5y agoIf there were a carbon tax and similar mechanisms, I wouldn’t need to advocate for tilting the playing field, as the market would solve this naturally. Unfortunately, a carbon tax (“capture externalities” in your comment) is untenable in the US and fossil fuels continue to receive hundreds of billions of dollars a year in subsidies. It’s a climate emergency with all of the urgency of afternoon tea. You must destroy demand for the root cause of the situation, as soon as possible (hence my comment). https://www.pnas.org/content/118/14/e2011969118 https://www.pnas.org/content/118/14/e2011969118 https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/fossil-fuel-subsidies-must-end/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/fossil-fue...
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- make3 5y agoNot sure why you're getting downvoted. Energy is a money game.
- fighterpilot 5y agoAdding costs due to adding inefficiency in the supply chain is definitely a bad thing, since you could easily achieve the exact same outcome with a tax instead.
- apendleton 5y agoThis is true, but if new taxes are politically untenable (which, in the current US political environment, they definitely are), the choice isn't between inefficiency and a tax, it's between inefficiency and the status quo. Politics is the art of the possible.
- fighterpilot 5y agoWouldn't the pipeline operators have willingly agreed to a levy or tax of some sort if the alternative is complete shutdown?
- apendleton 5y agoProbably, but even if they did, it's probably not within the power of the executive to create such a mechanism.
- fighterpilot 5y agoIf that's the case, you have a good point.
- krastanov 5y agoSure, but you should also just not give permits when the project is dangerous (which was what multiple agencies and courts had suggested in this case but one of the last three administrations was trying to overrule them)
- sixothree 5y agoImagine if we seized property and gave it to a private company to build wind farms. I'm sure the response would be worse than what happened here.
- eagsalazar2 5y agoWho is downvoting you? Why? Your comment is perfectly on point IMO.
- bigbillheck 5y agoWhy do we have to do the 'g[i]ve it to a private company' part?
- xenocyon 5y agoYour comment is interesting given that some of the strongest voices against the Keystone XL pipeline are the indigenous tribes whose lands and water would be jeopardized by it.
- bordercases 5y agoThey're also a vocal minority of Canadians.