5 ms·

It only becomes politically viable if the engineering (and therefore monetarily, etc) viable. “Vasectomies for everyone, and you have to wear a hair shirt and

It only becomes politically viable if the engineering (and therefore monetarily, etc) viable. “Vasectomies for everyone, and you have to wear a hair shirt and abandon your house to live with 20 other people in an area dense enough for you to walk to your job, which is harvesting potatoes from an urban organic farm fertilized with human feces” is one possible solution to stopping climate change, but it isn’t politically viable. “Your truck is electric now, and your electricity comes from wind, nuclear, and solar power, including on the roof of your existing home. You travel via High Speed Rail or electric airplane. Steel is made using hydrogen. You use cutting edge low-latency satellite Internet to telecommute. We figured out how to reduce emissions of cattle using seaweed supplements.” …is politically viable. So engineering is necessary for the amount of feasible political capital we have to be spent on climate action. Engineering is essential to enabling political action.

hpkuarg 5y ago
Exactly. Without engineering better technology, the only real solution to climate change is that everyone goes back to pre-Industrial Revolution living standards.
- splistud 5y ago
  Well, not everyone. Only those who live through the implementation phase. Probably only a small minority will have to go back to pre-Industrial Revolution living standards.
oconnore 5y ago
I think a major issue is that the viability of solutions is compared on a short term cost basis that ignores externalities. As an example: on a very short term basis, it is easier and cheaper to pile your trash in your basement, or to not brush your teeth. The value of those things only becomes very apparent after a day or more. On a short term basis, fossil fuel based solutions are really great, flexible, stable, and cheap. We have to do something different despite that, because that short term basis doesn't tell the full story.
tinco 5y ago
Exactly, but the engineering is already done. We already have nuclear power, we already have adequate meat substitutes, we have high efficiency wind mills, we have high efficiency solar panels. We have high capacity batteries and high efficiency motors for our cars. There literally is no essential challenge left in engineering. Frankly, just nuclear power could have been enough to dodge this whole fiasco 50 years ago if it wasn't so much more expensive than oil. To demand even more from engineering is madness. To implement all of these things at the scale needed is politics, nothing else.
- JTbane 5y ago
  Agreed 100%: it's a basic economic problem- climate change is a classic tragedy of the commons scenario, largely caused by fossil fuels being too cheap, with easy-to-dismiss externalities. Only political intervention (carbon taxes, green subsidies) could cause a decline in use.
  - epicureanideal 5y ago
    Except that carbon taxes that are only implemented in one country cause fossil fuel demand by that country to decline, which makes it even cheaper for countries without carbon taxes. I wonder if instead of a carbon tax, there should be a tax that funds a fossil fuel 1:N storage requirement. You burn a gallon of gas, you need to store a gallon of gas in the strategic reserve. That way the tax is paid, we eventually figure out how many gallons were accessible (because we eventually run out), and the price goes up for all countries even those that are not taxing carbon. Alternatively, rather than extracting and storing the gas, the tax could fund the purchase of estimated reserves that are left unexploited. I assume the oil companies would also love this method.
    - tinco 5y ago
      Well, everyone's going to hate the answer, but we'll be having to both incentivize decarbonization, and pressure countries to stop pumping and selling oil and gas. And that's meant in the extreme way, at some point we will have to go to war with these countries.
epicureanideal 5y ago
And to whatever extent climate change is expected to result in horrible reductions in quality of life, that's the extent to which we should be willing to throw money at the problem. Although, exactly how that money is thrown and to who and on what basis, is usually where we run into problems...
crazynick4 5y ago
Do you think it is possible to maintain solar/wind for an extended period of time given the reliance on rare earth minerals that it would create? Also one argument that I haven't heard answered is how to handle the non-biodegradable old solar panels/windmills that need to be replaced. These things definitely can be implemented but are they sustainable? Not a rhetorical question, I'd actually like to hear some opinions on this.
- worik 5y ago
  "reliance on rare earth minerals" There are plenty in the ground. Some in hard to get to (politically/socially) places. They can be recovered from devices if that is a design criterion. Windmills are generally made from metals which are recyclable, silicon is the major ingredient of solar cells - most common mineral on the planet. But they can be recycled too. There is a lot of toxic waste generated using current technology, these are developing technologies which gives us a opportunity. Having a fetish for the free market will not help. All this requires planning, and markets do not make plans.
Gravityloss 5y ago
If there will be hell if airline fuel or pickup trucks have even small taxation, then they are always more advantageous compared to the alternatives, because they get a "free pass" for using a harmful but cheap energy source, and it doesn't matter what the engineer does. Lead free gasoline didn't happen without regulation.
- Robotbeat 5y ago
  Gas taxes are unpopular. But EPA fuel economy standards are popular! So use fuel economy standards to make all new cars at least PHEV. Increase gas tax only when almost all cars on the road can use electricity.
  - bumby 5y ago
    This might be conflating two issues. Gas taxes aren't really about reducing GHG, they're about funding infrastructure. So the CAFE standards actually hurt infrastructure investment. I'm not saying taxes can't be dual purpose, but we need to be cognizant of the primary intent and also to understand the blowback of policies, like how EPA fuel economy standards can affect other systems.
    - Gravityloss 5y ago
      There will be a driven kilometers based tax for electric vehicles, to finance road maintenance.
      - bumby 5y ago
        In the U.S. there's a federal pilot program for a vehicle-miles-traveled tax, but the proposal I saw wasn't meant to start until 2026. Some states have also instituted a kWh fee at the utility line. There's some administrative hurdles that needs to be worked out though, like the mechanism to track mileage. It's tougher than the gas tax because it's levied on each driver rather than on a relatively small number of wholesalers.

hpkuarg 5y ago

Exactly. Without engineering better technology, the only real solution to climate change is that everyone goes back to pre-Industrial Revolution living standards.

splistud 5y ago
Well, not everyone. Only those who live through the implementation phase. Probably only a small minority will have to go back to pre-Industrial Revolution living standards.

oconnore 5y ago

I think a major issue is that the viability of solutions is compared on a short term cost basis that ignores externalities. As an example: on a very short term basis, it is easier and cheaper to pile your trash in your basement, or to not brush your teeth. The value of those things only becomes very apparent after a day or more. On a short term basis, fossil fuel based solutions are really great, flexible, stable, and cheap. We have to do something different despite that, because that short term basis doesn't tell the full story.

tinco 5y ago

Exactly, but the engineering is already done. We already have nuclear power, we already have adequate meat substitutes, we have high efficiency wind mills, we have high efficiency solar panels. We have high capacity batteries and high efficiency motors for our cars. There literally is no essential challenge left in engineering. Frankly, just nuclear power could have been enough to dodge this whole fiasco 50 years ago if it wasn't so much more expensive than oil. To demand even more from engineering is madness. To implement all of these things at the scale needed is politics, nothing else.

JTbane 5y ago
Agreed 100%: it's a basic economic problem- climate change is a classic tragedy of the commons scenario, largely caused by fossil fuels being too cheap, with easy-to-dismiss externalities. Only political intervention (carbon taxes, green subsidies) could cause a decline in use.
- epicureanideal 5y ago
  Except that carbon taxes that are only implemented in one country cause fossil fuel demand by that country to decline, which makes it even cheaper for countries without carbon taxes. I wonder if instead of a carbon tax, there should be a tax that funds a fossil fuel 1:N storage requirement. You burn a gallon of gas, you need to store a gallon of gas in the strategic reserve. That way the tax is paid, we eventually figure out how many gallons were accessible (because we eventually run out), and the price goes up for all countries even those that are not taxing carbon. Alternatively, rather than extracting and storing the gas, the tax could fund the purchase of estimated reserves that are left unexploited. I assume the oil companies would also love this method.
  - tinco 5y ago
    Well, everyone's going to hate the answer, but we'll be having to both incentivize decarbonization, and pressure countries to stop pumping and selling oil and gas. And that's meant in the extreme way, at some point we will have to go to war with these countries.

epicureanideal 5y ago

And to whatever extent climate change is expected to result in horrible reductions in quality of life, that's the extent to which we should be willing to throw money at the problem. Although, exactly how that money is thrown and to who and on what basis, is usually where we run into problems...

crazynick4 5y ago

Do you think it is possible to maintain solar/wind for an extended period of time given the reliance on rare earth minerals that it would create? Also one argument that I haven't heard answered is how to handle the non-biodegradable old solar panels/windmills that need to be replaced. These things definitely can be implemented but are they sustainable? Not a rhetorical question, I'd actually like to hear some opinions on this.

worik 5y ago
"reliance on rare earth minerals" There are plenty in the ground. Some in hard to get to (politically/socially) places. They can be recovered from devices if that is a design criterion. Windmills are generally made from metals which are recyclable, silicon is the major ingredient of solar cells - most common mineral on the planet. But they can be recycled too. There is a lot of toxic waste generated using current technology, these are developing technologies which gives us a opportunity. Having a fetish for the free market will not help. All this requires planning, and markets do not make plans.

Gravityloss 5y ago

If there will be hell if airline fuel or pickup trucks have even small taxation, then they are always more advantageous compared to the alternatives, because they get a "free pass" for using a harmful but cheap energy source, and it doesn't matter what the engineer does. Lead free gasoline didn't happen without regulation.

Robotbeat 5y ago
Gas taxes are unpopular. But EPA fuel economy standards are popular! So use fuel economy standards to make all new cars at least PHEV. Increase gas tax only when almost all cars on the road can use electricity.
- bumby 5y ago
  This might be conflating two issues. Gas taxes aren't really about reducing GHG, they're about funding infrastructure. So the CAFE standards actually hurt infrastructure investment. I'm not saying taxes can't be dual purpose, but we need to be cognizant of the primary intent and also to understand the blowback of policies, like how EPA fuel economy standards can affect other systems.
  - Gravityloss 5y ago
    There will be a driven kilometers based tax for electric vehicles, to finance road maintenance.
    - bumby 5y ago
      In the U.S. there's a federal pilot program for a vehicle-miles-traveled tax, but the proposal I saw wasn't meant to start until 2026. Some states have also instituted a kWh fee at the utility line. There's some administrative hurdles that needs to be worked out though, like the mechanism to track mileage. It's tougher than the gas tax because it's levied on each driver rather than on a relatively small number of wholesalers.