4 ms·

Most nations won't bother lowering their emissions. So the question is not whether CCS is cheaper than not emitting, the question is whether CCS is cheaper than

by corty 5y ago

Most nations won't bother lowering their emissions. So the question is not whether CCS is cheaper than not emitting, the question is whether CCS is cheaper than taking action to force the issue. Which would include abandoning several international treaties like the WTO, air traffic agreements, maybe impose sanctions and even go to war. If climate change is a sufficiently important issue, then hell yes, the US should be paying for CCS, even if that means that the Saudi royal family can afford a few more solid-gold-airplanes. If the issue isn't that important, than why bother at all?

rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
>Most nations won't bother lowering their emissions. Why? We can switch to EV (this cuts emissions by 6 https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/clima/files/transport/vehicles/docs/2020_study_main_report_en.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/clima/files/transport/vehic...) and to renewables (another factor for EV, but also households and the whole industrial sector). We can also significantly reduce meat consumption (the easiest and least expensive change). Personally, I've halves my emissions in 2 years (no flights, no car, vegetarianism, etc) so I don't understand the fatalism. Sure some may reject changes but it's much easier to do than many expect. If one can/will change, others can/will to.
- corty 5y ago
  Because EVs are quite expensive and need lots of infrastructure. We basically have to double our electricity production when we are still struggling to just get the current load without EVs on renewables. We need to upgrade our power grid with more carrying capacity and more storage, which is neither cheap nor easy. And even then, that just solves cars, not transport of goods. There is a whole load of additional problems to solve there, like hydrogen production and distribution or synfuels. This "just use EVs" alone is not viable for anything but the industrialised countries, and even there most are struggling with the cost and public support. Here in Germany, nobody wants any more windmills or power lines, yet we are only at less than one quarter of what we need overall. Meanwhile electricity is already extremely expensive over here. Reducing meat consumption is only easy if you don't like meat or like to castigate yourself. I personally would rather see Miami sink into the ocean than not eat as much meat anymore. And I know a majority of the population thinks this way. Now take the above and tell that to the inhabitants of an up-and-coming nation like China, Brazil, Nigeria or South Africa. They'll just laugh at you I guess. They want their piece of the cake, too.
pjc50 5y ago
> Most nations won't bother lowering their emissions > Which would include abandoning several international treaties There is an international treaty to reduce emissions: https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/... The US is one of the main obstacles to it and indeed abandoned it recently: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54797743 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54797743 > If climate change is a sufficiently important issue, then hell yes, the US should be paying for CCS, even if that means that the Saudi royal family can afford a few more solid-gold-airplanes. If the issue isn't that important, than why bother at all? This sounds like a false dichotomy?
- corty 5y ago
  The paris agreement isn't really binding. There are no mechanism to punish non-compliance and the aims and means of limiting global warming are poorly defined in any case. The only real consequence of failing paris is looking bad. Boohoo. The WTO treaty however does have concrete punishments if one country disobeys, e.g. import duties may be imposed. Air traffic agreements are based on mutuality, so if you tax jet fuel, the other side will as well, at best. At worst, the other side will abandon the agreement and you cannot fly anywhere anymore, except within your own borders and international waters. So you can guess which one takes precedence if push comes to shove. Also, the paris agreement doesn't really limit emissions beyond the industrialized countries. Most of the world isn't limited at all, or just very very generously. And yes, the US is an obstacle. But that doesn't mean that the rest of the world will feel obliged to fulfil the paris agreement, prior agreements on this topic have never really been obeyed. I guess the US just has a culture of not entering agreements they don't intend to obey, whereas others sign and then wait&see. And about the false dichotomy: yes, maybe. But since climate change advocacy is getting increasingly shrill (justifiably or not), e.g. by changing global warming to global heating, climate change to climate catastrophe, declaring it a danger to human survival, either the problem is overstated or a really big one. Leading to the aforementioned dichotomy. On the other hand, I guess we would all be well-served by more objectivity and less hype.

by corty 5y ago

rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago

>Most nations won't bother lowering their emissions. Why? We can switch to EV (this cuts emissions by 6 https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/clima/files/transport/vehicles/docs/2020_study_main_report_en.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/clima/files/transport/vehic...) and to renewables (another factor for EV, but also households and the whole industrial sector). We can also significantly reduce meat consumption (the easiest and least expensive change). Personally, I've halves my emissions in 2 years (no flights, no car, vegetarianism, etc) so I don't understand the fatalism. Sure some may reject changes but it's much easier to do than many expect. If one can/will change, others can/will to.

corty 5y ago
Because EVs are quite expensive and need lots of infrastructure. We basically have to double our electricity production when we are still struggling to just get the current load without EVs on renewables. We need to upgrade our power grid with more carrying capacity and more storage, which is neither cheap nor easy. And even then, that just solves cars, not transport of goods. There is a whole load of additional problems to solve there, like hydrogen production and distribution or synfuels. This "just use EVs" alone is not viable for anything but the industrialised countries, and even there most are struggling with the cost and public support. Here in Germany, nobody wants any more windmills or power lines, yet we are only at less than one quarter of what we need overall. Meanwhile electricity is already extremely expensive over here. Reducing meat consumption is only easy if you don't like meat or like to castigate yourself. I personally would rather see Miami sink into the ocean than not eat as much meat anymore. And I know a majority of the population thinks this way. Now take the above and tell that to the inhabitants of an up-and-coming nation like China, Brazil, Nigeria or South Africa. They'll just laugh at you I guess. They want their piece of the cake, too.

pjc50 5y ago

> Most nations won't bother lowering their emissions > Which would include abandoning several international treaties There is an international treaty to reduce emissions: https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/... The US is one of the main obstacles to it and indeed abandoned it recently: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54797743 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54797743 > If climate change is a sufficiently important issue, then hell yes, the US should be paying for CCS, even if that means that the Saudi royal family can afford a few more solid-gold-airplanes. If the issue isn't that important, than why bother at all? This sounds like a false dichotomy?

corty 5y ago
The paris agreement isn't really binding. There are no mechanism to punish non-compliance and the aims and means of limiting global warming are poorly defined in any case. The only real consequence of failing paris is looking bad. Boohoo. The WTO treaty however does have concrete punishments if one country disobeys, e.g. import duties may be imposed. Air traffic agreements are based on mutuality, so if you tax jet fuel, the other side will as well, at best. At worst, the other side will abandon the agreement and you cannot fly anywhere anymore, except within your own borders and international waters. So you can guess which one takes precedence if push comes to shove. Also, the paris agreement doesn't really limit emissions beyond the industrialized countries. Most of the world isn't limited at all, or just very very generously. And yes, the US is an obstacle. But that doesn't mean that the rest of the world will feel obliged to fulfil the paris agreement, prior agreements on this topic have never really been obeyed. I guess the US just has a culture of not entering agreements they don't intend to obey, whereas others sign and then wait&see. And about the false dichotomy: yes, maybe. But since climate change advocacy is getting increasingly shrill (justifiably or not), e.g. by changing global warming to global heating, climate change to climate catastrophe, declaring it a danger to human survival, either the problem is overstated or a really big one. Leading to the aforementioned dichotomy. On the other hand, I guess we would all be well-served by more objectivity and less hype.