2 ms·

No it would not make even the tiniest dent. I don't get this sort of reasoning. We keep, and keep, and keep treating this like "let's force everyone" problem. J

No it would not make even the tiniest dent. I don't get this sort of reasoning. We keep, and keep, and keep treating this like "let's force everyone" problem. Jevon's paradox. If we kill beef production, we change nothing. Oil and coal that gets dug up gets burned. Law simply does not apply to all states that do this, so these sorts of measures are dead in the water. So the ONLY way to lower (eventual) greenhouse emissions is to leave coal and oil in the ground. Such measures can only ever change WHY fossil fuels get burned, bitcoins instead of steel production, not WHETHER or not coal gets burned ... They can't leave oil in the ground. They can't leave coal in the ground. Problem is that the real change we need can't be done with law, with political action, with any of that ... it can only be done by competing with oil. Outcompete oil and the problem is solved. No country will risk it's energy supply dropping by 0.1% for the climate, it's just not going to happen. Sure, they want to score points with the young political action crowd, but not where it poses actual risks to the economy. So this can only be done with science. You want to help the climate? Get a real education in chemistry and physics and figure out some small part of the problem.

petermcneeley 5y ago
As someone with a degree in physics and a comp phys background I would argue that this is a coordination problem and not one of applied science or engineering. There is really no better demonstration of this than the nuclear power situation. We have already discovered the source of 'limitless' energy but we refuse to capitalize on it for political reasons. If you want more innovation you are going to have to fund it. Most of the smart people of this world are currently trying to figure out how to make Ads get clicks. Companies dont really fund the kinds of innovations you are suggesting because they will never see a return on that investment.

petermcneeley 5y ago

As someone with a degree in physics and a comp phys background I would argue that this is a coordination problem and not one of applied science or engineering. There is really no better demonstration of this than the nuclear power situation. We have already discovered the source of 'limitless' energy but we refuse to capitalize on it for political reasons. If you want more innovation you are going to have to fund it. Most of the smart people of this world are currently trying to figure out how to make Ads get clicks. Companies dont really fund the kinds of innovations you are suggesting because they will never see a return on that investment.