3 ms·

Attacking the supply side seems odd. Shouldn't demand for fossil fuels be the target? The issue is capitalism doesn't believe politicians about the future and a

• CarelessExpert 5y ago
  It's both. By continuing to tap into supplies, you keep the cost of carbon-producing fuels (and their carbon intensive extraction industries) low enough that they remain price competitive with renewables; a price which is further subject to implicit subsidies in the form of negative externalities. This then helps buoy the demand side and slows the transition to alternatives. One way to solve that is through carbon taxes so that the price of externalities is baked into the cost of the product. But the alternative is to simply cut back on extraction in the first place and leave the carbon in the ground. In either case the end result is higher prices at the pump which will push consumption toward renewables.
• zardo 5y ago
  They don't believe politicians about making real progress on the issue because they are pouring money into making sure it doesn't happen. It really doesn't make sense to treat them as though they are just economic entities, they are big political players as well. To give a specific example, when Washington state had a carbon tax on the ballot (a method to address the demand side), the oil industry spent 50 million on the campaign opposing the measure.