3 ms·

I have three counter points. First, my concern with technical innovation is that it will simply be exploited for increased output. If the process for making wi

I have three counter points. First, my concern with technical innovation is that it will simply be exploited for increased output. If the process for making widgets is made twice as efficient, people will make twice the widgets and pollute just as much. Second, in your example of coal being made obsolete by market forces: governments are already skewing these forces with massive subsidies for fossil fuels. We need governments to stop doing that. Third, bringing new technology to market requires huge investments and risks. We need governments to incentivize and support this development so that it can happen as quickly as possible. Free markets are not some efficient force that just always magically do the right thing when left to their own devices. They are marred by countless modes of failure. The underlying social and political issues are almost intractable, but they cannot be ignored just because it's too difficult. I don't believe we can simply technology our way out of this.

syshum 5y ago
>>Second, in your example of coal being made obsolete by market forces: governments are already skewing these forces with massive subsidies for fossil fuels. We need governments to stop doing that. 100% agree, my entire post is about government inaction... My ideal government does nothing ;) that that applies to both sides of this, they should neither subsidize nor fine technologies. It should be up purely to market forces. >>Third, bringing new technology to market requires huge investments and risks. We need governments to incentivize and support this development so that it can happen as quickly as possible This has never been true for any advancement, Governments are TERRIBLE at picking winner and losers from a technology standpoint (see Ethanol) , and often time they SLOW not accelerate advancement. It has been proven in many sectors, including energy production, that once the government gets out of the way real progress begins. >I don't believe we can simply technology our way out of this. All of human history proves you wrong, but this time is the one time we should ignore history right?
- gefhfff 5y ago
  In Germany the government went out of the way when it came to digital technology Look where we ended up
- xg15 5y ago
  > All of human history proves you wrong, but this time is the one time we should ignore history right? Except all the actual scientists are agreeing with GP. The "tech will save us" mantra seems to come mostly from business types and libertarian pundits, not from the people actually working on those technologies.
- sofixa 5y ago
  > This has never been true for any advancement, Governments are TERRIBLE at picking winner and losers from a technology standpoint (see Ethanol) , and often time they SLOW not accelerate advancement. It has been proven in many sectors, including energy production, that once the government gets out of the way real progress begins. You probably know this, but without government intervention we'd still have leaded petrol, and renewables wouldn't have been as developed without the massive subsidies.
  - syshum 5y ago
    Do we really know this? For decades various government agencies shielded many companies from liability, and continued to make public statements that leaded gas was "safe". in the 70s' public pressure, and outcry became large enough that companies started phasing out leaded gas as customers were demanded alternatives, it is at this point that government, working with industry developed the phase out plan that the public was demanded. This is often how regulations go, technology advances (in this case alternative anti-knock additives), public pressure builds, and at a critical junction industry allows (yes allows) government to "pass" regulation outlining something they were already going to do anyway based on public pressure. Now often the question is well if they were going to do it anyway why would they have government pass regulation. That is easy to answer because there is always some fear that some company will buck the trend, large companies hate competition but they can not coordinate on their own as that would be anti-trust violations, Thus government provides a nice avenue to ensure no competition on some matters or topics This is why facebook is currently asking the government for regulation. This is why Amazon supports a national sales tax, and why Walmart now supports increasing the minimum wage...
martythemaniak 5y ago
To your first point, yes it will. The effect has a name: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebound_effect_(conservation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebound_effect_(conservation) This a good thing. The point of taming climate change isn't to inflict random punishment on people, it is to stop changing the climate. I drive an EV powered by carbon-free electricity. Political programs that are aimed at curbing how much I (and other people) move around aren't going to get voted in.
- xg15 5y ago
  Except, it's often not even caused by "people" (i.e. consumers) but by businesses and the general growth-above-all-else mindset: If we could produce a widget at half the resource cost and even if there were no demand for twice as many widgets, companies would try to drive up demand for widgets, then produce twice as many widgets - because this is the only way growth can be realized.
- reitzensteinm 5y ago
  I'm curious how you're sourcing carbon free electricity - would you mind elaborating.

syshum 5y ago

>>Second, in your example of coal being made obsolete by market forces: governments are already skewing these forces with massive subsidies for fossil fuels. We need governments to stop doing that. 100% agree, my entire post is about government inaction... My ideal government does nothing ;) that that applies to both sides of this, they should neither subsidize nor fine technologies. It should be up purely to market forces. >>Third, bringing new technology to market requires huge investments and risks. We need governments to incentivize and support this development so that it can happen as quickly as possible This has never been true for any advancement, Governments are TERRIBLE at picking winner and losers from a technology standpoint (see Ethanol) , and often time they SLOW not accelerate advancement. It has been proven in many sectors, including energy production, that once the government gets out of the way real progress begins. >I don't believe we can simply technology our way out of this. All of human history proves you wrong, but this time is the one time we should ignore history right?

gefhfff 5y ago
In Germany the government went out of the way when it came to digital technology Look where we ended up
xg15 5y ago
> All of human history proves you wrong, but this time is the one time we should ignore history right? Except all the actual scientists are agreeing with GP. The "tech will save us" mantra seems to come mostly from business types and libertarian pundits, not from the people actually working on those technologies.
sofixa 5y ago
> This has never been true for any advancement, Governments are TERRIBLE at picking winner and losers from a technology standpoint (see Ethanol) , and often time they SLOW not accelerate advancement. It has been proven in many sectors, including energy production, that once the government gets out of the way real progress begins. You probably know this, but without government intervention we'd still have leaded petrol, and renewables wouldn't have been as developed without the massive subsidies.
- syshum 5y ago
  Do we really know this? For decades various government agencies shielded many companies from liability, and continued to make public statements that leaded gas was "safe". in the 70s' public pressure, and outcry became large enough that companies started phasing out leaded gas as customers were demanded alternatives, it is at this point that government, working with industry developed the phase out plan that the public was demanded. This is often how regulations go, technology advances (in this case alternative anti-knock additives), public pressure builds, and at a critical junction industry allows (yes allows) government to "pass" regulation outlining something they were already going to do anyway based on public pressure. Now often the question is well if they were going to do it anyway why would they have government pass regulation. That is easy to answer because there is always some fear that some company will buck the trend, large companies hate competition but they can not coordinate on their own as that would be anti-trust violations, Thus government provides a nice avenue to ensure no competition on some matters or topics This is why facebook is currently asking the government for regulation. This is why Amazon supports a national sales tax, and why Walmart now supports increasing the minimum wage...

martythemaniak 5y ago

To your first point, yes it will. The effect has a name: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebound_effect_(conservation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebound_effect_(conservation) This a good thing. The point of taming climate change isn't to inflict random punishment on people, it is to stop changing the climate. I drive an EV powered by carbon-free electricity. Political programs that are aimed at curbing how much I (and other people) move around aren't going to get voted in.

xg15 5y ago
Except, it's often not even caused by "people" (i.e. consumers) but by businesses and the general growth-above-all-else mindset: If we could produce a widget at half the resource cost and even if there were no demand for twice as many widgets, companies would try to drive up demand for widgets, then produce twice as many widgets - because this is the only way growth can be realized.
reitzensteinm 5y ago
I'm curious how you're sourcing carbon free electricity - would you mind elaborating.