3 ms·

There are microeconomic concepts I learned in college that make decarbonization nearly impossible. First the FREE RIDER principle. Since CO2 (and methane) affec

There are microeconomic concepts I learned in college that make decarbonization nearly impossible. First the FREE RIDER principle. Since CO2 (and methane) affects temperature globally, every nation (and individual) is incentivized to free ride off the decarbonization expenses of others. Second, the PRISONER'S DILEMMA. Most political systems have two main parties competing for power. Although both parties broadly agree that climate change is bad, policies that kick the can down the road are electorally advantageous (less taxes now always beats a better future). Thus the NASH EQUILIBRIUM is for political parties to always promise to undo any costly changes the other party is proposing.

TremendousJudge 5y ago
>Most political systems have two main parties competing for power I disagree. While this is true for some (US, UK), it's not true for other democracies (Spain, Germany), and even less true for more authoritarian systems (Russia, China). Some countries have political systems that are actually able to make long term decisions. >Although both parties broadly agree that climate change is bad True in some places, but not in others, such as Russia, Brazil, or (most importantly) the US. While I agree that decarbonization is really hard, and in part due to the reasons you listed, they are also not as universal as you paint them out to be.
- hardtke 5y ago
  Agree -- here in California where we only have one relevant political party the California Energy commission has been able to impose energy efficiency requirements for appliances and buildings that have had a huge positive impact on our energy usage per capita. We've also had EPICS like the tax credit and ability to drive in the carpool lane for hybrids and later electric cars. At a US national level we have partisan trench warfare exacerbated by a Senate dominated by small states and supermajoritarian voting rules. It's not entirely untrue that the the continued existence of the US Senate is incompatible with a future habitable planet.

TremendousJudge 5y ago

>Most political systems have two main parties competing for power I disagree. While this is true for some (US, UK), it's not true for other democracies (Spain, Germany), and even less true for more authoritarian systems (Russia, China). Some countries have political systems that are actually able to make long term decisions. >Although both parties broadly agree that climate change is bad True in some places, but not in others, such as Russia, Brazil, or (most importantly) the US. While I agree that decarbonization is really hard, and in part due to the reasons you listed, they are also not as universal as you paint them out to be.

hardtke 5y ago
Agree -- here in California where we only have one relevant political party the California Energy commission has been able to impose energy efficiency requirements for appliances and buildings that have had a huge positive impact on our energy usage per capita. We've also had EPICS like the tax credit and ability to drive in the carpool lane for hybrids and later electric cars. At a US national level we have partisan trench warfare exacerbated by a Senate dominated by small states and supermajoritarian voting rules. It's not entirely untrue that the the continued existence of the US Senate is incompatible with a future habitable planet.