12 ms·

So we don't get out of the problem: no silver bullet and a need to dedicate effort and money into stuff that doesn't contribute to economical growth. So the cha

by wiz21c 4y ago

So we don't get out of the problem: no silver bullet and a need to dedicate effort and money into stuff that doesn't contribute to economical growth. So the challenge remains open: how do we replace a bit of the economical growth mindset by environmental protection mindset; how do we think at world scale instead of solution scale. I personally would love to be part of the new mind set and I'm fully ready to live in its with all the consequences which basically means, for me who am on the wealthy side : live with less.

ly3xqhl8g9 4y ago
One way of 'improving the system while keeping the system' would be to simply place the "economical growth mindset" into the "environmental protection mindset" with something like "CO2 Coin: Decentralized Carbon Capture Blockchains" [1]. I am not sure you, an individual, even if you have a private jet using it twice daily for nonsense trips, make much of a difference. At this point isn't the "personal responsibility policy" pretty much clearly BP, Shell and co. propaganda from the 1970s [2]? Certainly, it was perfectly depicted in Verhoeven's masterpiece "I'm doing my part" [3]. Perhaps a better inclination, energy wise, it to actually increase the consumption: the Sun is still hitting Terra in every hour with 430 quintillion (10^18) Joules of energy while "the annual global energy consumption is estimated to 580 quintillion Joules" [4]. Pretty much in 2 hours we should have all the energy required for a year of consumption, we just have primitive infrastructure and primitive brains continuing to take primitive decisions such as burning dead dinosaurs. [1] https://www.gwern.net/CO2-Coin https://www.gwern.net/CO2-Coin [2] https://mashable.com/feature/carbon-footprint-pr-campaign-sham https://mashable.com/feature/carbon-footprint-pr-campaign-sh... [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_7FaWnlhS4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_7FaWnlhS4 [4] https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/climate-change/energy/global-energy-consumption https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/climate-change/ene...
simfoo 4y ago
Personally, I think the mindset we need here is one we know from war times: attack the problem like you would if you were defending your country against a massive enemy force. That would mean (among many other things): - important industries are put under government control (energy, chemical, agriculture etc) - suspend the legal system where it slows down your defense (e.g. no more nimby litigation possible against wind/solar farms) - manage everything top down (but transparent) - put up a wealth tax to finance the efforts I guess this is very unpopular to many, but I genuinely believe a concerted war-like effort coordinated with as many other countries as possible is our only hope to fix things now.
- lelag 4y ago
  I think there a comparatively simple measure that would work just as well: just price the externality of using fossil fuels directly by introducing a carbon tax at the source, that is levied by the fossil fuels companies and baked in the raw ressources. Start with a reasonably low tax so that you don't suddenly tank the economy and announce mandatory annual increase of x% in that tax and watch the problem solves itself. By knowing in advance when fossil fuel stop making economic senses, users will have to plan for switching to renewable alternatives. Also, use the carbon tax money to fund massive CO2 removal projects. I feel it would be a pretty simple and effective solution which is not going to be implemented because it would need to be implemented worldwide and developing countries don't want to be told that there will be burden imposed on them than the west did not have in their time.
  - TheAceOfHearts 4y ago
    A carbon tax by itself just passes the problem on to people who can't do anything about it. You need to include programs to help migrate people off their carbon dependency. The people who would be most affected by a carbon tax are also the people who have the least amount of resources to do anything about it.
    - lelag 4y ago
      On a personal level, it would be pretty easy to deal with such a tax: I can think of only 2 use-case for normal people to buy fossil fuels directly: to power ICE and to heat their home. Programs to help people migrate away from using ICE and oil boiler already exist in many places. By starting small and giving a timetable, you signal people that they have x years to act and that they really should migrate away from using those. A carbon tax on raw ressources would be most impactful where the real emission are happening: transportation, industry and electricity generation. For sure, pricing the externalities of the use of fossil fuel at the source would make some things that are currently cheap, expensive: air travel, cement production... But if those activities are destroying the environment, maybe it's not such a bad idea to make them more expensive. Then you would see real effort to find solution to lower the carbon footprint of those. When I'm talking about a gradual increase, I'm thinking about a slow gradual increase over a long period (eg: 20 years+) so the carbon taxation program starts pretty painless for most and leave enough time for the world to adapt and get rid of that carbon dependency.
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
First rule of holes: When you are in a hole stop digging. The basic problem is that externalities are not priced in. We are actively paying people to do things we don't want them to do. That's the only real fix needed. And it would immediately make everyone much richer, because we'd be paying people to do stuff we want instead. Which leads us to the second problem. We apparently have a society where doing things that make everyone richer can be prevented quite easily as long as a small group profits at everyone else's expense.
- piva00 4y ago
  > We apparently have a society where doing things that make everyone richer can be prevented quite easily as long as a small group profits at everyone else's expense. A tale as old as time. The Roman Republic went through the same issue, more than 2000 years ago, with all the unrest you'd expect when a class of rich people enrich themselves even more to the complete detriment of the rest of society.
winReInstall 4y ago
It needs to become a status symbol. Like a car or a dr. title. Something that society by convention is forced to recognize.
hackeraccount 4y ago
Living with less would mean going without things that are at a level of want that is indistinguishable from need. People aren't going to do that. They'll give up things that they don't actually want.

by wiz21c 4y ago

ly3xqhl8g9 4y ago

One way of 'improving the system while keeping the system' would be to simply place the "economical growth mindset" into the "environmental protection mindset" with something like "CO2 Coin: Decentralized Carbon Capture Blockchains" [1]. I am not sure you, an individual, even if you have a private jet using it twice daily for nonsense trips, make much of a difference. At this point isn't the "personal responsibility policy" pretty much clearly BP, Shell and co. propaganda from the 1970s [2]? Certainly, it was perfectly depicted in Verhoeven's masterpiece "I'm doing my part" [3]. Perhaps a better inclination, energy wise, it to actually increase the consumption: the Sun is still hitting Terra in every hour with 430 quintillion (10^18) Joules of energy while "the annual global energy consumption is estimated to 580 quintillion Joules" [4]. Pretty much in 2 hours we should have all the energy required for a year of consumption, we just have primitive infrastructure and primitive brains continuing to take primitive decisions such as burning dead dinosaurs. [1] https://www.gwern.net/CO2-Coin https://www.gwern.net/CO2-Coin [2] https://mashable.com/feature/carbon-footprint-pr-campaign-sham https://mashable.com/feature/carbon-footprint-pr-campaign-sh... [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_7FaWnlhS4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_7FaWnlhS4 [4] https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/climate-change/energy/global-energy-consumption https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/climate-change/ene...

simfoo 4y ago

Personally, I think the mindset we need here is one we know from war times: attack the problem like you would if you were defending your country against a massive enemy force. That would mean (among many other things): - important industries are put under government control (energy, chemical, agriculture etc) - suspend the legal system where it slows down your defense (e.g. no more nimby litigation possible against wind/solar farms) - manage everything top down (but transparent) - put up a wealth tax to finance the efforts I guess this is very unpopular to many, but I genuinely believe a concerted war-like effort coordinated with as many other countries as possible is our only hope to fix things now.

lelag 4y ago
I think there a comparatively simple measure that would work just as well: just price the externality of using fossil fuels directly by introducing a carbon tax at the source, that is levied by the fossil fuels companies and baked in the raw ressources. Start with a reasonably low tax so that you don't suddenly tank the economy and announce mandatory annual increase of x% in that tax and watch the problem solves itself. By knowing in advance when fossil fuel stop making economic senses, users will have to plan for switching to renewable alternatives. Also, use the carbon tax money to fund massive CO2 removal projects. I feel it would be a pretty simple and effective solution which is not going to be implemented because it would need to be implemented worldwide and developing countries don't want to be told that there will be burden imposed on them than the west did not have in their time.
- TheAceOfHearts 4y ago
  A carbon tax by itself just passes the problem on to people who can't do anything about it. You need to include programs to help migrate people off their carbon dependency. The people who would be most affected by a carbon tax are also the people who have the least amount of resources to do anything about it.
  - lelag 4y ago
    On a personal level, it would be pretty easy to deal with such a tax: I can think of only 2 use-case for normal people to buy fossil fuels directly: to power ICE and to heat their home. Programs to help people migrate away from using ICE and oil boiler already exist in many places. By starting small and giving a timetable, you signal people that they have x years to act and that they really should migrate away from using those. A carbon tax on raw ressources would be most impactful where the real emission are happening: transportation, industry and electricity generation. For sure, pricing the externalities of the use of fossil fuel at the source would make some things that are currently cheap, expensive: air travel, cement production... But if those activities are destroying the environment, maybe it's not such a bad idea to make them more expensive. Then you would see real effort to find solution to lower the carbon footprint of those. When I'm talking about a gradual increase, I'm thinking about a slow gradual increase over a long period (eg: 20 years+) so the carbon taxation program starts pretty painless for most and leave enough time for the world to adapt and get rid of that carbon dependency.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

First rule of holes: When you are in a hole stop digging. The basic problem is that externalities are not priced in. We are actively paying people to do things we don't want them to do. That's the only real fix needed. And it would immediately make everyone much richer, because we'd be paying people to do stuff we want instead. Which leads us to the second problem. We apparently have a society where doing things that make everyone richer can be prevented quite easily as long as a small group profits at everyone else's expense.

piva00 4y ago
> We apparently have a society where doing things that make everyone richer can be prevented quite easily as long as a small group profits at everyone else's expense. A tale as old as time. The Roman Republic went through the same issue, more than 2000 years ago, with all the unrest you'd expect when a class of rich people enrich themselves even more to the complete detriment of the rest of society.

winReInstall 4y ago

It needs to become a status symbol. Like a car or a dr. title. Something that society by convention is forced to recognize.

hackeraccount 4y ago

Living with less would mean going without things that are at a level of want that is indistinguishable from need. People aren't going to do that. They'll give up things that they don't actually want.