8 ms·

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 massi

by 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.
  - bawolff 4y ago
    That makes no sense. End consumers have the ultimate power to do something else. If the option isn't there, we now have economic incentives such that an entrepenur ca make a killing providing that service.
- mschuster91 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. In the end, the rich elites - those producing an amount of CO2 emissions that is obscene compared to the amount normal people produce - would simply not care and pay a bit more money. For people who have yachts with tanks large enough to require 100.000$ or more for a single fill or with their own private jets, even tripling fuel prices would still be laughable petty cash, whereas tripling fuel prices would have a devastating impact on people needing their car to get to work. "Pricing in externalities" to steer consumers towards a specific behavior (= here, limiting CO2 emissions) only works in an economy where the majority of participants are at a similar level of wealth. Otherwise, 99% will be forced to drastically cut their life style while the 1% keeps on going merrily. That is only one thing, a recipe for massive social unrest.
  - Youden 4y ago
    Price the emission of CO2 based on the cost of sequestering it. If the rich elites produce an obscene amount of CO2, they pay enough money to remove the same obscene amount of CO2 from the atmosphere (or even more than they produce, it could be a progressive tax).
    - mschuster91 4y ago
      That does not solve the social issue that is at the core. A multi-billionaire won't care about the emission sequestration cost - it's simply impossible to spend down 20 billion dollars or more outside of donating all of it, which in any case only a handful of that caste does like Bill Gates, and even he has IIRC complained that it's hard to donate the money simply because it grows faster than it can be donated. Between his initial pledge in 2010 and now, despite billions of donations and a divorce, his net worth doubled [1]. If societies wish to avoid a revolution by the masses, the answer to luxury yachts and private jets must be bans and confiscations, not peanut payments. We've seen the potential for unrest with the French Yellow Vests - they started out as a protest against rising fuel prices due to a carbon tax [2], and the hike was a relatively harmless one compared to what will come should the true cost ever be reflected! [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-62162300 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-62162300 [2] https://www.npr.org/2018/12/03/672862353/who-are-frances-yellow-vest-protesters-and-what-do-they-want?t=1660733785803 https://www.npr.org/2018/12/03/672862353/who-are-frances-yel...
- throwaway346434 4y ago
  The bit you are missing from examples like the australian carbon tax, you provide compensation to the consumer, so only the middle man feels the pinch. This worked well when introduced.
- KSteffensen 4y ago
  Isn't that basically what Macron tried to do which lead to all the Yellow Vest protests and riots? I agree in principle but there needs to be some sort of tuning so people living in the poor countryside with no public transportation get time to adjust.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    Macron also removed "impôt de solidarité sur la fortune", which suggests you have to be actively trying to shift the tax burden to poor people for a carbon tax to go wrong. > "The movement is predominantly against a tax system perceived as unfair and unjust, but there are numerous grievances and differences of opinion. Most want to scrap the fuel taxes, hold a review of the tax system, raise the minimum wage and roll back Macron’s tax cuts for the wealthy and his pro-business economic programme. But some also want parliament dissolved and Macron to resign." But strangely, the media focused on "carbon taxes bad" not "low minimum wage, regressive taxes bad". It's like the only measure to 'help' the poor that has wide acceptance is to give them money to buy fossil fuels.
    - imtringued 4y ago
      Call it what it is, a bribe to make people complacent.
- verdverm 4y ago
  You missed the point that even if we cut emissions to zero, we will not hit our climate goals. We need to remove CO2 and the constant focus on low value efforts like electrifying cars by 2030-40 will end up creating more harm than if we allocate some of those resources to other strategies. This video shows one such strategy and the channel creator looks to cover many such emerging technologies. We will need a many strategy approach and to understand that we will never get everyone (or every country) on the same page about these strategies and even the need for such focus on climate.
  - lelag 4y ago
    I don't think I missed the point. I was replying to the parent comment. And as I wrote a carbon tax on raw fossil fuel would also be a great way to fund such carbon removal projects.
    - verdverm 4y ago
      Fossil fuel usage is only one such source, agriculture is a significant component as well, as is concrete
      - lelag 4y ago
        True, ideally we incentivize elimination of all carbon emissions. Still, even for concrete production close to half the emission is due to fuel burning, so taxing fossil fuel would have a large impact as it is easy to measure and implement. (You have comparatively few producers). For chemical reactions related emissions (other than burning carbon), it might be easier to simply mandate carbon capture system by law for those industries.
        verdverm 4y ago
        > ideally we incentivize elimination of all carbon emissions. I don't think such an absolute goal makes sense. What we want is to be at balance long term and pull out enough CO2 to not destroy our current ecosystem any further. I think if we were actually facing the opposite, we'd find ways to ensure we don't go back into an ice age.
the_third_wave 4y ago
So who is going to write the 5-year plans, who gets to set the goals, who will decide what gets produced where? GOSPlan [1] never managed to get this right, why do you think it would work this time? History is there to be learned from. Planned economies do not work, they are inefficient and a breeding ground for corruption. Also, rest assured that there will be no wind turbines or solar farms around the dacha's of the party elite. Read The GULAG Archipelago or The First Circle for some more insight in the dark side of your proposed "solution" and realise this has been tried - and failed, miserably and horribly - many times over. [1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/economic-planning/Economic-planning-in-communist-countries https://www.britannica.com/topic/economic-planning/Economic-...
- cassepipe 4y ago
  I think your comment is way over the top. Yes, planned economies are a failure but wartime economies were absolutely not compared to their goal : waging a war. OP said that deciding as a society (whatever that means) that this is the new direction and all efforts are now going into that direction would be a solution, and that it has an historical precedent : wartime economies.
  - the_third_wave 4y ago
    We are not at war so we should not have a wartime economy. Notice by the way that this was the same excuse used in the Soviet Union to keep up the level of oppression since 'enemies from all around were just waiting to attack the workers and peasants socialist revolution - we are at war with the capitalists'. He who does not learn from history is bound to repeat its mistakes. We are not at war. Let's hope it stays this way, don't clamour for war, stop calling for 'wartime measures'.
    - cassepipe 4y ago
      Fine you win the philosophical/rhetorical whatever point but the point of calling a war on climate change is just a way to signal to society that it is a matter of life and death. Sometimes people need symbolic stuff to actually care. The thing is the lives on the billion human beings on this planet relies on technical systems that are heavily dependent on oil (and its carbon rich friends, coal, gas etc.). Look around, everything in your daily lives from what you wear, to where you live, to what you eat relies on oil and friends energy inputs. Anybody who does not support massive collective efforts that entails renouncing at least the most energy intensive forms of modern comfort implicitly supports the violent authoritarian society that will inevitably on a planet where not all can be fed and not all can live on.
akie 4y ago
I am firmly convinced we need a "War on Climate Change".
weberer 4y ago
>Implement fascism to fight climate change ...or we could just build more nuclear plants?
verdverm 4y ago
Many people do not agree that climate change is going to wipe everything out in the next few years. If we are smart about it, we can fix our mistakes. Think of LA in the 70s and the invention of the catalytic converter. Human ingenuity can solve this better than being barbaric with our policies.

by simfoo 4y ago

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.
- bawolff 4y ago
  That makes no sense. End consumers have the ultimate power to do something else. If the option isn't there, we now have economic incentives such that an entrepenur ca make a killing providing that service.
mschuster91 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. In the end, the rich elites - those producing an amount of CO2 emissions that is obscene compared to the amount normal people produce - would simply not care and pay a bit more money. For people who have yachts with tanks large enough to require 100.000$ or more for a single fill or with their own private jets, even tripling fuel prices would still be laughable petty cash, whereas tripling fuel prices would have a devastating impact on people needing their car to get to work. "Pricing in externalities" to steer consumers towards a specific behavior (= here, limiting CO2 emissions) only works in an economy where the majority of participants are at a similar level of wealth. Otherwise, 99% will be forced to drastically cut their life style while the 1% keeps on going merrily. That is only one thing, a recipe for massive social unrest.
- Youden 4y ago
  Price the emission of CO2 based on the cost of sequestering it. If the rich elites produce an obscene amount of CO2, they pay enough money to remove the same obscene amount of CO2 from the atmosphere (or even more than they produce, it could be a progressive tax).
  - mschuster91 4y ago
    That does not solve the social issue that is at the core. A multi-billionaire won't care about the emission sequestration cost - it's simply impossible to spend down 20 billion dollars or more outside of donating all of it, which in any case only a handful of that caste does like Bill Gates, and even he has IIRC complained that it's hard to donate the money simply because it grows faster than it can be donated. Between his initial pledge in 2010 and now, despite billions of donations and a divorce, his net worth doubled [1]. If societies wish to avoid a revolution by the masses, the answer to luxury yachts and private jets must be bans and confiscations, not peanut payments. We've seen the potential for unrest with the French Yellow Vests - they started out as a protest against rising fuel prices due to a carbon tax [2], and the hike was a relatively harmless one compared to what will come should the true cost ever be reflected! [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-62162300 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-62162300 [2] https://www.npr.org/2018/12/03/672862353/who-are-frances-yellow-vest-protesters-and-what-do-they-want?t=1660733785803 https://www.npr.org/2018/12/03/672862353/who-are-frances-yel...
throwaway346434 4y ago
The bit you are missing from examples like the australian carbon tax, you provide compensation to the consumer, so only the middle man feels the pinch. This worked well when introduced.
KSteffensen 4y ago
Isn't that basically what Macron tried to do which lead to all the Yellow Vest protests and riots? I agree in principle but there needs to be some sort of tuning so people living in the poor countryside with no public transportation get time to adjust.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  Macron also removed "impôt de solidarité sur la fortune", which suggests you have to be actively trying to shift the tax burden to poor people for a carbon tax to go wrong. > "The movement is predominantly against a tax system perceived as unfair and unjust, but there are numerous grievances and differences of opinion. Most want to scrap the fuel taxes, hold a review of the tax system, raise the minimum wage and roll back Macron’s tax cuts for the wealthy and his pro-business economic programme. But some also want parliament dissolved and Macron to resign." But strangely, the media focused on "carbon taxes bad" not "low minimum wage, regressive taxes bad". It's like the only measure to 'help' the poor that has wide acceptance is to give them money to buy fossil fuels.
  - imtringued 4y ago
    Call it what it is, a bribe to make people complacent.
verdverm 4y ago
You missed the point that even if we cut emissions to zero, we will not hit our climate goals. We need to remove CO2 and the constant focus on low value efforts like electrifying cars by 2030-40 will end up creating more harm than if we allocate some of those resources to other strategies. This video shows one such strategy and the channel creator looks to cover many such emerging technologies. We will need a many strategy approach and to understand that we will never get everyone (or every country) on the same page about these strategies and even the need for such focus on climate.
- lelag 4y ago
  I don't think I missed the point. I was replying to the parent comment. And as I wrote a carbon tax on raw fossil fuel would also be a great way to fund such carbon removal projects.
  - verdverm 4y ago
    Fossil fuel usage is only one such source, agriculture is a significant component as well, as is concrete
    - lelag 4y ago
      True, ideally we incentivize elimination of all carbon emissions. Still, even for concrete production close to half the emission is due to fuel burning, so taxing fossil fuel would have a large impact as it is easy to measure and implement. (You have comparatively few producers). For chemical reactions related emissions (other than burning carbon), it might be easier to simply mandate carbon capture system by law for those industries.
      - verdverm 4y ago
        > ideally we incentivize elimination of all carbon emissions. I don't think such an absolute goal makes sense. What we want is to be at balance long term and pull out enough CO2 to not destroy our current ecosystem any further. I think if we were actually facing the opposite, we'd find ways to ensure we don't go back into an ice age.

the_third_wave 4y ago

So who is going to write the 5-year plans, who gets to set the goals, who will decide what gets produced where? GOSPlan [1] never managed to get this right, why do you think it would work this time? History is there to be learned from. Planned economies do not work, they are inefficient and a breeding ground for corruption. Also, rest assured that there will be no wind turbines or solar farms around the dacha's of the party elite. Read The GULAG Archipelago or The First Circle for some more insight in the dark side of your proposed "solution" and realise this has been tried - and failed, miserably and horribly - many times over. [1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/economic-planning/Economic-planning-in-communist-countries https://www.britannica.com/topic/economic-planning/Economic-...

cassepipe 4y ago
I think your comment is way over the top. Yes, planned economies are a failure but wartime economies were absolutely not compared to their goal : waging a war. OP said that deciding as a society (whatever that means) that this is the new direction and all efforts are now going into that direction would be a solution, and that it has an historical precedent : wartime economies.
- the_third_wave 4y ago
  We are not at war so we should not have a wartime economy. Notice by the way that this was the same excuse used in the Soviet Union to keep up the level of oppression since 'enemies from all around were just waiting to attack the workers and peasants socialist revolution - we are at war with the capitalists'. He who does not learn from history is bound to repeat its mistakes. We are not at war. Let's hope it stays this way, don't clamour for war, stop calling for 'wartime measures'.
  - cassepipe 4y ago
    Fine you win the philosophical/rhetorical whatever point but the point of calling a war on climate change is just a way to signal to society that it is a matter of life and death. Sometimes people need symbolic stuff to actually care. The thing is the lives on the billion human beings on this planet relies on technical systems that are heavily dependent on oil (and its carbon rich friends, coal, gas etc.). Look around, everything in your daily lives from what you wear, to where you live, to what you eat relies on oil and friends energy inputs. Anybody who does not support massive collective efforts that entails renouncing at least the most energy intensive forms of modern comfort implicitly supports the violent authoritarian society that will inevitably on a planet where not all can be fed and not all can live on.

akie 4y ago

I am firmly convinced we need a "War on Climate Change".

weberer 4y ago

>Implement fascism to fight climate change ...or we could just build more nuclear plants?

verdverm 4y ago

Many people do not agree that climate change is going to wipe everything out in the next few years. If we are smart about it, we can fix our mistakes. Think of LA in the 70s and the invention of the catalytic converter. Human ingenuity can solve this better than being barbaric with our policies.