3 ms·

Problem is that the only reason we don't push ahead with renewables is that governments would rather use existing infrastructure. They want to amortize sunk co

Problem is that the only reason we don't push ahead with renewables is that governments would rather use existing infrastructure. They want to amortize sunk construction costs. They don't want to upgrade the grid. Solar panels now cost just 20 cents a Watt and can convert sun into electricity with about 6 times the efficiency of photosynthesis. If we make it cheap to punt, then the consequences could truly be dire.

civilized 4y ago
The cost to "punt" is zero, and it is what we are doing today. It is what we will continue doing until there is a perfect magical technology solution with no side effects and very low costs. Something like a 100kW power plant that runs 24/7, creates no emissions, requires no fuel or maintenance, and can be set up in your backyard for $99. There is no crisis coming that will be severe enough (in the developed world) to change this. Politicians don't care, because people don't care. Climate change doesn't even make the top 10 priorities of most US voters. Not even the people in Florida whose houses will be going underwater care. I wonder how long we will be waiting for easy button-press perfection with no downsides? I wonder how dire the consequences of our waiting will be?
- mistermann 4y ago
  > Politicians don't care, because people don't care. Maybe(!) it's for a similar reason to why most of these people also don't do calculus, or juggle, etc: they do not know how to, because they were never taught how to.
  - civilized 4y ago
    I'm not sure what effort to teach about climate change has been spared in the past couple decades. One big problem is that half the country has also been taught climate change is a hoax concocted for partisan political gain. I doubt that most of them even believe this, but it's illustrative of... some deeper issue, for sure.
    - mistermann 4y ago
      My point is rather abstract: if you are not pleased with the behavior of the agents in your simulation, it may be worth actually teaching them skills that are known to be beneficial, rather than just talking about it (and we often don't/can't even get this far). As one example (and I genuinely don't mean it as an insult): > One big problem is that half the country has also been taught climate change is a hoax concocted for partisan political gain. This is not actually known, and is unknowable (to any substantial degree of accuracy). And yet: consider how often one encounters such claims, including in genuinely intelligent communities like HN. If I could make a list of just three "stop doing this" rules, "premature formation of epistemically unsound beliefs (and seeding of those viral beliefs into the memeplex)" would definitely be one of them. > I doubt that most of them even believe this, but it's illustrative of... some deeper issue, for sure. This, on the other hand, is not only excellent, but it is also highly anomalous (I propose).
      - civilized 4y ago
        I guess it depends on your definition of "taught". Only about 50% of US adults agree on the crux of the issue, that human emissions contribute a great deal to global heating, while 20% say human emissions are not important [1]. Some large percentage of the population, I would guess at least 30%, have received the hoax message repeatedly from popular conservative sources such as Fox News, Donald Trump's former Twitter account, and the TV show Tucker Carlson Tonight. Now, I tend to think that all these sources don't care in the slightest whether what they're saying is true, and would happily say (and even believe) the exact opposite seconds later if it suited them. And their audiences may at some level understand this. It's not really about what is being said, it's about the way it affirms the coalition and its alignment with truth and goodness. There is perhaps room for genuine teaching - but I'm not sure what it would take to dig out of where we are today. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/11/25/u-s-public-views-on-climate-and-energy/ https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/11/25/u-s-public-vi...
        mistermann 4y ago
        > I guess it depends on your definition of "taught". Indeed - there are the labels we apply to things, and then there is what lies underneath. And then there is the question of whether we form a distinction between the two (or, the degree to which we [are able to] form a distinction, and whether this is a constant or varies under different conditions, and the degree to which and ways in which it varies, etc). > I do think that some large percentage of the population, probably at least 30%, have received the hoax message repeatedly from popular conservative sources such as Fox News, Donald Trump's former Twitter account, and the TV show Tucker Carlson Tonight. > Now, I tend to think that all these sources don't care in the slightest whether what they're saying is true, and would happily say (and even believe) the exact opposite seconds later if it suited them. 1. Do you believe that it is only conservative sources and conservative people who can be objectively observed engaging in this behavior: a) on a relative scale? b) on an absolute scale? 2. Same question, but replace "believe" with "think it is necessarily and comprehensively true (in a formal, Justified True Belief sense)".
- o_1 4y ago
  Doomsday fear tactics doesn't move the needle. It's bad messaging and no one will ever fill fulfilled by following it. Change the message you might get more action.

civilized 4y ago

The cost to "punt" is zero, and it is what we are doing today. It is what we will continue doing until there is a perfect magical technology solution with no side effects and very low costs. Something like a 100kW power plant that runs 24/7, creates no emissions, requires no fuel or maintenance, and can be set up in your backyard for $99. There is no crisis coming that will be severe enough (in the developed world) to change this. Politicians don't care, because people don't care. Climate change doesn't even make the top 10 priorities of most US voters. Not even the people in Florida whose houses will be going underwater care. I wonder how long we will be waiting for easy button-press perfection with no downsides? I wonder how dire the consequences of our waiting will be?

mistermann 4y ago
> Politicians don't care, because people don't care. Maybe(!) it's for a similar reason to why most of these people also don't do calculus, or juggle, etc: they do not know how to, because they were never taught how to.
- civilized 4y ago
  I'm not sure what effort to teach about climate change has been spared in the past couple decades. One big problem is that half the country has also been taught climate change is a hoax concocted for partisan political gain. I doubt that most of them even believe this, but it's illustrative of... some deeper issue, for sure.
  - mistermann 4y ago
    My point is rather abstract: if you are not pleased with the behavior of the agents in your simulation, it may be worth actually teaching them skills that are known to be beneficial, rather than just talking about it (and we often don't/can't even get this far). As one example (and I genuinely don't mean it as an insult): > One big problem is that half the country has also been taught climate change is a hoax concocted for partisan political gain. This is not actually known, and is unknowable (to any substantial degree of accuracy). And yet: consider how often one encounters such claims, including in genuinely intelligent communities like HN. If I could make a list of just three "stop doing this" rules, "premature formation of epistemically unsound beliefs (and seeding of those viral beliefs into the memeplex)" would definitely be one of them. > I doubt that most of them even believe this, but it's illustrative of... some deeper issue, for sure. This, on the other hand, is not only excellent, but it is also highly anomalous (I propose).
    - civilized 4y ago
      I guess it depends on your definition of "taught". Only about 50% of US adults agree on the crux of the issue, that human emissions contribute a great deal to global heating, while 20% say human emissions are not important [1]. Some large percentage of the population, I would guess at least 30%, have received the hoax message repeatedly from popular conservative sources such as Fox News, Donald Trump's former Twitter account, and the TV show Tucker Carlson Tonight. Now, I tend to think that all these sources don't care in the slightest whether what they're saying is true, and would happily say (and even believe) the exact opposite seconds later if it suited them. And their audiences may at some level understand this. It's not really about what is being said, it's about the way it affirms the coalition and its alignment with truth and goodness. There is perhaps room for genuine teaching - but I'm not sure what it would take to dig out of where we are today. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/11/25/u-s-public-views-on-climate-and-energy/ https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/11/25/u-s-public-vi...
      - mistermann 4y ago
        > I guess it depends on your definition of "taught". Indeed - there are the labels we apply to things, and then there is what lies underneath. And then there is the question of whether we form a distinction between the two (or, the degree to which we [are able to] form a distinction, and whether this is a constant or varies under different conditions, and the degree to which and ways in which it varies, etc). > I do think that some large percentage of the population, probably at least 30%, have received the hoax message repeatedly from popular conservative sources such as Fox News, Donald Trump's former Twitter account, and the TV show Tucker Carlson Tonight. > Now, I tend to think that all these sources don't care in the slightest whether what they're saying is true, and would happily say (and even believe) the exact opposite seconds later if it suited them. 1. Do you believe that it is only conservative sources and conservative people who can be objectively observed engaging in this behavior: a) on a relative scale? b) on an absolute scale? 2. Same question, but replace "believe" with "think it is necessarily and comprehensively true (in a formal, Justified True Belief sense)".
o_1 4y ago
Doomsday fear tactics doesn't move the needle. It's bad messaging and no one will ever fill fulfilled by following it. Change the message you might get more action.