5 ms·

Yes, but that shouldn't prevent us from implementing it where we can first.

throwawaylinux 4y ago
If regulations make cleaner and more advanced industries less competitive, pushing production to cheaper places with less regulation and higher emissions intensity of production, then that could actually increase CO2 output.
rootusrootus 4y ago
Perhaps it should not, but it will. Who is going to accept heavy regulation when their competition is not so encumbered?
- reillyse 4y ago
  Lots of countries do this. It just takes leadership.
  - Alupis 4y ago
    This sounds great and all, but there is no evidence thus far to indicate any of the nations that actually matter for climate emissions care one bit about your nation's leadership.
    - reillyse 4y ago
      I'm not sure what nation you are referring to. I was also not proposing my nation was the leader so I'm confused. I would say the the US is one of the largest polluters on the planet and leadership in the US would change world wide pollution levels. Leadership is just that, leading. It's very easy for other countries to just point at the US and say "they don't practice what they preach, why should we do anything". And they are right. Why should they do shit when the richest country in the world isn't interested in changing their behavior.
      - Alupis 4y ago
        > I would say the the US is one of the largest polluters on the planet and leadership in the US would change world wide pollution levels You might be surprised if you look into this a bit. On a Per Capita basis, the US is barely in the top 10. Regardless, developing nations are not burning coal and petroleum because they hate the environment... they need cheap energy production - which is currently a failure of the green energy movement (ie. there is nothing cheap about it, it's a luxury at the moment).
Alupis 4y ago
Not if all your efforts are wasted because other nations won't follow in-step or do not care. This isn't grade school were trying your hardest gets you an 'A' for the day... in reality trying your hardest and failing is still failure. The US could do all the magical things and net zero emissions next year and it won't matter one bit. That's just reality... without a globally concerted effort, it's all just waste. But I realize there is a non-trivial amount of folks that believe doing something, anything is better than nothing - even if it is not logical and has no beneficial outcome. Perhaps we should put those energies into productive means of solving the problem instead of emotionally "feel-good" solutions. Why does developing countries use dirty energy production? What can we do to make it cheaper to use renewables instead? Can we make biodegradable plastics more attractive than traditional plastics? That's just scratching the surface...
- stetrain 4y ago
  Well if the options are: 1) Try to improve what we can and hope others follow. Outcomes are either a global improvement in emissions or significant adverse climate effects. 2) Don't do that. Outcome is significant adverse climate effects. What's the argument for choosing 2)? Okay we might be at an economic advantage for 20, maybe 50 years? But then what? PS: I agree with your last statement. But I don't see how reducing excess methane emissions prevents us from pursuing those solutions as well. Nor would I categorize that as an emotional "feel-good" solution.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
  Of course it would matter. Just because it's not a solution doesn't mean it wouldn't give the rest of the world more time to follow suit. It's really scary to me how common this kind of false dichotomous thinking has become. It's everywhere, in politics especially.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  Nirvana fallacy. Your efforts aren't wasted if others don't follow suit. A partial solution is better than no solution. At the least you're buying the world a few extra years to figure it out. Also, being the leader makes it easier for other countries to follow suit. Every country has a large bloc of cynical reactionaries within their borders pointing their fingers and saying "why would we do anything if other countries aren't?". If you do things first, you disarm that narrative that's going on in other countries, which makes it easier for their progressives to get change done locally.

If regulations make cleaner and more advanced industries less competitive, pushing production to cheaper places with less regulation and higher emissions intensity of production, then that could actually increase CO2 output.

rootusrootus 4y ago

Perhaps it should not, but it will. Who is going to accept heavy regulation when their competition is not so encumbered?

reillyse 4y ago
Lots of countries do this. It just takes leadership.
- Alupis 4y ago
  This sounds great and all, but there is no evidence thus far to indicate any of the nations that actually matter for climate emissions care one bit about your nation's leadership.
  - reillyse 4y ago
    I'm not sure what nation you are referring to. I was also not proposing my nation was the leader so I'm confused. I would say the the US is one of the largest polluters on the planet and leadership in the US would change world wide pollution levels. Leadership is just that, leading. It's very easy for other countries to just point at the US and say "they don't practice what they preach, why should we do anything". And they are right. Why should they do shit when the richest country in the world isn't interested in changing their behavior.
    - Alupis 4y ago
      > I would say the the US is one of the largest polluters on the planet and leadership in the US would change world wide pollution levels You might be surprised if you look into this a bit. On a Per Capita basis, the US is barely in the top 10. Regardless, developing nations are not burning coal and petroleum because they hate the environment... they need cheap energy production - which is currently a failure of the green energy movement (ie. there is nothing cheap about it, it's a luxury at the moment).

Alupis 4y ago

Not if all your efforts are wasted because other nations won't follow in-step or do not care. This isn't grade school were trying your hardest gets you an 'A' for the day... in reality trying your hardest and failing is still failure. The US could do all the magical things and net zero emissions next year and it won't matter one bit. That's just reality... without a globally concerted effort, it's all just waste. But I realize there is a non-trivial amount of folks that believe doing something, anything is better than nothing - even if it is not logical and has no beneficial outcome. Perhaps we should put those energies into productive means of solving the problem instead of emotionally "feel-good" solutions. Why does developing countries use dirty energy production? What can we do to make it cheaper to use renewables instead? Can we make biodegradable plastics more attractive than traditional plastics? That's just scratching the surface...

stetrain 4y ago
Well if the options are: 1) Try to improve what we can and hope others follow. Outcomes are either a global improvement in emissions or significant adverse climate effects. 2) Don't do that. Outcome is significant adverse climate effects. What's the argument for choosing 2)? Okay we might be at an economic advantage for 20, maybe 50 years? But then what? PS: I agree with your last statement. But I don't see how reducing excess methane emissions prevents us from pursuing those solutions as well. Nor would I categorize that as an emotional "feel-good" solution.
mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
Of course it would matter. Just because it's not a solution doesn't mean it wouldn't give the rest of the world more time to follow suit. It's really scary to me how common this kind of false dichotomous thinking has become. It's everywhere, in politics especially.
hackerlight 4y ago
Nirvana fallacy. Your efforts aren't wasted if others don't follow suit. A partial solution is better than no solution. At the least you're buying the world a few extra years to figure it out. Also, being the leader makes it easier for other countries to follow suit. Every country has a large bloc of cynical reactionaries within their borders pointing their fingers and saying "why would we do anything if other countries aren't?". If you do things first, you disarm that narrative that's going on in other countries, which makes it easier for their progressives to get change done locally.