6 ms·

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'

by 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.
- Alupis 4y ago
  The "problem" countries are not going to start setting up wind farms just because the US can do it. These countries are burning coal for a reason... it's exceedingly cheap. Make something else exceedingly cheap and they will use it. Anything else is just a distraction and made to make you feel good at night while not accomplishing anything significant.
  - hackerlight 4y ago
    Firstly, many poor countries are doing some of that. Look at China. They don't like being covered in smog all the time and the respiratory problems that creates. Secondly, the cost curves are decreasing for a reason. It's because of investment in these technologies by richer countries. The richer countries pave the way by making the technology so cheap that it's irresistible and a better deal to poor countries. The way you make it cheap is by funding the transition yourself. The cost decreases naturally follow as part of R&D. Thirdly, rich countries should subsidize the energy transition of poor countries. They've emitted much more than poor countries per capita since the Industrial Revolution, so a de-facto retroactive carbon tax to fund poor countries' transition on an expedited timeline is only fair.
    - Alupis 4y ago
      > Firstly, many poor countries are doing some of that. Look at China. China is far from a poor country... by some measurements they outpace even the US. > Secondly, the cost curves are decreasing for a reason This is true - however we also need to recognize the technology is not ready today. It might be tomorrow, but throwing everything out and going full-in on green tech today is foolhardy. Some prominent states in the US already struggle to keep electricity on year round... how on earth can we expect new tech to not only do better but be cheaper in that environment? What chance do developing nations have if the wealthiest nations cannot solve this already? > Thirdly, rich countries should subsidize the energy transition of poor countries I agree on some level. However I do not agree with pushing unproven technology just because it makes us feel good day. That will just burn developing nations and make them less likely to trust us next time we come up with some amazing new solution to all their problems...
xmonkee 4y ago
"The United States accounts for only about five percent of global population, but is responsible for 30 percent of global energy use and 28 percent of carbon emissions." https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/u.s.-leads-in-greenhouse-gas-reductions-but-some-states-are-falling-behind https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/u.s.-leads-in-greenhouse-...
- oceanplexian 4y ago
  And the USA is responsible for something like 25% of the world's GDP. So, the USA is much more efficient at per-capita economic output than the much of the world. You can manipulate statistics to rationalize all kinds of viewpoints.
  - lmm 4y ago
    Um, if you're responsible for 25% of economic production but 28-30% of harmful emissions, that doesn't sound like you're doing particularly well.
  - idiotsecant 4y ago
    That seems like a silly way to look at those numbers. It doesn't matter particularly how much stuff we make if the stuff we make is slowly creating an existential crisis for our species. The argument that 'well other people do it too' is an excellent way to make sure that nobody ever cuts carbon emissions. Someone has to be first, and the richest nation on earth is probably a great place to start.
anonymous_sorry 4y ago
To me the obvious solution seems like it would be to impose targeted tariffs on imports from countries that do not act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, alongside taxes on domestic emissions. Does this happen? What are the difficulties with it?
- Alupis 4y ago
  The countries producing majority of the world's emissions are doing so because they are using the cheapest forms of energy production available - not because they are evil doers or something nefarious. The only way to convince these nations to "go green" is to make green energy cheaper than the alternatives. Tariffing goods from these nations will not have the desired impact - the nation still needs cheap energy production and will not stop just because the US made their goods more expensive for it's own citizens.
  - anonymous_sorry 4y ago
    > The only way to convince these nations to "go green" is to make green energy cheaper than the alternatives. Or make greenhouse gas emissions more expensive. So you set the tariffs proportionnal to the assessed level of greenhouse gas emissions. Set them at a level where governments are incentivised to act to reduce the tariffs.
    - Alupis 4y ago
      The tariffs only hurt your own citizens. The nations that matter for emissions are not going to care about US tariffs...
      - anonymous_sorry 4y ago
        Well, in the same way higher energy costs hurt your own citizens, in the short term. But we need the price of greenhouse gas emissions to include the externalised costs involved, otherwise the market just makes the wrong choices. The measures can be revenue neutral - just reduce other taxes by an equivalent amount. Folks will have more money, and face higher costs, but will be incented to direct their spending to less polluting imports where possible.
llsf 4y ago
I would disagree, in this case, we have a combination of 2 issues: 1. Climate change due to CO2/etc. emissions 2. Fossil fuel (oil/gas/coal) peak Even if we do not care about climate change, as fossil fuel addicts, any decline of fossil fuel production would be catastrophic for the world wide economy. So, in this race to avoid fossil fuel, the sooner you are out of it, the more resilient you will be when pumping oil/gas/coal would be too expensive. Capturing all those methane gas, if not for the climate, but for usage is good for the national security.
titzer 4y ago
So sick of hearing this. It's a leaky ship. You gotta plug all the holes. Arguing about the order is losing time.

by Alupis 4y ago

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.

Alupis 4y ago
The "problem" countries are not going to start setting up wind farms just because the US can do it. These countries are burning coal for a reason... it's exceedingly cheap. Make something else exceedingly cheap and they will use it. Anything else is just a distraction and made to make you feel good at night while not accomplishing anything significant.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  Firstly, many poor countries are doing some of that. Look at China. They don't like being covered in smog all the time and the respiratory problems that creates. Secondly, the cost curves are decreasing for a reason. It's because of investment in these technologies by richer countries. The richer countries pave the way by making the technology so cheap that it's irresistible and a better deal to poor countries. The way you make it cheap is by funding the transition yourself. The cost decreases naturally follow as part of R&D. Thirdly, rich countries should subsidize the energy transition of poor countries. They've emitted much more than poor countries per capita since the Industrial Revolution, so a de-facto retroactive carbon tax to fund poor countries' transition on an expedited timeline is only fair.
  - Alupis 4y ago
    > Firstly, many poor countries are doing some of that. Look at China. China is far from a poor country... by some measurements they outpace even the US. > Secondly, the cost curves are decreasing for a reason This is true - however we also need to recognize the technology is not ready today. It might be tomorrow, but throwing everything out and going full-in on green tech today is foolhardy. Some prominent states in the US already struggle to keep electricity on year round... how on earth can we expect new tech to not only do better but be cheaper in that environment? What chance do developing nations have if the wealthiest nations cannot solve this already? > Thirdly, rich countries should subsidize the energy transition of poor countries I agree on some level. However I do not agree with pushing unproven technology just because it makes us feel good day. That will just burn developing nations and make them less likely to trust us next time we come up with some amazing new solution to all their problems...

xmonkee 4y ago

"The United States accounts for only about five percent of global population, but is responsible for 30 percent of global energy use and 28 percent of carbon emissions." https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/u.s.-leads-in-greenhouse-gas-reductions-but-some-states-are-falling-behind https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/u.s.-leads-in-greenhouse-...

oceanplexian 4y ago
And the USA is responsible for something like 25% of the world's GDP. So, the USA is much more efficient at per-capita economic output than the much of the world. You can manipulate statistics to rationalize all kinds of viewpoints.
- lmm 4y ago
  Um, if you're responsible for 25% of economic production but 28-30% of harmful emissions, that doesn't sound like you're doing particularly well.
- idiotsecant 4y ago
  That seems like a silly way to look at those numbers. It doesn't matter particularly how much stuff we make if the stuff we make is slowly creating an existential crisis for our species. The argument that 'well other people do it too' is an excellent way to make sure that nobody ever cuts carbon emissions. Someone has to be first, and the richest nation on earth is probably a great place to start.

anonymous_sorry 4y ago

To me the obvious solution seems like it would be to impose targeted tariffs on imports from countries that do not act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, alongside taxes on domestic emissions. Does this happen? What are the difficulties with it?

Alupis 4y ago
The countries producing majority of the world's emissions are doing so because they are using the cheapest forms of energy production available - not because they are evil doers or something nefarious. The only way to convince these nations to "go green" is to make green energy cheaper than the alternatives. Tariffing goods from these nations will not have the desired impact - the nation still needs cheap energy production and will not stop just because the US made their goods more expensive for it's own citizens.
- anonymous_sorry 4y ago
  > The only way to convince these nations to "go green" is to make green energy cheaper than the alternatives. Or make greenhouse gas emissions more expensive. So you set the tariffs proportionnal to the assessed level of greenhouse gas emissions. Set them at a level where governments are incentivised to act to reduce the tariffs.
  - Alupis 4y ago
    The tariffs only hurt your own citizens. The nations that matter for emissions are not going to care about US tariffs...
    - anonymous_sorry 4y ago
      Well, in the same way higher energy costs hurt your own citizens, in the short term. But we need the price of greenhouse gas emissions to include the externalised costs involved, otherwise the market just makes the wrong choices. The measures can be revenue neutral - just reduce other taxes by an equivalent amount. Folks will have more money, and face higher costs, but will be incented to direct their spending to less polluting imports where possible.

llsf 4y ago

I would disagree, in this case, we have a combination of 2 issues: 1. Climate change due to CO2/etc. emissions 2. Fossil fuel (oil/gas/coal) peak Even if we do not care about climate change, as fossil fuel addicts, any decline of fossil fuel production would be catastrophic for the world wide economy. So, in this race to avoid fossil fuel, the sooner you are out of it, the more resilient you will be when pumping oil/gas/coal would be too expensive. Capturing all those methane gas, if not for the climate, but for usage is good for the national security.

titzer 4y ago

So sick of hearing this. It's a leaky ship. You gotta plug all the holes. Arguing about the order is losing time.