2 ms·

Right, and that CO2 will also impose a cost that we’ll also have to pay for. Higher global temperatures means fewer glaciers. Nearly two billion people in the w

Right, and that CO2 will also impose a cost that we’ll also have to pay for. Higher global temperatures means fewer glaciers. Nearly two billion people in the world depend on glacial run off for their water [1], which a lot of will be gone in a few decades. Rising global temperatures will also mean melting ice and rising sea levels. Low level agricultural areas, such as those in Southeast Asia will, will see the ocean encroach 30-40 kilometers onto productive rice paddies with just a few feet of sea level rise [2]. It might be fine if these people just move, but we’re talking about displacing hundreds of millions to billions. Migrations like those of Syrians moving into Europe will seem small by comparison. I’m not going to mention the retarding economic effects of more stable regions having many more hotter days, or the impacts of more erratic weather due to arctic amplification and a more erratic jet stream. We may have to move or build new equipment someplace else. All of this means that we will have to build a new tower anyways, but we’ll have to do it with less resources, less time, and on a table that’s shaking constantly. Perhaps putting a tax or price on carbon will retard economic advancement, but so will unchecked climate change. The benefit of taxing carbon is that we don’t have governments directing how to decarbonize. Businesses can still innovate to be competitive, we will be pricing in an externality that we’ll just pay for in other ways, at a higher price, later on. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/01/05/glaciers-melt-this-century-warming/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/01/0... [2] https://vlscop.vermontlaw.edu/2019/11/07/sea-level-rise-food-security/ https://vlscop.vermontlaw.edu/2019/11/07/sea-level-rise-food...

marcosdumay 4y ago
If you are concerned about the costs of raising CO2, I would suggest looking first at the places where it can be cut with the smallest investment and smallest economical impact that add to more than 80% of the CO2 emissions, like transportation and electricity generation. The places that require the highest investment, could completely ruin the life of most people, and add up to a single digit percentage of the problem (or less) are better left to research. Carbon taxes would indeed help. More because it will let people do the calculation above than for any other reason. But trying to hijack a discussion about carbon substitution in steel making into a "we must act because the sky is falling" is in very bad taste.

marcosdumay 4y ago

If you are concerned about the costs of raising CO2, I would suggest looking first at the places where it can be cut with the smallest investment and smallest economical impact that add to more than 80% of the CO2 emissions, like transportation and electricity generation. The places that require the highest investment, could completely ruin the life of most people, and add up to a single digit percentage of the problem (or less) are better left to research. Carbon taxes would indeed help. More because it will let people do the calculation above than for any other reason. But trying to hijack a discussion about carbon substitution in steel making into a "we must act because the sky is falling" is in very bad taste.