4 ms·

Exactly. There's a good chance that climate change efforts are far better targetted at super emitters. We have limited resources and these are relatively low-ha

by bArray 3y ago

Exactly. There's a good chance that climate change efforts are far better targetted at super emitters. We have limited resources and these are relatively low-hanging fruit.

oezi 3y ago
> We have limited resources I am always wondering why we constrain ourself in the case of fighting climate change. Yes, all spending will at some point have to be accounted for, but it is relatively easy for governments to borrow money if the political will exists. To reduce global CO2 emissions to zero the estimates are in the range of 100-200% of global GDP. This seems to be an amount of money that could easily be raised as debt or created via monetary policy. What is holding back such an investment?
- bArray 3y ago
  > Yes, all spending will at some point have to be accounted for, but it is relatively easy for governments to borrow money if the political will exists. I think the next few years will show you why unchecked borrowing is a bad thing. Ultimately, the people who lose their homes pay for it. > To reduce global CO2 emissions to zero the estimates are in the range of 100-200% of global GDP. This seems to be an amount of money that could easily be raised as debt or created via monetary policy. What is holding back such an investment? Where are those numbers coming from? So far we have invested a significant amount and not seen anywhere close to those returns on investment. Not only this, but in what Universe is 200% global GDP sustainable? > This seems to be an amount of money that could easily be raised as debt or created via monetary policy. Ultimately, somebody always foots the bill - and it's normally the poorest people who lose the most. What you're asking for is for these people to suffer. I don't consider this an acceptable trade.
- rich_sasha 3y ago
  I think the "easily" is the discordant bit. Typical developed country debt/GDP ratio is around 50-100%. So same order of magnitude as the green transition, but still, add 100-200% to it and you tripl your debt or so. That's non trivial in a world where increasing the debt by 5% in a year is seen as a lot.
- AbrahamParangi 3y ago
  I think the model of “we could fix this if we just tried harder and sacrificed more” is actually a pretty bad model for engaging with problems that don’t have a known, acceptable solution (so we’re ignoring garbage solutions to global warming like, prevent Africa from industrializing). And I don’t mean that it isn’t true that we could try harder, I just mean that sometimes “trying harder” seems to make the problem worse rather than better. I can think of a few problems like this: - homelessness - cost of college - healthcare - housing I’m not sure if the critical factor is that the issues are morally charged and so encourage effort-heavy policies or if it’s because “trying harder” is really a supply-side subsidy, meaning money for healthcare providers or colleges or landlords. In practice at least it seems that supply side subsidies without cost controls are essentially useless, as the cost of the subsidized good rises to match the subsidy.
  - xp84 3y ago
    > supply side subsidies without cost controls are essentially useless, as the cost of the subsidized good rises to match the subsidy. For a beautiful case study in this, in 2007 or so when they were turning off analog TV the US government allowed each household two vouchers worth up to $40 to buy a converter box, (provided the box did not offer a digital output). (Not) shockingly, not until these vouchers expired did any boxes come on the market priced under $40, even though they were not complex or expensive in cost.

by bArray 3y ago

Exactly. There's a good chance that climate change efforts are far better targetted at super emitters. We have limited resources and these are relatively low-hanging fruit.

oezi 3y ago

> We have limited resources I am always wondering why we constrain ourself in the case of fighting climate change. Yes, all spending will at some point have to be accounted for, but it is relatively easy for governments to borrow money if the political will exists. To reduce global CO2 emissions to zero the estimates are in the range of 100-200% of global GDP. This seems to be an amount of money that could easily be raised as debt or created via monetary policy. What is holding back such an investment?

bArray 3y ago
> Yes, all spending will at some point have to be accounted for, but it is relatively easy for governments to borrow money if the political will exists. I think the next few years will show you why unchecked borrowing is a bad thing. Ultimately, the people who lose their homes pay for it. > To reduce global CO2 emissions to zero the estimates are in the range of 100-200% of global GDP. This seems to be an amount of money that could easily be raised as debt or created via monetary policy. What is holding back such an investment? Where are those numbers coming from? So far we have invested a significant amount and not seen anywhere close to those returns on investment. Not only this, but in what Universe is 200% global GDP sustainable? > This seems to be an amount of money that could easily be raised as debt or created via monetary policy. Ultimately, somebody always foots the bill - and it's normally the poorest people who lose the most. What you're asking for is for these people to suffer. I don't consider this an acceptable trade.
rich_sasha 3y ago
I think the "easily" is the discordant bit. Typical developed country debt/GDP ratio is around 50-100%. So same order of magnitude as the green transition, but still, add 100-200% to it and you tripl your debt or so. That's non trivial in a world where increasing the debt by 5% in a year is seen as a lot.
AbrahamParangi 3y ago
I think the model of “we could fix this if we just tried harder and sacrificed more” is actually a pretty bad model for engaging with problems that don’t have a known, acceptable solution (so we’re ignoring garbage solutions to global warming like, prevent Africa from industrializing). And I don’t mean that it isn’t true that we could try harder, I just mean that sometimes “trying harder” seems to make the problem worse rather than better. I can think of a few problems like this: - homelessness - cost of college - healthcare - housing I’m not sure if the critical factor is that the issues are morally charged and so encourage effort-heavy policies or if it’s because “trying harder” is really a supply-side subsidy, meaning money for healthcare providers or colleges or landlords. In practice at least it seems that supply side subsidies without cost controls are essentially useless, as the cost of the subsidized good rises to match the subsidy.
- xp84 3y ago
  > supply side subsidies without cost controls are essentially useless, as the cost of the subsidized good rises to match the subsidy. For a beautiful case study in this, in 2007 or so when they were turning off analog TV the US government allowed each household two vouchers worth up to $40 to buy a converter box, (provided the box did not offer a digital output). (Not) shockingly, not until these vouchers expired did any boxes come on the market priced under $40, even though they were not complex or expensive in cost.