11 ms·
So after the teams pyrolysis step, this is really just carbon dust they're adding to the concrete. I'm all for locking carbon away in solid objects, and this s
by londons_explore 3y ago
So after the teams pyrolysis step, this is really just carbon dust they're adding to the concrete.
I'm all for locking carbon away in solid objects, and this seems like a good way. One might imagine a law that says "all new cement products must be at least 20% carbon by weight, or pay a $1000/ton tax for missing carbon".
That incentivises locking up carbon in structures, in a form unlikely to escape anytime soon, and gives a proportional fee for anyone who doesn't wish to do so (for example, concrete for very specialist purposes).
- aaron695 3y ago[dead]
- ghastmaster 3y agoAn alternative to taxing or fees, is to allow the free market to utilize the capital that would have gone to fees to further advance our understanding and capabilities. The technological advances lost due to onerous fees across industries could be keeping us in a CO2 producing scenario.
- anigbrowl 3y agoWe've tried that approach. It doesn't work because many people are greedy and will redirect capital towards marketing efforts to increase their own profit in the short term.
- Jeff_Brown 3y agoTaxes on pollution are by far the most direct and effective way to motivate the free market to work on the pollution problem. It shouldn't be a collection of ad-hoc taxes and subusidies; it should be a flat carbon tax equal to the global harm that the carbon does, coupled with a market in offsets. Hoping the market will solve this problem without imposing reasons for it to do so is basically how we got here in the first place.
- ghastmaster 3y ago> Hoping the market will solve this problem without imposing reasons for it to do so is basically how we got here in the first place. Humans inherently seek technological advancements. We have been extracting CO2 from the environment from our very beginnings. Cheap energy allows us to do more research and development to escape the carbon dependency. Fees could potentially incentivize the right person at the right time to develop an escape. Depending on that is as much a hope as I have for free market incentives. We're both hoping here.
- mgkimsal 3y ago> is to allow the free market to utilize the capital that would have gone to fees to further advance our understanding and capabilities What was stopping the 'free market' from utilizing that capital to further advance our understanding and capabilities? Before 'onerous fees', how many large-scale polluters were taking some of their profits and investing in researching how to reduce CO2?
- ghastmaster 3y ago>Before 'onerous fees', how many large-scale polluters were taking some of their profits and investing in researching how to reduce CO2? Here is one example: >Patent records reveal oil companies actively pursued research into technologies to cut carbon dioxide emissions that cause climate change from the 1960s – including early versions of the batteries now deployed to power electric cars such as the Tesla. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/20/oil-company-records-exxon-co2-emission-reduction-patents https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/20/oil-company...
- vineyardmike 3y agoFrom the same article: And ExxonMobil funded a disinformation campaigned aimed at discrediting scientists and blocking government efforts to fight climate change for more than 50 years, before publicly disavowing climate denial in 2008. Another quote that ages well: We in the petroleum industry are convinced that by the time a practical electric car can be mass produced and marketed, it will not enjoy any meaningful advantage from an air pollution standpoint,” he told Congress. “Emissions from internal-combustion engines will have long since been controlled.” I don’t think that we should trust companies to act against their best interest just because “capitalism” is a magic word. Why didn’t they spend more profits on research? Why did they lobby against pollution reduction if they’re so advanced? Why did they invent emission reduction technology in 1960, but in 2023 we have a massive pollution problem? The last 60 years could be a thesis to prove your entire premise as flawed. This is proof that they can’t be trusted with their profits, nor their research results.
- 3y ago
- anonymousab 3y ago> The technological advances lost due to onerous fees across industries could be keeping us in a CO2 producing scenario This seems quite backwards. If there is no incentive or motivating market stimulus, then there is no reason for any company to invest it research anything outside of what makes them the most money. We already know that these companies will not spend capital in those ways, because they already did not do so in the time periods before the associated taxes and fees existed. And to do so without be dereliction of what their shareholders expected and wanted them to do.
- ghastmaster 3y ago>If there is no incentive or motivating market stimulus Is the depletion of oil and gas reserves not enough incentive? They will not last forever. In the grand scheme of things it is a small amount of time before we have to convert to nuclear, solar, hydro, and wind or start burning trees en masse again. As the resources are depleted, the price will go up due to limited supply. That price increase will spur R&D.
- svachalek 3y agoAbsolutely not. We've got at least 50 years before that's an issue. 200 quarterly reports.
- hackerlight 3y ago> Is the depletion of oil and gas reserves not enough incentive? No, because the problems that face a commons do not create an incentive for the individual. You need to learn this concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
- ghastmaster 3y agoTragedy of the commons is precisely what I have used to argue that prices will go up because the resources are being depleted. In this case, oil/gas is being over harvested by the individual. However, other energy sources are relatively infinite. Oil/gas happens to be cheap right now, but in the future it will not be. As the price rises, there becomes a greater incentive to seek other sources.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- shrubble 3y agoThe greedy oxygen thieves at the UN are only asking for $75/ton...
- rpmisms 3y agoShould be a tax break per percentage of carbon up to the safe limit. Same with corporate taxes. Corporations should receive a progressive tax break for their lowest-paid employee's salary. The higher the lower the tax.
- spoonjim 3y ago“Here we have the newly installed Destructoid 3000, you put panda bears in this end and it burns them up and mixes the ash into the concrete.”
- jeffbee 3y agoWow $1000/ton instead of 20% carbon? Are you also proposing a $160/gallon fuel tax?
- empath-nirvana 3y agoThere's a very strong climate argument for taxing fossil fuels at rates that make it not economically viable to use for nearly anything.
- onthecanposting 3y ago[flagged]
- 3pt14159 3y agoJust imagine he said "say" or "for example" and see how it reads to you. This is internet work, not serious business.
- jeffbee 3y agoI don’t think you can wave off orders of magnitude with either of those clauses.
- anigbrowl 3y agoGP just pulled a number out of the air. You could have just said it was disproportionate to the actual cost of concrete rather than reacting emotionally. I was surprised to learn concrete is only $130/ton, I thought it would be a lot more.
- jeffbee 3y agoIt doesn't really have anything to do with the price of concrete, though. It has to do with the price of carbon. If valuing carbon captured in concrete at $5000 per ton, the equivalent emissions tax on burning carbon is absurdly high.
- karaterobot 3y ago
- calmdownpeople 3y agoIsn't the carbon already locked away in the coffee grounds? Why spend energy and hence more CO2 emissions on charring the grounds?
- mrguyorama 3y agoBecause coffee grounds would actually make terrible aggregate, as complex organic and formerly alive compounds, there's a lot of potential for weird chemical breakdown that could harm the concrete or anything else in the concrete. Char is pretty chemically stable, because carbon is very chemically stable.
- Eldt 3y agoWhere are the grounds going to be stored?
- tedivm 3y agoThe coffee grounds are biodegradable, and that process causes CO2 and methane to be released.
- soperj 3y agoJust to clarify, methane is only released if it biodegraded by anaerobic bacteria, if it's biodegraded by aerobic bacteria it only produces CO2.
- jayd16 3y agoWe could carbonize the biomass then cram it in a landfill and... wait that's just reburying charcoal.
- thfuran 3y agoMy vote is for sequestering carbon as an ever-growing mountain range of diamonds.
- CoastalCoder 3y agoCould such a fee create perverse incentives, like in the anecdotal India cobra effect [0]. E.g., to avoid the $1000/ton missing-carbon tax, use a manufacturing technique that only adds $500/ton to the cost of concrete, but also generates far more atmospheric CO2 in the process. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive
- LordDragonfang 3y agoI mean, in a sane world this would be accompanied by a tax on emitting atmospheric CO2 as well. Though I suppose it would make more sense to just allow the amount of sequestered carbon as a write-off against the CO2 tax; no need to set a specific target like "20%".
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- BizarroLand 3y agoWhen a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure -Goodharts law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law
- blueblisters 3y agoNitpick but how would that be a perverse incentive? That would just be an unintended consequence.
- standyro 3y agoSounds like the same thing to me. Incentivizing something that is unintended.
- InitialLastName 3y agoA perverse incentive (like what our ancestor is correctly noting) involves incentivizing something that is antithetical to the goal (not just a side effect). In this case, a policy whose goal is "reduce carbon in the atmosphere" leads to an outcome of "increase carbon in the atmosphere". An unintended effect could just be "makes all the buildings weaker" or "bridges smell like coffee".