6 ms·

I work in the industry [0]. The decarbonization game is extremely tricky. This whole notion of "were they going to do it anyway", how the heck do you build tha

by tito 3y ago

I work in the industry [0]. The decarbonization game is extremely tricky. This whole notion of "were they going to do it anyway", how the heck do you build that in. And how the heck does demand happen, who wants to pay for invisible, mostly useless gas? The key question at the root of this is this: do we need to win the decarbonization game? Or can we just set down the game and walk away? To me it looks like we need to win the decarbonization game to maintain a stable climate. So then all these attempts, failures, and mind bending problems all become challenges to overcome. Not "if", but "how". The prize is a stable climate, a thriving civilization, and the specific players that beat the game probably get trillions of dollars of prize money. [0] https://airminers.org https://airminers.org

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> Not "if", but "how". Sure, but "how" could be to abandon the concept of credits whatsoever and institute a carbon tax.
- tito 3y ago
  First off, yes, agree, fixed problem, open on solution, "how" could be anything, including doing a funny dance that inspires every person on the planet to just stop emitting so much. Hmm, say more about this. I said this to another commenter, I'm pretty sure all a carbon tax does is solve for the "demand" side of the equation. Fundamentally you would still need an accounting system for carbon, thus carbon credits of different sorts. Or am I missing something?
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    With a carbon tax there is nothing to exchange with other people. If you buy gasoline or coal, you pay a tax and the money is evenly distributed to everyone. People who have existing coal-fired power plants don't get free credits to allow them to sustain their operations, they just pay the tax and then become uncompetitive with non-carbon generation methods. So they go out of business as fast as alternative generation methods can be constructed. In the meantime ordinary people have the refund to compensate for the temporarily higher price of electricity.
    - tito 3y ago
      Oh I get it. You tax emissions with no way to lower the tax besides lowering emissions. That means there's an underlying accounting for carbon, but like you said there's not something like market or exchange. So in this model air travel for example would 2x in price, but 1x of that would go towards the carbon tax which is then redistributed to everyone. Sounds interesting, are there any particular strengths or weaknesses to this model?
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        The strengths are that it's simple, hard to game, and doesn't harm ordinary people because the average person gets a refund of 100% of the money. (It's also somewhat progressive because people with more money tend to emit more carbon and so pay more tax, but only get the same refund.) The main "weakness" is that it imposes significant costs on existing fossil fuel operations. Oil and coal companies would lose billions of dollars in value because they would both have to pay the tax and experience a surge in new competition from alternatives that can now underprice them. I don't regard this as a problem -- the writing has been on the wall for a long time now and if you've invested in these industries you could have predicted this was coming -- but it is an inconvenience because it causes those industries to lobby against it aggressively, which makes it harder to enact. (But the same will be true of anything with near-term effectiveness, because the whole point is to put them out of business.)
        cogman10 3y ago
        The other weakness is you can game it with international trade. Produce a good in a country without the carbon tax, repackage it in a country that doesn't keep good origin manifests, lie about doing that, then send it to your destination on a solar powered boat (or whatever has the lowest carbon footprint). We see the same game being played with slavery and child labor. Pick a favorite brand, add "slavery" and you'll find decades of shocked outrage and "commitment to do better" Mind you, I still support broad carbon taxes. But this is a predictable outcome. https://www.discoursemagazine.com/economics/2022/01/05/the-china-challenge-the-stain-of-forced-labor-on-nike-shoes/ https://www.discoursemagazine.com/economics/2022/01/05/the-c...
PakG1 3y ago
GP was speaking about the problems with carbon offsets today. You're talking about the need to decarbonize without acknowledging or addressing the points that GP made. Most are not stupid enough to say that we should set down "the game" of decarbonization and walk away. Many intelligent people are saying that carbon credits don't seem to be working to date as part of "the game". Rather than point out the obvious of how important carbon decarbonization is, it would be better to discuss what GP gets wrong about carbon credits or offer an alternative solution. "Man, my weight and health are difficult to manage, there are all these challenges I find difficult to handle, many of which aren't even directly related to nutrition or physical activity." "Having a physically healthy body is important, you should take your nutrition and exercise seriously." "Thanks a lot for the advice?"
- tito 3y ago
  In your analogy, yes, I'm the person that sees nutrition as exercise as the only levers, and so then my alternative solution is "well we need to get it right then". Open to other ideas for levers too.
  - PakG1 3y ago
    You have completely missed my point and I am not sure how to get you to see it. My point is that you did not respond to what someone has said, you ignored it and went on your own tangent. And you did it again.
    - tito 3y ago
      Got it, I missed your point and still haven't got it. I appreciate that you took the time to respond.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
asu_thomas 3y ago
> To me it looks like we need to win the decarbonization game to maintain a stable climate. Given your salary depends on it, I am hardly surprised.
- tito 3y ago
  Yes there's a potential conflict there. I'm curious to hear from your perspective: 1. Do we need to maintain a stable climate? 2. Do we need to win the decarbonization game to do so? And if not, how else do we maintain a stable climate?
  - asu_thomas 3y ago
    1. Of course. 2. A stable climate is a ridiculously hopeless pipe dream in a world dominated by the capitalist mode of production. The anti climate change industry is a fraud by definition.
    - lmm 3y ago
      > 2. A stable climate is a ridiculously hopeless pipe dream in a world dominated by the capitalist mode of production. The anti climate change industry is a fraud by definition. Ok so what are you claiming here? That preventing climate change is impossible so we should give up and pollute as much as we like without worrying about it? Because if your position is that we can't prevent climate change without overthrowing capitalism, then given the history of the last few centuries of trying to do that, that sounds like what it boils down to.
      - asu_thomas 3y ago
        Capitalism has only been the dominant mode of production for approximately 2 centuries, and people made all the same excuses for feudalism yet here we are.
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        Capitalism has only been the dominant mode of production for approximately 2 centuries but feudalism lasted for ~6, so what if you want to do something about climate change sooner than ~400 years from now? It's also not obvious what you propose to replace it with, because the world has seen communist governments and they do not have a sterling environmental record. "Up to its collapse in 1991, the Soviet Union generated 1.5 times as much pollution per unit of GNP as the United States." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_Russia)

by tito 3y ago

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

> Not "if", but "how". Sure, but "how" could be to abandon the concept of credits whatsoever and institute a carbon tax.

tito 3y ago
First off, yes, agree, fixed problem, open on solution, "how" could be anything, including doing a funny dance that inspires every person on the planet to just stop emitting so much. Hmm, say more about this. I said this to another commenter, I'm pretty sure all a carbon tax does is solve for the "demand" side of the equation. Fundamentally you would still need an accounting system for carbon, thus carbon credits of different sorts. Or am I missing something?
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  With a carbon tax there is nothing to exchange with other people. If you buy gasoline or coal, you pay a tax and the money is evenly distributed to everyone. People who have existing coal-fired power plants don't get free credits to allow them to sustain their operations, they just pay the tax and then become uncompetitive with non-carbon generation methods. So they go out of business as fast as alternative generation methods can be constructed. In the meantime ordinary people have the refund to compensate for the temporarily higher price of electricity.
  - tito 3y ago
    Oh I get it. You tax emissions with no way to lower the tax besides lowering emissions. That means there's an underlying accounting for carbon, but like you said there's not something like market or exchange. So in this model air travel for example would 2x in price, but 1x of that would go towards the carbon tax which is then redistributed to everyone. Sounds interesting, are there any particular strengths or weaknesses to this model?
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      The strengths are that it's simple, hard to game, and doesn't harm ordinary people because the average person gets a refund of 100% of the money. (It's also somewhat progressive because people with more money tend to emit more carbon and so pay more tax, but only get the same refund.) The main "weakness" is that it imposes significant costs on existing fossil fuel operations. Oil and coal companies would lose billions of dollars in value because they would both have to pay the tax and experience a surge in new competition from alternatives that can now underprice them. I don't regard this as a problem -- the writing has been on the wall for a long time now and if you've invested in these industries you could have predicted this was coming -- but it is an inconvenience because it causes those industries to lobby against it aggressively, which makes it harder to enact. (But the same will be true of anything with near-term effectiveness, because the whole point is to put them out of business.)
      - cogman10 3y ago
        The other weakness is you can game it with international trade. Produce a good in a country without the carbon tax, repackage it in a country that doesn't keep good origin manifests, lie about doing that, then send it to your destination on a solar powered boat (or whatever has the lowest carbon footprint). We see the same game being played with slavery and child labor. Pick a favorite brand, add "slavery" and you'll find decades of shocked outrage and "commitment to do better" Mind you, I still support broad carbon taxes. But this is a predictable outcome. https://www.discoursemagazine.com/economics/2022/01/05/the-china-challenge-the-stain-of-forced-labor-on-nike-shoes/ https://www.discoursemagazine.com/economics/2022/01/05/the-c...

PakG1 3y ago

GP was speaking about the problems with carbon offsets today. You're talking about the need to decarbonize without acknowledging or addressing the points that GP made. Most are not stupid enough to say that we should set down "the game" of decarbonization and walk away. Many intelligent people are saying that carbon credits don't seem to be working to date as part of "the game". Rather than point out the obvious of how important carbon decarbonization is, it would be better to discuss what GP gets wrong about carbon credits or offer an alternative solution. "Man, my weight and health are difficult to manage, there are all these challenges I find difficult to handle, many of which aren't even directly related to nutrition or physical activity." "Having a physically healthy body is important, you should take your nutrition and exercise seriously." "Thanks a lot for the advice?"

tito 3y ago
In your analogy, yes, I'm the person that sees nutrition as exercise as the only levers, and so then my alternative solution is "well we need to get it right then". Open to other ideas for levers too.
- PakG1 3y ago
  You have completely missed my point and I am not sure how to get you to see it. My point is that you did not respond to what someone has said, you ignored it and went on your own tangent. And you did it again.
  - tito 3y ago
    Got it, I missed your point and still haven't got it. I appreciate that you took the time to respond.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

asu_thomas 3y ago

> To me it looks like we need to win the decarbonization game to maintain a stable climate. Given your salary depends on it, I am hardly surprised.

tito 3y ago
Yes there's a potential conflict there. I'm curious to hear from your perspective: 1. Do we need to maintain a stable climate? 2. Do we need to win the decarbonization game to do so? And if not, how else do we maintain a stable climate?
- asu_thomas 3y ago
  1. Of course. 2. A stable climate is a ridiculously hopeless pipe dream in a world dominated by the capitalist mode of production. The anti climate change industry is a fraud by definition.
  - lmm 3y ago
    > 2. A stable climate is a ridiculously hopeless pipe dream in a world dominated by the capitalist mode of production. The anti climate change industry is a fraud by definition. Ok so what are you claiming here? That preventing climate change is impossible so we should give up and pollute as much as we like without worrying about it? Because if your position is that we can't prevent climate change without overthrowing capitalism, then given the history of the last few centuries of trying to do that, that sounds like what it boils down to.
    - asu_thomas 3y ago
      Capitalism has only been the dominant mode of production for approximately 2 centuries, and people made all the same excuses for feudalism yet here we are.
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        Capitalism has only been the dominant mode of production for approximately 2 centuries but feudalism lasted for ~6, so what if you want to do something about climate change sooner than ~400 years from now? It's also not obvious what you propose to replace it with, because the world has seen communist governments and they do not have a sterling environmental record. "Up to its collapse in 1991, the Soviet Union generated 1.5 times as much pollution per unit of GNP as the United States." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_Russia)