3 ms·
It's not that I don't believe but rather I don't see how the proposed solutions address serious economic and international relations problems that need to be so
by fwungy 3y ago
It's not that I don't believe but rather I don't see how the proposed solutions address serious economic and international relations problems that need to be solved.
The first is how to compensate oil producers for lost wealth, because if you don't compensate them they'll find ways to keep selling. The second is what to do about the China and India, who are critical to an effective response due to their size and influence but are also under developmental and economic pressures that conflict with serious climate change policies.
That leaves the UN pushing a lot of expensive policies onto the G7 nations, who are all struggling economically, with the hardest part of the plan (above) almost completely unsolved.
The reality is,unfortunately, that the disparate interests are not going to united to fight climate change under UN leadership. This is an intractable problem. In that case the G7 nations should be planning around mitigation and next generation nuclear power rather than fanciful and expensive "green" schemes that will only serve to crush the middle classes of those nations while yielding no relief.
- interstice 3y agoIt seems like the solution is not to compensate oil producers but to outcompete them. As long as the price of batteries and solar etc keep dropping there is a chance, but if we reach monopoly before it gets cheap enough it’s probably not going to work.
- fwungy 3y agoInvest in next gen nuclear -> cheap electricity -> improves the economics of electric power -> market forces drive electric transitions instead of policy dictates.