HaukeHi

8 ms·

31.
The climate change policy with the most potential is the most neglected(vox.com)
3 points by HaukeHi 7y ago|0 comments
32.
by HaukeHi 7y ago
Brits' environmental footprints are less than 3% of the global total—and declining. Three percent is the upper bound of how much the UK can reduce emissions itself. Reducing 90% of UK emissions by 2050 will cost roughly $5 trillion. Bu
33.
by HaukeHi 7y ago
I made a spreadsheet here comparing comparing countries climate policies including fossil fuel subsidies: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vTaPmBiFIbPq...
34.
by HaukeHi 7y ago
The importance of fossil fuel subsidy reform is overstated. Burning fossils fuels causes climate change, which has costs estimated to be in the trillions.[133] Some people refer to these negative externalities are “subsidies for fossil fuel
35.
by HaukeHi 7y ago
Meatless Mondays won't cut it. But even if we were to offset our worst carbon excesses—such as intercontinental air-travel and meat—ethical consumerism won't solve the climate crisis. Most other people simply won't offset the
36.
by HaukeHi 7y ago
The point is not to shift responsibility away from advanced economies. They have been responsible for more emissions historically and the carbon footprints of their citizens are much higher.[112] The typical per capita carbon footprint in a
37.
by HaukeHi 7y ago
The causal model is that clean energy R&D causes better low carbon technology/energy, which is what most experts agree with. The reduced price increases demand and adoption, which in turns lowers emissions. How R&D makes carbon
38.
by HaukeHi 7y ago
France has not solved climate change, because French emissions are very small in global terms. Continued reliance on outdated nuclear technology might not have the same crucial global technology spillovers as investments in other clean ener
39.
by HaukeHi 7y ago
The problem of population growth and higher overall populations in emerging economies adopting more energy intensive lifestyles remains. These economies and their citizens are likely to use an enormous amount of cheap energy to grow their e
40.
by HaukeHi 7y ago
You're right. Super-pollutants like methane, tropospheric ozone, black carbon, and hydrofluorocarbon have up to 2,000 times the warming potential of carbon over a 100 year time scale.[264], [265] Advanced economies can investigate good
41.
by HaukeHi 7y ago
Yes, current nuclear technology will not play a big part in preventing climate change because: It’s not infinitely powerful: It only contributes 5% to the world’s energy supply[159] and even in China, where regulation is lax and public oppo
42.
by HaukeHi 7y ago
Of course, that's ultimately it. I was just attempting to explain why this is and why there is a market failure. Because carbon externalities are not fully internalized.
43.
by HaukeHi 7y ago
Yes, countries are not doing enough to reduce their own emission either, but this is precisely the reason why clean energy R&D is such a good climate policy. Making clean energy cheaper also makes decarbonizing more politically palatabl
44.
by HaukeHi 7y ago
Let me know if you have any other questions!
45.
by HaukeHi 7y ago
We think it's very effective to spend more. Consider that, globally, only $22 billion in public funds are spent on clean energy R&D annually—this is only 0.02% of World GDP. For comparison, world energy expenditure was 6% of the Wo
46.
by HaukeHi 7y ago
If you want to do something about climate change—I've just launched crowdfunding campaign to raise $2 million dollar for effective climate policy. It's for the Clean Energy Innovation program at the Information Technology and Inno
47.
by HaukeHi 8y ago
I've started a crowdfunding campaign that aims to tackle the replication crisis: Check out https://www.lets-fund.org We're raising funds for Professor Chris Chambers at Cardiff University. Chambers is a leading propone