A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US • Hacker News Board

Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US

#71

Post by cavisne » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 4:04 AM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #66

sxates wrote: post #3

These are all good ideas, but the ferocity of change worries me. And I'm the sort of person who thinks climate change is the single biggest policy issue facing our country (and all the other countries) and and spending big $ personally to reduce my impact. My fear is that we take a big sledgehammer to the fossil fuel industry and infrastructure, and in so doing also take a big sledgehammer to our entire economy. So b…

> My fear is that we take a big sledgehammer to the fossil fuel industry and infrastructure, and in so doing also take a big sledgehammer to our entire economy. So big in fact that we face a generational backlash against de-carbonizing. It still seems like the best solution is a revenue-neutral carbon tax, i.e. a carbon tax which is merely refunded to everyone in the form of a fixed tax credit. Then the average perso…

Revenue neutral carbon taxes are a fantasy, because they are pushed by progressive politicians, yet are deeply regressive in their impact.

Inslee admits this, and simply wants to add a new tax, and refund it selectively to people who he thinks deserve the money/access to electricity, and outlaw the use cases which don't.

Purely coincidentally this is the same effect as making the tax system more progressive, but actually it's all about climate change.

Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US

#72

Post by jwr » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 4:06 AM UTC

fooblitzky wrote: post #41

The UN should apply sanctions to the USA equal to the amount of subsidies they are paying to fossil fuels companies.

I am hoping for something which might have similar effects: that the EU will get its act together first and implement a carbon taxation scheme, imposing tariffs on imports from countries that do not implement a carbon tax.

The US, unfortunately, seems to be in denial of the climate crisis. I wonder if in 30 years we will be putting todays climate deniers in courts (like the Nuremberg trials) for crimes against humanity.

Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US

#73

Post by nichos » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 4:07 AM UTC

fooblitzky wrote: post #41

The UN should apply sanctions to the USA equal to the amount of subsidies they are paying to fossil fuels companies.

The UNs largest source of funding comes from the United States, more than the next 2 countries combined. China is a bigger problem anyway.

Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US

#74

Post by jwr » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 4:07 AM UTC

lacker wrote: post #32

Since the US only accounts for about 15% of global CO2 emission, even if through some political miracle all of this plan came to pass, it wouldn't slow down global warming very much. We need solutions that will actually scale to be adopted by the whole planet. That means we need to make wind and solar cheaper, or possibly figure out how to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Any solution that costs a whole lot of money a…

See, that's the problem, right there: everybody says the same thing. "We are only responsible for a small part, so let's do nothing".

So we do nothing.

Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US

#75

Post by megaremote » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 4:10 AM UTC

MR4D wrote: post #42

There is a reason that candidates likes this are all at the margin - they never consider the second order effects of their ideas. While his goal may be laudable, it would harm way more people than it would help. Let’s look at a couple simple things that getting rid of oil production would impact. (and keep in mind I’m keeping this short because typing on a mobile device sucks) 1 - price of electricity would go up (du…

So everything would go up, but then people would have more money. Or are you suggesting that the extra money gets burnt in a furnace?

Have the carbon tax go to the people. Easy solution. Prices go up, people get more money.

Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US

#76

Post by megaremote » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 4:14 AM UTC

at-fates-hands wrote: post #19

Just saw an episode of American Pickers where they at some guys farm going through all of his 1920's era car collection. There was a little side part where they talked about how common electric cars were in the late 1880's and early 1900's before Henry Ford and the discovery of Texas oil. Made me think about where we could be if we had not made the wholesale switch to gas powered cars and instead focused on building…

Imagine the wonderful world we could be living in if someone had banned personal cars? Instead of roads everywhere we would have parks on instead, places for kids and adults to exist. Instead of urban sprawl we could have had walk able and cyclable cities, with a lot less pollution. Instead of 40,000 dead every year in the US we could have them living. Instead of 100,000s seriously injured, we could close down hospitals. Etc...

Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US

#77

Post by jandrewrogers » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 4:16 AM UTC

tzs wrote: post #23

nostromo wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CO2 has already dropped by nearly 20% in the US over the past decade naturally, as renewables becoming cheaper and buildings, appliances, and manufacturing becomes more efficient. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=38133 This is a secular trend that I imagine will continue regardless of what politicians do. Unfortunately none of the US/EU cuts will matter in the end with the track China is on. https://bl…

Your second chart shows China appears to be leveling off, at a total level that is a little less that twice the total US emissions. Since they have more than 4x the US population, that means they have quite a bit lower per capita emission, which is a more useful metric than total emissions when assessing how well a country is addressing the issue, since the atmosphere doesn't care about arbitrary political boundaries…

China also produces much less per capita for that emission. A better metric is productive output per unit of emissions. The metric that matters isn't the per capita emissions but the amount of value generated relative to emissions.

Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US

#78

Post by millstone » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 4:49 AM UTC

cavisne wrote: post #71

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My fear is that we take a big sledgehammer to the fossil fuel industry and infrastructure, and in so doing also take a big sledgehammer to our entire economy. So big in fact that we face a generational backlash against de-carbonizing. It still seems like the best solution is a revenue-neutral carbon tax, i.e. a carbon tax which is merely refunded to everyone in the form of a fixed tax credit. Then the average perso…

Revenue neutral carbon taxes are a fantasy, because they are pushed by progressive politicians, yet are deeply regressive in their impact. Inslee admits this, and simply wants to add a new tax, and refund it selectively to people who he thinks deserve the money/access to electricity, and outlaw the use cases which don't. Purely coincidentally this is the same effect as making the tax system more progressive, but actu…

Revenue neutral carbon taxes are the most pro-market, libertarian friendly answer thus far to the reality of climate change. They're pushed by progressive politicians only because of the factual urgency of climate change. The USA can limp along with shitty healthcare forever, but irreversible climate damage is irreversible, and we don't have time for the partisan bullshit.

The high order bit is the complete disengagement from the American right on this issue. The carbon-tax-with-dividend is meant to be table stakes. The onus is on the other side to show up to the table at all.

Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US

#79

Post by dang » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 4:50 AM UTC

derp_dee_derp wrote: post #57

crispinb wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's statements like this, which are completely absurd, which are hindering our progress of making meaningful change. Only the degree of certainty of the statement is exaggerated. The content is well within any reasonable scenario-planning approach. Near-term catastrophe may not be the most likely outcome, but on all accounts it is likely enough to be the most genuinely alarming threat we've yet faced. You may not…

> You may not like the tone, but surely you can muster the courage to set aside your personal taste with regard to something so important? You sound exactly like a Jehovah's witness or a Mormon missionary.

Yikes, this and your previous comment are bannable offences on HN. Would you mind reviewing the site guidelines, and sticking to the spirit of this site when posting here? We're hoping for a bit better than internet median: thoughtful, substantive comments, basically.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US

#80

Post by specialist » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 4:51 AM UTC

godelski wrote: post #55

hanniabu wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solutions are out there if we put the money into it. It's that simple. The only thing needed is really battery technology which research had been promising. We put a man on the moon in less than a decade doing all calculations by hand and doing all physical testing. All that's needed is funding and the drive.

> The solutions are out there if we put the money into it. If you're suggesting with putting that money into research and solving the problems then yes, I 100% agree (not sure how this wasn't conveyed in my post. In fact every time I post something like this I'm surprised people still respond this way. What am I doing wrong?). If you're saying with existing technology well... maybe. But I'm assuming the former becaus…

After 40 years of concern trolling (aka FUD), I'm fresh out of goodwill. Any one still not 100% onboard is the rump of the loyal opposition, or serves it, by default or design.

PS- Thread is arguing PV & batteries, problems which wind and direct current will solve. Just assume smart people have already figured this stuff out and you're not in the loop. Remaining obstacles are wholly political.