Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 125 posts

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

#81

Post by MR4D »

megaremote wrote: post #75
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.

> Easy solution. Prices go up, people get more money.

Uh,it doesn’t work that way. If it did, Zimbabwe would rule the planet with their hyperinflation that your line of thinking created for them.

The missing piece - the money has to come from SOMEWHERE. Look in your wallet - where is that going to come from? I know in my wallet, I’m going to have to cut back on something - probably eating out. So now the restaurants near my house are going to have less business. Some of them will probably cut back on the hours of the waiters, or even let them go. Unemployment goes up. Etc.

These things have to be done over longer time horizons. People do not adapt well to dramatic short-term changes. If they did, then 2008 would have been just another year, instead of tagged with “global financial crisis”.

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

#82

Post by MR4D »

mikeash wrote: post #49
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…

We are already paying those higher prices. We’re just paying a lot of it in economically inefficient ways, though damage to the ecosystem and to people’s health. Getting people to pay for them with money would be better.

I agree, but the timescale has to be over decades. People don’t adjust that quickly.

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

#83

Post by briandear »

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…

[flagged]

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

#84

Post by briandear »

millstone wrote: post #78
cavisne wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 disengage…

It’s partisan bullshit when you don’t agree with the opposition. However, I prefer to say it’s “principled opposition.” We on the right don’t accept the premise that the sky is falling. We’ve been told by politicians that the earth has 12 years left if we “don’t act now!” However, we heard that 12 years ago. And 12 years before that. We are constantly being warned that we must act now. Just about 12 years ago Al Gore’s movie said that we would be suffering a massive catastrophe by now. Interestingly, his film used approximately 12 years as the timeline for how long Earth had before catastrophe struck.

This whole movement is starting to seem like a religion, except heretics are no longer burned at the stake, lest an unnecessary amount of carbon be released.

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

#86

Post by AnthonyMouse »

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

I don't understand where you're getting that they're regressive. The poor don't have big mansions, they have little studio apartments which take less fuel to heat. They don't drive big SUVs with a single passenger, they take the bus or the subway. They don't travel by air or own stock in oil companies.

But they get the same tax credit as anyone else, so they pay less than average while receiving the same amount. That's not regressive at all, it's a net transfer to the poor.

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

#87

Post by hanniabu »

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…

What I was saying was that there's a lot of research and prototypes already available for battery tech and they just need funding to put into production. The batteries are the last mile to clean energy for evening out the supply. Is a problem that's 90% solved and will make clean energy wholly viable. The issue isn't the tech, it's the commitment to admitting we're in a bad spot as a civilization and actually doing something about it rather than half hearted handwavy attempts to keep dirty energy in business as long as possible.

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

#88

Post by tonyedgecombe »

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #10
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…

> People can't switch from fossil-dependent careers to renewable-dependent careers in a week, or even a year. Or ever, perhaps. I can no longer remember where, but I recently read an article about a backlash by California Democrats against Green New Deal-type ideas. What stood out was someone saying that the idea of retraining workers for other types of jobs was offensive. If people in the oil and gas industry liked…

If we were to start sequestering CO2 then it seems to me the people in the oil and gas industry have both the skills and scale to do that.

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

#89

Post by tonyedgecombe »

greglindahl wrote: post #35
steve_adams_86 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a tough thing. Imagine someone was telling you that you had to change your career because people decided it's no good. What will you do? Put your life on hold and go retrain for something you never intended to train for? Possibly (probably) earn less? Potentially need to move for work? It's complicated. I think it needs to happen. The US and Canada both spend major subsidies on oil and gas, and that money woul…

It’s already happened for almost everyone employed mining coal, because of automation. No climate change needed.

The UK had a million people working in the coal industry at the start of the last century, it’s effectively zero now.

However it was painful for many of the communities that depended on it, you could argue some have never recovered.

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

#90

Post by tonyedgecombe »

MR4D wrote: post #82
mikeash wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are already paying those higher prices. We’re just paying a lot of it in economically inefficient ways, though damage to the ecosystem and to people’s health. Getting people to pay for them with money would be better.

I agree, but the timescale has to be over decades. People don’t adjust that quickly.

We don’t have the time.

Anyway the response to WW2 shows we can adjust quickly to change.

Post reply on HN