I would go further and lower the voting age to 16 and not let anybody over 60 vote. Call it undemocratic, call it a violation of rights but theyre not going to be here when shit hits the fan and they're going to vote accordingly and in doing so they will prevent anybody under 18 from making it to their age on a planet that anywhere near resembles the one they have devoured. That's an even more egregious violation of rights but nobody talks about it because there can be no accountability. Like putting a bag a flaming shit on somebody's doorstep and then running. Rather keep the shit where it is now then step in it later, thank you.
A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US
101–110 of 125 posts
Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 s…
Again, how am I conveying that I'm only pointing out problems? I literally ended my OP with a scenario of how I'd go about it with a diversified energy and research portfolio. At this point I feel like others are putting words in my mouth and ignoring 90% of my statements. It is very hard to have discussions where people are arguing with points I agree (or mostly agree) with.
As to the mostly agree part, yes, 90% there. But that last 10% is hard. And the other part is that we don't just need to be carbon neutral, we need to be carbon negative. It also needs to become cheap enough that other countries can implement these technologies. On these two points I wouldn't say we're 90% there, but maybe 60%.
Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uh... it's already economically rational... It's called a "negative externality" and the economic consensus is that the correct way to make a market efficiently operate is by applying a tax on those who generate "negative externalities" (i.e. damage the world around them) that can offset the damage. This is very basic and undisputed economics, so I'm not sure why you're waiving that phrase around.
A tax would have to be enforced globally to be effective. Are you advocating for an International tax collector? To add to that, you could be the arbiter of “negative externalities” since you have such a good handle on theoretical economics. You could then use your authority to tax and save the world. Just want to say I’m very thankful you are here to share your intelligence via undisputed and very basic facts. I did…
Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
Separate thought related to this-- I've personally made the following investments to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide I'm directly emitting -- and these are the sorts of things we'll need millions of people to do in the coming years: * 6kw of solar panels (no A/C): $22,000 * Powerwall batteries to power house when not sunny: $18,000 * Whole house insulation as part of remodel: $15,000 * Conversion of all kitchen a…
I wonder how much carbon was emitted from all your investments.
Short term thinking
Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US
#105Change the word "plan" with "dream" and the article looks a lot less like a one-sided editorial. Articles like this start off from the angle of "we should do this" and in my opinion that's a BS way to frame a news story. Fossil fuels, especially natgas, serve a very specific function and the idea of putting the US at a disadvantage just so we can pat ourselves on the back as the rest of the world beats us in energy i…
The rest of the world is already beating us on energy. We are winning a game that is already over. We can keep patting ourselves on the back for generating and using so many fossil fuels so very well, or we can admit that a new game has started and get our asses on the field to compete.
>The rest of the world is already beating us on energy.
[citation needed]
We literally usurped control from OPEC thanks to fracking technology, which almost no one else in the world is using.
EDIT: And let's mention our LNG exports while we're at it: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_move_expc_s1_a.htm
I know HN is a mature forum where insults aren't conductive to discussion, but pull your head out of your ass.
Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US
#106Earlier 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 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…
They also can't just move out of cold climates and buy high-efficiency windows whenever they like. And many of them live in rural places where they do drive inefficient vehicles and have almost no public transportation.
Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
Making a million CDs involved building entire new factories to meet demand. Making a lot more electric vehicles could reuse a lot more existing factories (and/or recently shuttered factories) if demand shifted enough away from internal combustion to retool a lot of existing lines in place. The difference between an EV and an ICE car on the factory floor are fewer than between a cassette tape and CD. Whether or not, s…
The real issue here is that there is a natural market replacement rate. You sell a million cars a year even though there are 25 million of your cars on the road. That means it will take 25 years to replace all of the cars even if you switch 100% to the new type. If you want to replace them all in 15 years then you would have to sell below cost in order to induce more than the typical amount of demand for new cars. So…
I think that's part of what I was getting it: that precisely because it would be a useful challenge for our somewhat complacent heavy industries, it may be something useful to force their hands, because they probably aren't likely to do it until it is too late unless forced. Because it would be a challenge isn't a reason not to force it. It's a "Moon shot" problem, we can go to the moon this decade, but we need to be forced.
Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
They also can't just move out of cold climates and buy high-efficiency windows whenever they like. And many of them live in rural places where they do drive inefficient vehicles and have almost no public transportation.
> They also can't just move out of cold climates and buy high-efficiency windows whenever they like. And many of them live in rural places where they do drive inefficient vehicles and have almost no public transportation.
Except that they get a big tax credit with which they can buy high-efficiency windows and a more efficient vehicle. Which then saves them even more in the long run because it remains more efficient indefinitely.
Moreover, the argument you're making is that regions that use more carbon will be impacted more by measures to reduce carbon emissions. No kidding. That's true of any solution. But what does that have to do with income level? If anything it's the opposite -- there are more affluent people in cold places like the Northeast and suburbs with poor mass transit, and more poor people in the South and Southwest where it's warmer and commutes are shorter for the poor because real estate costs less so people can live closer to their jobs.
Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US
#109Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
We don’t have the time. Anyway the response to WW2 shows we can adjust quickly to change.
Do you mean 20+ million dead and total destruction of several countries? Saying we “adjusted” after that is disingenuous to say the least.
I think your interpretation of what I said is disingenuous.