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

We need to take CO2 out of the sky – an overview of climate tech

orbuch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 267 posts

Re: We need to take CO2 out of the sky – an overview of climate tech

#161

Post by emiliobumachar »

Super_Jambo wrote: post #146
philbarr wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would this "circular sustainable economy" work? People tend to think of there being only two versions of the economy available - the government tells us what stuff to make, or free markets determine what we make. We would need a way of incentivising re-use, and of incentivising companies to make things re-usable. Currently the only way to make more money is to make and sell more stuff.

Switch the limited liability companies from their current blacklist based regulation to whitelisting allowed behaviour. Focus this entirely on creating highly competitive markets & fostering innovation in technology, logistics and production. Markets should be full of small companies making a specific product or service as efficiently as possible. Comparison of different products should be simple, pricing should be t…

> Comparison of different products should be simple

Could you elaborate on this bit please? Do we regulate away all but one way to differentiate a product? How do we decide which one?

Re: We need to take CO2 out of the sky – an overview of climate tech

#162

Post by philbarr »

edanm wrote: post #151
philbarr wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would this "circular sustainable economy" work? People tend to think of there being only two versions of the economy available - the government tells us what stuff to make, or free markets determine what we make. We would need a way of incentivising re-use, and of incentivising companies to make things re-usable. Currently the only way to make more money is to make and sell more stuff.

> People tend to think of there being only two versions of the economy available - the government tells us what stuff to make, or free markets determine what we make. Then people are wrong. Almost no economy is purely one of the other - even the most "free market" economies have lots of government regulation, government spending makes up huge parts of their economy, etc. > We would need a way of incentivising re-use,…

The OP implied there was a third way. I didn't mean only one way or another.

Re: We need to take CO2 out of the sky – an overview of climate tech

#163

Post by bambax »

threeseed wrote: post #45
privateSFacct wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It only has to do it cheaply now because there is NO COST to putting CO2 into the air. Why are people surprised that if something is free (pumping CO2 into air) demand for it is high? You are telling me that doing a charge of let's say $10 - $100/ton of CO2 wouldn't have a DRAMATIC impact on emissions? Is $10 - $100/ton too little for a supposed climate emergency? There is so much funding and lawmaking and finger poi…

You mean a Carbon Tax ? The tax that applies to every single business, every single product, every single process, everything. The one that causes every single vested interest to come out of the woodwork and join together to make it politically toxic. We tried this in Australia. It has killed every government that even dared to discuss it. And politically it is utterly impossible to defend e.g. "Carbon tax that raise…

Yes, people don't want any solution that would result in the slightest inconvenience in the present. So we'll have the end of civilization instead.

We need to think past that point: how will the world look like once civilization has collapsed? What will still exist? What will not?

Re: We need to take CO2 out of the sky – an overview of climate tech

#165

Post by nathias »

acd wrote: post #120

We need to stop consuming like there is no tomorrow. This is driven by advertisement convincing consumers they should buy products they may not need. Secondly we need to make products which lasts a life time. I see root cause that we need to remodel the economy from market economy consumerism to a circular sustainable economy. Most current economists is saying expand expand expand, but that increases co2 levels due t…

this is not a desirable option, the result would be a civilization collapse (which will also be the result if we fail to find a sustainable solution)

Re: We need to take CO2 out of the sky – an overview of climate tech

#166

Post by ComputerGuru »

lopmotr wrote: post #149
akie wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need to treat climate change like the existential crisis that it is, and start spending like we're at war. If we can drop 2000 billion dollars on war in Iraq, why can we not do the same for something actually worthwhile like ensuring that our children and grandchildren inherit a livable planet?

It's not an existential crisis. That's not what the science says. There's no evidence that climate change will make humans extinct or end civilization. If that's not what you mean by existential crisis, then don't use that word because that's what it means.

There’s plenty of evidence that a whole lot of other plants and animals will cease to exist, though.

Re: We need to take CO2 out of the sky – an overview of climate tech

#167

Post by KptMarchewa »

sampo wrote: post #148
lukifer wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the secret. The average citizen would actually come out ahead financially, making it a progressive tax, as opposed to the de-facto regressive taxes that have received popular opposition in other attempts. "The Largest Public Statement of Economists in History": https://clcouncil.org/economists-statement/

> The average citizen would actually come out ahead financially For a while. But if the carbon tax works and society switches to clean energy, then there is no more emissions and no more dividends pay to the citizens.

Goal achieved.

Re: We need to take CO2 out of the sky – an overview of climate tech

#169

Post by OJFord »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #135
lm28469 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We would need a way of incentivising re-use, and of incentivising companies to make things re-usable. That's what happened pre 50s. My mother still uses the sewing machine my grandma was using and it was made in my country, not in buttfuck nowhere SE asia. As it turns out making long lasting products isn't the most profitable thing so we shifted to producing to the least reliable standards people would still accept

People shifted to buying the cheapest products available.

No, far cheaper products became available.
Post reply on HN