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

Americans aren't willing to pay to stop climate change

mleverything.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 150 posts

Re: Americans aren't willing to pay to stop climate change

#131

Post by trboyden »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #54
tylerhou wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Evenly distributing the revenue assumes the effect of the negative externality (climate change) is evenly distributed. But climate change tends to harm poorer people more than richer people, so it makes sense to distribute more revenue to them.

Distributing the revenue is not about compensating for harms. It's about ensuring that you don't have a net impact on people who are using the typical amount of energy. The idea is that the tax captures the externalized costs of economic actions, like emitting carbon. Once the cost of the actions is fully priced in, it is reasoned, consumption will decrease to the optimal level given the harm done by consumption. The…

No, redistribution is organized extortion. I make $100, the government takes $50 of it, pockets $30 of that, and then redistributes $20 to those that will keep them in office (A.K.A. a bribe).

Re: Americans aren't willing to pay to stop climate change

#132

Post by trboyden »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #82
jmann99999 wrote: post #8

The problem with this post is that it cites a survey of how much Americans are willing to pay to "stop climate change." According to the article 57% are willing to pay $1 a month to "stop climate change" and 23% would pay $40 a month. As an American, in a well paying IT job, I'd pay $100 IF IT WOULD STOP CLIMATE CHANGE. However, I don't believe the $1, or $40, or $100 is going to do anything. It's far more complex th…

25% of greenhouse cases come from energy generation [1] There's about ~144.3M taxpayers in the US [2]. If each of us paid $1200 per year, that's ~$173Bn per year [3]. Considering that a nuclear reactor only costs $9Bn to build - that's 20 per year [4]. Considering that there are only 60 in the US currently, and that's about 20% of all electricity generation, and that Nuclear isn't the most efficient form of energy ge…

If you truly care about cost, efficiency, and the environment, you should be looking at Natural Gas plants [1]. They are inexpensive at $60 million each, are more efficient [2] than all other power generators, provide more power (which will be needed for EVs), and is cleaner when taking into account the full lifecycle costs (construction to decommissioning). They also involve less red tape to get constructed, so they can be built quickly.

But you have to look at the decaying grid as well (another plus for Natural Gas because you could afford to do both). A lot of the power generation is lost in the grid. If you invested there, the current generation facilities could operate more efficiently and you could shutdown the dirtiest/least efficient ones over time.

[1] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/natural-gas-fired-power-plant...

[2] https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/browser/index.php?tbl=T...

Re: Americans aren't willing to pay to stop climate change

#133

Post by tdfx »

ineiti wrote: post #13

In Switzerland there was a vote 2 weeks ago about whether we want to support a law to reduce CO2 output by our population. The law was very clear how the money would be spent: improve heating, direct pay to poor citizens, and many others. Cost: - 50 cents per gallon of gas (our gas is about 6$ per gallon) - 20$ to 100$ for a plane ticket The law was refused by 51% of Swiss citizen. What really killed me was that the…

This actually seems very reasonable. Due to its size, no unilateral action taken by Switzerland is going to have any meaningful effect on world CO2 output. Kneecapping your population with taxes and restrictions that cannot have any meaningful result is just performative activism to make a certain segment of the population feel better.

For any movement on fighting climate change, you have to deliver short term results. Investing in technology is the clearest path to doing this. Clean power generation, optimized fuel efficiency, and most importantly, carbon sequestration are things that can make a real difference for the climate and also provide economic ROI. I don't understand why this isn't the larger focus. Where's the "Manhattan project" proposal for carbon sequestration?

Re: Americans aren't willing to pay to stop climate change

#134

Post by jmann99999 »

staticshock wrote: post #110
jmann99999 wrote: post #8

The problem with this post is that it cites a survey of how much Americans are willing to pay to "stop climate change." According to the article 57% are willing to pay $1 a month to "stop climate change" and 23% would pay $40 a month. As an American, in a well paying IT job, I'd pay $100 IF IT WOULD STOP CLIMATE CHANGE. However, I don't believe the $1, or $40, or $100 is going to do anything. It's far more complex th…

I completely agree. My willingness to pay is directly proportional to my conviction in the effectiveness of the proposed solution. The internet has revealed us to be very picky shoppers. We do a lot of comparison shopping, looking for the "best" deal on the silliest item. That same skepticism applies to policies, even effective ones. I want to fund the best ideas, and the best ideas should be backed by compelling mod…

"My willingness to pay is directly proportional to my conviction in the effectiveness of the proposed solution."

I couldn't agree more with that.

Re: Americans aren't willing to pay to stop climate change

#135

Post by lamontcg »

lamontcg wrote: post #114

Given the way that housing, health care and education costs are spiraling out of control it makes sense that the average American wouldn't want to pay anything to mitigate climate change. And they shouldn't be asked to, and its not really necessary.

(not necessary for them to pay in order to mitigate climate change. mitigating climate change should be done, but it doesn't need to be expensive)

Re: Americans aren't willing to pay to stop climate change

#136

Post by trboyden »

jessaustin wrote: post #128
walkedaway wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Got it. Make everyone poor and suffer. Great plan.

The cutoff I've seen for the 1% is $11M net worth. Is everyone poorer than that, "suffering"? What kind of world do you live in?

It's easy to throw around numbers without understanding the people behind them. Say the plumber whose business is worth $10 million dollars, pays himself $100k, and re-invests the rest back into his business and his employees. Is he rich? No. That's the problem with ideological socialism. You just want to stick it to the guy who is rich on paper - it has nothing to do with actually improving peoples lives.

Re: Americans aren't willing to pay to stop climate change

#137

Post by trboyden »

iguanayou wrote: post #17
tdfx wrote: post #10

This poll doesn't say much about whether Americans are willing to pay to stop climate change, it just says a lot about whether Americans trust their government with a blank check to fight climate change. I wouldn't support "giving them money and letting them figure out the best way to use it", either. Let's hear a specific policy proposal.

1. Carbon tax 2. Cap and trade The problem is NOT that there have been no good proposed policy solutions. The problem is that voters don't want them. This is why I'm pessimistic on the environment.

Doesn't work. Because corporations find loopholes around the law to achieve an "equivalent" of carbon reduction, that doesn't actually reduce it, but still call themselves green. If anyone thinks that planting a few trees actually reduces carbon given how much the Chinese pump out, I have a bridge in Brooklin to sell you.

Re: Americans aren't willing to pay to stop climate change

#138

Post by trboyden »

steveBK123 wrote: post #45

This is pretty obvious. My most outspoken Green New Deal supporting friends & family who were reposting social media of Greta & AOC are also 0-1 child households with SUVs. It's hashtag activism. No one wants to make sacrifices. The only solutions are going to be finding ways to grow our way out of it and incentivize good things (fuel economy, EVs, rail, solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal heat pumps, etc). Neither Degr…

I put solar panels on my last house. You know what impact it had? Zero. Why? Because renewable energy sources are more costly, less efficient, and have a greater environmental impact over the full lifecycle than Natural Gas Plants [1]. If we replaced all power generators with Natural Gas plants (which Europe is doing because they already realized this fact), you could realize the carbon savings and generate the power that will be needed for future electrification demands.

[1] https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/browser/index.php?tbl=T...

Re: Americans aren't willing to pay to stop climate change

#139

Post by trboyden »

steveBK123 wrote: post #127
post_break wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking of solar do you have it installed on your house? Even with tax credits do you know how much they cost, they are not cheap. And financing it isn't like a car. Sure it's 1% finance but add like 10K finance charge which kills the rebate. All on top of that you actually have to own a home, which is becoming impossible in america.

Not yet because you only want to install on a newer roof otherwise you pay a lot to uninstall/reinstall on roof replacement. Relative to price of a home, they are cheap, under $10k without storage. People spend 2-5x more on a kitchen or bathroom cosmetic remodel. If you need financing, you can use a HELOC. The break even is like 4 years. Your statements are fairly hyperbolic considering something like 60% of American…

Try $20k plus a re-roof at $10k. And that is for a small 1200sqft 3 bed/1 bath house that has full south-southwest exposure.

Re: Americans aren't willing to pay to stop climate change

#140

Post by trboyden »

steveBK123 wrote: post #126
xboxnolifes wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even today - look at how tax incentivized solar is, and how fast the break-even is.. and yet how few people take advantage of it? In most areas? Not fast at all, and very close to the expected life of the panels for consumer-grade house panels considering the up-front investment.

In New York State with Fed, state and utility incentives it's like 4 years.

Hmmm. No. The payback is 20 years, which is the length of the panel life, and the limit on time the utilities have to pay you for the energy. After that, they get the energy from you for free.
Post reply on HN