$100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

Hmm… can’t point to one specific book, but there are lots of links. You can google “reforestation monoculture” and “reforestation native species.” This article is a great place to start: https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-green-pledges-will-not-cr... It doesn’t get into the granularity of the costs, but highlights that the basic issue is countries are still hoping to make a profit off these “carbon sinks” by planting easily usable timber - aka monoculture - which greatly diminishes the benefits of forests and leaves them vulnerable to blights and other disasters.

The bigger trouble is going to be convincing people who want to deliberately accelerate climate change, either because it will hurt the people they hate, or can be used as casus belli for the next resource war. "The problem is too many people, luckily we have a solution!" and other horrifying shit like that.

A bunch of people here are getting into the technological solutions to this problem, but I really think the even bigger challenge is the social/cultural barriers to implementing even a proven technology.

> But unless you’re planning to Thanos our way out of the situation, the people in the Western world need to consume less.

There are more viable and compassionate solutions to accelerate stagnation of global growth. One is universal access to contraceptives, the other is eliminating global poverty and improving economic stability. This is no less politically viable than coercing Westerners to consume less, and far more effective.

Add to that, our governments *target a growth rate of 3-4% per year through immigration*. That is purely through policy, and the entire point to increase GDP through, you guessed it, consumption. As you well know, our minimum carbon footprints are higher in the West. The minimum. If decimating consumption is such a priority for green advocates, then it should follow that they staunchly oppose increases in immigration rates, and in fact favor reductions. That would actually be consistent with the argument. This is an obvious connection that people coyly dance around. And while it's a separate discussion, many economists agree today that GDP is not a reliable measure of a nation's prosperity and chasing perpetual growth is not required.

> Less beef, which is hugely polluting.

There have been some interesting strides in innovation that reduce methane emissions some 90+% using a fraction of kelp/seaweed in feed, and this may be rolled out as a matter of policy. That would eliminate issues related to methane emissions in a fell swoop, in a way that discouragement of consumption can't touch. It's a ways off, but it doesn't have to be, it's right there.

Land-use, contrary to popular belief, is actually decreasing in the U.S. for cattle in spite of the small uptick in demand growth. However, it has been growing in Brazil, presumably due to the growing Chinese market and they're supplying of soy to just about everyone.

> The average American child owns between 70 and 100 toys.

Citation?

> The average American woman owns 100+ items of clothing.

Citation?

> It is too much; it is more than we need.

There is no metric offered for what is enough / too much. It's entirely arbitrary. And yet, the difference between a perceived low consumption and average consumption, in aggregate, across the population, would not result in a significant change as the environment is concerned, since we all still use power, water, transportation, food, as the most basic form of living. The industry giants are responsible for most destruction. We can pat ourselves on the back for buying fewer material goods but it doesn't put a dent in the problem. Given the approx 36 gigatons of annual emissions, you won't even get down to 35 with a persuasive campaign. You won't even get down to 35.5.

Blaming the consumer is foolhardy. Most problems with regards to energy and waste can be resolved through policy. People want these problems fixed but feel dismayed when most of what they throw in the recycling bin, typically related to food stuffs, ends up at the dump.

Living well means more than mere survival. You don't "need" your little device you use to browse hackernews and your daily caffeinated drink and all the comforts you take for granted, and no one gets to decide for you that you don't need them, in a free country. This is important because blaming consumers will not save the environment, strong policy and innovation will.

I think we're talking about different things. Yes, I agree that a carbon tax is needed, and would change individual behavior. But as you say, the biggest hurdle is will, which we have been sorely lacking. I'm talking about, how can we change what people _want_, which would include as a consequence creating the political will which allows us to take such decisive action.

So far, lots of places have not chosen to implement any carbon tax because they value the environment less than their present access to goods and services to which they are accustomed. And even the carbon taxes which have been put in place don't actually address the real externalities of emissions, suggesting that even if the polity there values the environment _some_, it's still less valuable than buying cheap stuff.

EU carbon taxes vary wildly between countries, from €0.07 in Poland to €116 in Sweden. Sweden's tax is at the very low end of recommendations from a 2018 UN report, which gave the extremely broad range of $135 to $5,500 per ton. And only now is there a _proposal_ for an EU border tax to account for emissions in goods entering the EU. So even in Sweden, where perhaps cultural values made a comparatively high rate politically feasible, no one has yet paid a carbon tax which actually addresses the externalities of emissions, because of imports.

My original comment mentioned Tesla as an example of how to get people to actually want the greener goods more than their alternatives. People that really wanted a Tesla wanted it more than any ICE car. They still wanted it after Tesla hit the tax break cap in the US. They perceived a Tesla as smart, glamorous, futuristic, and conveying status. This is qualitatively different than someone who lives in a place with a carbon tax who can be convinced to take a train trip rather than a regional flight, or buys a home which is better sealed and will be cheaper to heat/cool.

I would claim that aside from typical corporate marketing activities which center around a given product or brand (which is what I was thinking of when I referred to a "portfolio of expensive one-offs"), the other primary precedents for getting people to want differently have been religious evangelism and state propaganda, neither of which ever yielded an engineering discipline of predictable, well-understood mechanisms.

The limiting factor for plant growth isn't carbon, it's nitrogen.