Apple and Disney among companies backing groups against US climate bill • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple and Disney among companies backing groups against US climate bill

#251

Post by maxerickson » Sat, Oct 02, 2021, 2:31 PM UTC

genewitch wrote: post #246

maxerickson wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's going to be hard to convince folks to replace their gas water heaters with electric heat pump models that cost ~3x more and save little to no cost annually. I'm not sure drilling for a heat pump would work in town here, and then the operating cost would still likely be more than gas (heating is at least 75% of my annual consumption). Figuring out how to eliminate those emissions is important, but it sure as hell…

Heat pump is how air conditioners work, a heat pump that heats works in reverse. There's no drilling needed, that would be geothermal. Heat pump water heaters do save about half the cost in electricity over a conventional resistive-only water heater, and are optimal for places with basements, as they also dehumidify; or in warm climates, as they cool the air. So it's also useful for long term perishable storage like…

Ground source heat pump is a better term than geothermal, because it is harder to confuse with other types of system.

Re: Apple and Disney among companies backing groups against US climate bill

#252

Post by OscarCunningham » Sat, Oct 02, 2021, 2:31 PM UTC

hannob wrote: post #186

Factorium wrote: post #152

The best solution to climate change is a price on Carbon. Anything else is just pork. If we don't want to impose a carbon price on ourselves, we can do it to others via import tariffs.

I really wish people would stop thinking that there's this one thing that will fix climate. There isn't. It'll take lots of things. Carbon pricing is a good one if done right, but it's not a silver bullet. There are no silver bullets.

Why is it not a silver bullet?

Re: Apple and Disney among companies backing groups against US climate bill

#253

Post by Factorium » Sat, Oct 02, 2021, 2:31 PM UTC

oefrha wrote: post #226

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree: It might be part of the solution, but simply taxing carbon means that rich folks or companies can pollute. We need green methods put into law to force folks to cut their emissions and pollutants - and punish those who run afoul of the laws, including steep fines, possible business shutdowns, and personal liability/criminal charges for CEOS and other folks running the company, especially if they cover up t…

Also, I fail to see how carbon tax collected in the U.S. for wasteful lifestyle is going to be distributed to, say, Ethiopia, with a same-order-of-maginitude population (115M vs 329M) and ~1/150 emissions per capita (according to [1]). Without scaling back the unsustainable rich American lifestyle, this tax will have limited domestic impact, while punishing developing countries trying to catch up via more polluting i…

Westerners are actually much more efficient in terms of scientific, economic, cultural output per unit of CO2, compared to developing nations.

Ethiopia can benefit from the renewable energy technology developed in the West, and skip fossil fuels entirely.

Re: Apple and Disney among companies backing groups against US climate bill

#254

Post by cscurmudgeon » Sat, Oct 02, 2021, 2:32 PM UTC

sofixa wrote: post #41

cscurmudgeon wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No other country (democracy or not) has such a huge influx of legal and illegal immigrants and a laughably porous border. The US admits more people than the populations of some these democracies that people compare the US with. You can have a huge welfare state or open borders but not both. Unless the US invents a perpetual motion machine. Edit: downvotes and running away, the mark of a rational mind

Are you sure? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_mig... I see Austria, Belgium, UK, Germany, Denmark, Italy accepting more immigrants per capita than the US. In many of those countries, the "huge welfare states" have prerequisites ( for instance you can't just come in as an economic migrant and ask for unemployment benefits). Furthermore, i thought the US was the richest country - it certainly h…

1. The key term is "per capita than the US". When we are talking about physical resources and climate change, per capita doesn't make much sense. If the US imports a million people, the US needs physical resources for a million people. Having more people already in the US doesn't automatically materialize raw physical resources.

2. You talk about per capita then switch to US having the most expensive military. Why not use per capita for costs? US is not the highest. Israel and UAE come before. It makes more sense to use per capita figures for cost.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...

3. The US is also above Iceland, Polan, Spain, Ireland, Finland, Israel, Japan, etc. Why leave that out? This kind of bad faith discussion is really boring.

4. "the difference between the number of persons entering and leaving a country during the year, per 1,000 persons (based on midyear population)" It doesn't distinguish between permanent and non-permanent visitors. Also, it doesn't say whether illegal immigration is counted.

5. "In many of those countries, the "huge welfare states" have prerequisites ( for instance you can't just come in as an economic migrant and ask for unemployment benefits)." Thanks for making my point! The US has few such restrictions.

And of course my original comment is flagged because we can't have free discussion going against the party line.

> But the flying spaghetti monster forbid money goes to other people

I am not going to respond to a ill-informed jab at religion.

Re: Apple and Disney among companies backing groups against US climate bill

#255

Post by ZeroGravitas » Sat, Oct 02, 2021, 2:33 PM UTC

newsclues wrote: post #220

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carbon taxes basically do that though. They "fine" you if you use more carbon than your competitors, disadvantaging you in the market. Tax evasion is already a crime, and would be difficult for most people since it would be embedded into the things they buy in a million little ways. But each supplier has their own direct incentive to change that to stay conpetitive. There's room for other policies too, the whole "if…

How do you justify pricing carbon when governments subsidies for fossil fuels are billions of dollars annually?

Most changes work better if there's a ramp or taper. Phasing out subsidies is a good idea and possibly worth doing in parallel but carbon fees will directly affect those industries in a very direct way so it kind of cancels out.

I'm possibly reading too much into your question but carbon dividends that let everyone spend the money raised on what they need to do to adjust are a sensible part of any plan. Taxes are a very useful and soohisticated government tool, and in America certain groups have relentlessly attacked both taxes and government intervention as things that are harmful. (The exact same people arguing that tobacco, global warming, lead paint, corporate funding of politicians etc. are not bad for you)

Re: Apple and Disney among companies backing groups against US climate bill

#256

Post by vladoski » Sat, Oct 02, 2021, 2:37 PM UTC

user-the-name wrote: post #168

bjt2n3904 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, if someone predicted the apocalypse was right around the corner, and the only way to avert it was to dramatically change my lifestyle in a way that was orthogonal to the catastrophe... I'd say you're peddling religion. Especially if I don't change, and the doomsday prophecies fail. (Again, and again, and again...)

What you want to say is, you don't believe in science.

Science is a method, it's not religion. You can't really "believe" in science. You can trust its methods though.

Re: Apple and Disney among companies backing groups against US climate bill

#257

Post by loourr » Sat, Oct 02, 2021, 2:40 PM UTC

It's a complete farce to caricaturize the $3.5T reconciliation bill as a climate bill.

While there are some provisions that are intended to have an impact on the climate, like EV tax credits, these are poorly constructed and reward things like hybrid cars made in mexico and assembled by unions over electric cars made in the US.

It also fundamentally changes business incentives in many ways by increasing capital gains tax, increasing income tax, increasing business tax and requiring companies to take on a whole bunch of enforcement on behalf of the federal government for other social policies they would like to enact.

A bill that's intended to improve the climate would look like nuclear power plant regulation reform or removal of tax credits for oil production or a carbon tax. Not some poorly constructed bill that lines the pockets of their favorite special interest groups who recently got a fresh coat of green paint.

The fact that all of these companies oppose the bill should speak to how poorly constructed it is.

Re: Apple and Disney among companies backing groups against US climate bill

#258

Post by loourr » Sat, Oct 02, 2021, 2:45 PM UTC

aaomidi wrote: post #247

mrfusion wrote: post #235

It’s such a shame there are so many things going on in one giant bill. Who knows which part of it they oppose. Wouldn’t it be nice to work on and debate one issue at a time.

It would. But then you'd need 60 votes because we refuse to get rid of the filibuster.

Maybe 60 votes is a good threshold for fundamental changes to the way the country works and what we should actually do is remove the reconciliation loophole.

Re: Apple and Disney among companies backing groups against US climate bill

#259

Post by aaomidi » Sat, Oct 02, 2021, 2:46 PM UTC

loourr wrote: post #258

aaomidi wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would. But then you'd need 60 votes because we refuse to get rid of the filibuster.

Maybe 60 votes is a good threshold for fundamental changes to the way the country works and what we should actually do is remove the reconciliation loophole.

Maybe it is, right now it's not.

Re: Apple and Disney among companies backing groups against US climate bill

#260

Post by ZeroGravitas » Sat, Oct 02, 2021, 2:46 PM UTC

pclmulqdq wrote: post #171

lucidguppy wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear power can't come online fast enough. We shouldn't needlessly decommission plants like Germany did. There's an opportunity cost here - we need to make "power plant factories" rather than just "power plants". So if we could make green energy factories and nuke plant factories, that would be better than making one off nuke plants that take so long to get approved.

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago, but the second best time is today. By continuing to oppose low-carbon base load power that is politically unpopular, climate activists are showing the world that they don't really believe there's a crisis. Put another way, they are saying: "there's just enough of a crisis for us to take things from you, but not enough for us to sacrifice anything ourselves." Also, with i…

> By continuing to oppose low-carbon base load power that is politically unpopular, climate activists are showing the world that they don't really believe there's a crisis.

That's okay, who cares if some old hippies don't believe in an obvious scientific fact. We all believe it's true, right? And that's what matters, yes?

Because the people who deny that climate change would be a crisis if we don't stop emitting fossil carbon are absolute idiots, at least we can all agree on that much.