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

NASA finds super-emitters of methane

smithsonianmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 387 posts

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#111

Post by anonymous_sorry »

Alupis wrote: post #100
anonymous_sorry wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me the obvious solution seems like it would be to impose targeted tariffs on imports from countries that do not act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, alongside taxes on domestic emissions. Does this happen? What are the difficulties with it?

The countries producing majority of the world's emissions are doing so because they are using the cheapest forms of energy production available - not because they are evil doers or something nefarious. The only way to convince these nations to "go green" is to make green energy cheaper than the alternatives. Tariffing goods from these nations will not have the desired impact - the nation still needs cheap energy prod…

> The only way to convince these nations to "go green" is to make green energy cheaper than the alternatives.

Or make greenhouse gas emissions more expensive.

So you set the tariffs proportionnal to the assessed level of greenhouse gas emissions. Set them at a level where governments are incentivised to act to reduce the tariffs.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#112

Post by chitowneats »

reillyse wrote: post #103
chitowneats wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> USA could close all of its coal mines with the same money spent in emergency Covid vaccines Have we not recently been reminded that the true cost of reducing domestic energy production is much higher than the mere bottom line estimate of shuttering the production facilities? Germany and France might like a word. With Ukraine slowly shaking their heads in the background.

All the more so for switching to wind and solar (and reducing usage). Nobody is saying cancel energy. Just that switching away from coal is probably a good idea.

Can the current energy demand of the United States be met cost-effectively with wind, solar, and batteries?

I'm a huge proponent of these technologies but the answer to that question in 2022 is still no.

"Ending" domestic coal production would cause a drop in GDP that would make 2020 look like child's play.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#113

Post by chitowneats »

themitigating wrote: post #108
chitowneats wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> USA could close all of its coal mines with the same money spent in emergency Covid vaccines Have we not recently been reminded that the true cost of reducing domestic energy production is much higher than the mere bottom line estimate of shuttering the production facilities? Germany and France might like a word. With Ukraine slowly shaking their heads in the background.

Switching over slowly and let the market adjust. Why must everyone make this argument as some sudden disruptive change?

We are switching over slowly. That's literally the status quo. The argument of "we could end coal for X dollars" is what introduces the idea of a discrete value into this discussion.

How can you know what we will spend unless you specify a time interval? Clearly we won't be burning coal in 100 years. Maybe not even 50. Or 30.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#114

Post by themitigating »

pstuart wrote: post #99
jiggyjace wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Regulation' is not a solution for countries that do not answer to the morals of the West, such as Turkmenistan, China, or Russia. Regulation should be demonized, for many situations it ends up being a hammer to a screw.

There's always leading by example, as well as incentivizing via aid. This is not to dismiss the challenge, just that we shouldn't avoid hard problems just because they're hard.

"Leading by example " having heard that in a long time I believe it's called "virtue signaling " now. That should tell you how well that would work

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#115

Post by Alupis »

hackerlight wrote: post #106
Alupis wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "problem" countries are not going to start setting up wind farms just because the US can do it. These countries are burning coal for a reason... it's exceedingly cheap. Make something else exceedingly cheap and they will use it. Anything else is just a distraction and made to make you feel good at night while not accomplishing anything significant.

Firstly, many poor countries are doing some of that. Look at China. They don't like being covered in smog all the time and the respiratory problems that creates. Secondly, the cost curves are decreasing for a reason. It's because of investment in these technologies by richer countries. The richer countries pave the way by making the technology so cheap that it's irresistible and a better deal to poor countries. The w…

> Firstly, many poor countries are doing some of that. Look at China.

China is far from a poor country... by some measurements they outpace even the US.

> Secondly, the cost curves are decreasing for a reason

This is true - however we also need to recognize the technology is not ready today. It might be tomorrow, but throwing everything out and going full-in on green tech today is foolhardy. Some prominent states in the US already struggle to keep electricity on year round... how on earth can we expect new tech to not only do better but be cheaper in that environment? What chance do developing nations have if the wealthiest nations cannot solve this already?

> Thirdly, rich countries should subsidize the energy transition of poor countries

I agree on some level. However I do not agree with pushing unproven technology just because it makes us feel good day. That will just burn developing nations and make them less likely to trust us next time we come up with some amazing new solution to all their problems...

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#116

Post by fragmede »

themitigating wrote: post #114
pstuart wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's always leading by example, as well as incentivizing via aid. This is not to dismiss the challenge, just that we shouldn't avoid hard problems just because they're hard.

"Leading by example " having heard that in a long time I believe it's called "virtue signaling " now. That should tell you how well that would work

If the haters had any virtue to signal then they'd just do that instead. You hate the game not the player, but that's just because you're* losing it.

* you referrs to people that use that stupid phrase, not you

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#117

Post by Alupis »

anonymous_sorry wrote: post #111
Alupis wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The countries producing majority of the world's emissions are doing so because they are using the cheapest forms of energy production available - not because they are evil doers or something nefarious. The only way to convince these nations to "go green" is to make green energy cheaper than the alternatives. Tariffing goods from these nations will not have the desired impact - the nation still needs cheap energy prod…

> The only way to convince these nations to "go green" is to make green energy cheaper than the alternatives. Or make greenhouse gas emissions more expensive. So you set the tariffs proportionnal to the assessed level of greenhouse gas emissions. Set them at a level where governments are incentivised to act to reduce the tariffs.

The tariffs only hurt your own citizens.

The nations that matter for emissions are not going to care about US tariffs...

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#118

Post by idiotsecant »

themitigating wrote: post #114
pstuart wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's always leading by example, as well as incentivizing via aid. This is not to dismiss the challenge, just that we shouldn't avoid hard problems just because they're hard.

"Leading by example " having heard that in a long time I believe it's called "virtue signaling " now. That should tell you how well that would work

It's interesting how so much of what we used to consider 'being a decent person' is now 'virtue signaling'. It's the most cynical, worthless meme to come out of the last 50 years and that's saying a lot.
Post reply on HN