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

Big oil helped shape Stanford’s latest climate-research focus

chronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 141 posts

Re: Big oil helped shape Stanford’s latest climate-research focus

#111

Post by myrmidon »

zamfi wrote: post #87
SoftTalker wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you could literally charge every passenger vehicle user in the US $1-2000/year Politically (and practically) infeasible. Most likely it would be done as a fuel tax, but it would need to be in the ballpark of $3/gallon which would be suicide for the politicans who impose it and unaffordable to many of the people who would be paying for it. A tax that can't be paid can't fund anything.

Of course a literal tax is politically infeasible, not least because we're not at all serious about actually internalizing the currently-external cost of carbon. But it's a mistake to consider a tax as something we can't afford because we are already incurring this tax bill by emitting the carbon in the first place. Whether we pay now to reduce the carbon or later to reduce the carbon and mitigate impacts, we will al…

From a purely rich western perspective it seems likely to me that OTHER people are going to pay much more than "the west" is going to: Wealth provides buffer against food shortages, lethal outdoor temperatures and sea level rise alike, and the regions that are going to suffer the most are also probably gonna be more like Bangladesh than Central Europe...

If your voters in general are not willing to pay the price for the damage they cause, what is a democracy supposed to do? Sad state of affairs.

Re: Big oil helped shape Stanford’s latest climate-research focus

#112

Post by runarberg »

7speter wrote: post #107
algoatecorn wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the most reasonable take. For some reason people in the West tend to ignore that 80% of the world is on the lower part of the exponential slope of progress, income, and demand for fossil fuel derived goods - and they are running up that slope at breakneck speed as a result of technological innovation. Is the other 20% going to look down from our place of wealth and abundance - built on fossil fuels and countl…

I don’t know if all you wrote about is going to be a problem in the way you see it. The developing world has jumped/skipped some of the development the west/rich nations experienced and just adapted the latest technology. A good example of this is communication technology. In wealthy nations, there was all of this wired infrastructure put in place since the advent of the telegraph. In developing nations, they just sk…

Worth looking at in this context is how the USA robbed us of the Kyoto protocol, which very much had the potential to at the very least give us longer time to roll out the needed changes. USA’s excuse back in 1997 was that it was unfair that developing nations were exempt. Looking back on it, I believe this was only an excuse forwarded by government from the fossil fuel industry. If not for US exceptionalism, they would have found another excuse and destroyed our climate anyway.

Re: Big oil helped shape Stanford’s latest climate-research focus

#113

Post by xyzzyz »

7speter wrote: post #107
algoatecorn wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the most reasonable take. For some reason people in the West tend to ignore that 80% of the world is on the lower part of the exponential slope of progress, income, and demand for fossil fuel derived goods - and they are running up that slope at breakneck speed as a result of technological innovation. Is the other 20% going to look down from our place of wealth and abundance - built on fossil fuels and countl…

I don’t know if all you wrote about is going to be a problem in the way you see it. The developing world has jumped/skipped some of the development the west/rich nations experienced and just adapted the latest technology. A good example of this is communication technology. In wealthy nations, there was all of this wired infrastructure put in place since the advent of the telegraph. In developing nations, they just sk…

You can’t really give many more examples than wireless. There is no way to make concrete that uses much less energy. No way to make steel. No way to heat or cool your home without using a lot of energy. No way to move yourself around to more than bicycle distance without expending vast amounts of energy on building infrastructure, vehicles (cars or trains), and powering them.

If the poor billions are to have any chance to live in any kind of comfort resembling what wealthy westerners or Asians do, they need to massively increase their energy consumption. There is no wireless way around it.

Re: Big oil helped shape Stanford’s latest climate-research focus

#114

Post by rayiner »

runarberg wrote: post #110
algoatecorn wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the most reasonable take. For some reason people in the West tend to ignore that 80% of the world is on the lower part of the exponential slope of progress, income, and demand for fossil fuel derived goods - and they are running up that slope at breakneck speed as a result of technological innovation. Is the other 20% going to look down from our place of wealth and abundance - built on fossil fuels and countl…

> We have to find ways to sequester. And we have to find ways to live in a warmer climate. It's the most probable outcome. This is not the only conclusion from your excellent observation. Another conclusion could be that rich nations fund green infrastructure projects in poorer countries without asking anything in return. I believe this is what the climate relief fund is about—as approved (albeit in a much too small…

So the solution isn’t a real solution? You know what’s harder than carbon capture? Re-engineering human nature.

Re: Big oil helped shape Stanford’s latest climate-research focus

#115

Post by rayiner »

olddustytrail wrote: post #96
linhns wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ruinously expensive You just disqualified yourself from any argument there. Nuclear power is the cheapest and most efficient form that we have ever found. Yes, the upfront cost may be huge but loans can help with that

You really have no idea of costs. Nuclear is by far the most expensive. Well, ok, gas became equally expensive with the Ukraine war but it had to quadruple in price to get there.

If nuclear was more expensive China wouldn’t be building it. It’s stupid western regulations that make nuclear expensive.

Re: Big oil helped shape Stanford’s latest climate-research focus

#116

Post by runarberg »

rayiner wrote: post #114
runarberg wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We have to find ways to sequester. And we have to find ways to live in a warmer climate. It's the most probable outcome. This is not the only conclusion from your excellent observation. Another conclusion could be that rich nations fund green infrastructure projects in poorer countries without asking anything in return. I believe this is what the climate relief fund is about—as approved (albeit in a much too small…

So the solution isn’t a real solution? You know what’s harder than carbon capture? Re-engineering human nature.

Has been done multiple times over. Successful examples include global ban on ozone depleting chemicals, multiple standards for international trade, just run of the mill law and policy, human rights, etc.

It is in human nature not to destroy our climate, it took extremely wealthy and persistent class of polluters concentrated effort for the past few decades to prevent climate actions from various governments. Human populations—most of which residing in democracies—would have loved for governments to ratify the various treaties that would have saved our climate. As it is in our nature to do so. Only inhumane action has doomed our climate.

Re: Big oil helped shape Stanford’s latest climate-research focus

#117

Post by runarberg »

algoatecorn wrote: post #82
olddustytrail wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And who exactly are going to be paying for these ruinously expensive nuclear power stations for the poorer countries? Is it you and rayiner? Or perhaps you want your government to fund it through increased taxes on you? I'm sure you wouldn't want the poor countries to pay for it themselves.

Both mine and rayiner's commentary wasn't focused only on nuclear, but rather the harebrained and unrealistic doomscape narrative coming out of the West. When did it become so unpopular to point out what is most likely to happen? Because if we're placing bets, I'm gonna put my money on the developing nations not giving a flying F about emissions. Therefore, we need to think like realists and instead of idealists.

If you want to be realistic, the more realistic option is for rich nations to fund green infrastructure projects in poorer countries. It is much easier and cheaper and likelier to succeed than every nation with a GDP lower than Connecticut developing a nuclear program on their own, or for carbon sequestration to become viable.

And alas, climate relief fund—or rather a loss and damage fund—is already a thing. Approved in the last COP and already ratified by the EU. (I know, it is much weaker than real climate relief, but proves it is possible). with some European countries already with some programs in place for paying climate relief in foreign countries.

If you want to be a realist, you should commit to it, and apply it equally.

Re: Big oil helped shape Stanford’s latest climate-research focus

#118

Post by rayiner »

runarberg wrote: post #116
rayiner wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the solution isn’t a real solution? You know what’s harder than carbon capture? Re-engineering human nature.

Has been done multiple times over. Successful examples include global ban on ozone depleting chemicals, multiple standards for international trade, just run of the mill law and policy, human rights, etc. It is in human nature not to destroy our climate, it took extremely wealthy and persistent class of polluters concentrated effort for the past few decades to prevent climate actions from various governments. Human po…

None of that requires meaningful sacrifice in material standards of living.

Re: Big oil helped shape Stanford’s latest climate-research focus

#119

Post by runarberg »

rayiner wrote: post #118
runarberg wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has been done multiple times over. Successful examples include global ban on ozone depleting chemicals, multiple standards for international trade, just run of the mill law and policy, human rights, etc. It is in human nature not to destroy our climate, it took extremely wealthy and persistent class of polluters concentrated effort for the past few decades to prevent climate actions from various governments. Human po…

None of that requires meaningful sacrifice in material standards of living.

Climate inaction requires tremendous sacrifice in all of our standards of living. So does taxes. It is a very human behavior to give away a little you have in order for other people to enjoy better lives. We do it all the time.

Re: Big oil helped shape Stanford’s latest climate-research focus

#120

Post by rayiner »

runarberg wrote: post #119
rayiner wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of that requires meaningful sacrifice in material standards of living.

Climate inaction requires tremendous sacrifice in all of our standards of living. So does taxes. It is a very human behavior to give away a little you have in order for other people to enjoy better lives. We do it all the time.

People in the developing world will not make any sacrifice to their standard of living, which is already low. To the contrary, they will insist on increasing their standard of living. For the developed world to bankroll the green infrastructure of the developing world--at a scale that allows the developing world to continue improving its standard of living, and while continuing their own green energy investment--will require people in the developing world to give away far more than "a little."
Post reply on HN