881–884 of 884 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well you gotta drop the book name with that nugget!
https://www.timesunion.com/opinion/article/20-gasoline-don-t... is a short opinion piece on it with some links and such.
Just a contextual note -- one thing Sabine says is: AI won't help because we know the exact solution, we just aren't willing to do it. Presumably she's referring to her first proposal -- a carbon tax. It's my understanding that there's nearly consensus among economists that a carbon tax is the most efficient solution to global warming, but political consensus that it would never happen when framed as a tax. If you do…
I've been hearing for over a decade that carbon taxes are the solution. I've also been hearing that Republicans are standing in the way of this solution. What I've never heard is an explanation of why some sensible, well-run scandinavian country hasn't already implemented this and brought their emissions down to zero. If there are simple solutions to this problem then why hasn't some country already implemented them?
So everyone is just pushing half solutions and talking a lot. Politicians will never go for hard solutions, especially when everyone is satisfied by talking about magic pills like "green deal", "more renewables" or (from current top comment) "climate advocacy" and "citizen engagement".
People just love talking. And feeling good about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You lower demand by increasing the the supply Jevon's Paradox[1] states that as efficiency increases (which itself is a form of supply increase), demand increases. My own view is that the paradox makes the idea of population reduction moot, those remaining humans would simply use more energy because supply has gone up and demand (through lack of competition) going down to levels below supply would, again, drive pri…
> Jevon's Paradox This looks to support my argument as its indeed what is happening and what is causing emissions to go up (less developed nations industrialising) due to technology trickling down. Please correct me if i'm wrong. > My own view is that the paradox makes the idea of population reduction moot Lets use math and assume all pollution comes from end users who can afford/drive cars (~20%) and ignore the rest…
Redo those calculations as if the paradox has weight and see where you end up.