11–20 of 20 posts
That’s not honest at all. That’s just a different set of talking points. “while society wants to see emissions reduced, nobody wants to pay for it.” Yeah, right, oil is cheaper, of course.
Forget O&G.
Nobody wants to pay for full electrification, despite having readily available tech. You can't argue the opposite with a straight face.
FWIW, the author conflates CO2 storage as enhanced oil recovery applications only.
That’s not honest at all. That’s just a different set of talking points. “while society wants to see emissions reduced, nobody wants to pay for it.” Yeah, right, oil is cheaper, of course.
Cheaper because they don't pay for the externalities. It's their own profits they are talking about, amazing people fall for this.
What about us?
What's stopping us from passing punitive and progressive taxes on their scope 3 GHG emissions?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cheaper because they don't pay for the externalities. It's their own profits they are talking about, amazing people fall for this.
They? What about us? What's stopping us from passing punitive and progressive taxes on their scope 3 GHG emissions?
That’s not honest at all. That’s just a different set of talking points. “while society wants to see emissions reduced, nobody wants to pay for it.” Yeah, right, oil is cheaper, of course.
The argument stands. Forget O&G. Nobody wants to pay for full electrification, despite having readily available tech. You can't argue the opposite with a straight face. FWIW, the author conflates CO2 storage as enhanced oil recovery applications only.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cheaper because they don't pay for the externalities. It's their own profits they are talking about, amazing people fall for this.
They? What about us? What's stopping us from passing punitive and progressive taxes on their scope 3 GHG emissions?
Eventually everyone will come to their senses and tax externalities. The question is how much damage will have been done until then.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They? What about us? What's stopping us from passing punitive and progressive taxes on their scope 3 GHG emissions?
That’s what the fight is about and why industry pays big bucks to spread lies and distract us in fabricated culture wars. Eventually everyone will come to their senses and tax externalities. The question is how much damage will have been done until then.
You might be right but there is a lot of opposition against stuff like this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The argument stands. Forget O&G. Nobody wants to pay for full electrification, despite having readily available tech. You can't argue the opposite with a straight face. FWIW, the author conflates CO2 storage as enhanced oil recovery applications only.
The argument says “emissions reduced”, not “full electrification.” And reducing emissions is cheaper than destroying the world we live in.
That’s not honest at all. That’s just a different set of talking points. “while society wants to see emissions reduced, nobody wants to pay for it.” Yeah, right, oil is cheaper, of course.
He’s right in the sense that people, in today’s set up, don’t want to pay. But can we imagine a different choice architecture where people don’t mind giving up the black stuff?
The architecture that economists and climate scientists both agree will move the needle on this is a revenue neutral carbon tax. A revenue neutral carbon tax taxes carbon, and then returns 100% of that tax money back to people equally. Anyone who uses less than the average amount of carbon - which is a majority of the population - since the top users use so much, get paid in this scheme.
People might not want to pay, but they don't have to. Excessive users, the non-majority, pay. People, on average, don't pay - they get paid.
The architecture already exists, it's already law in certain countries, and anyone ignoring this fundamental reality is not being serious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The argument says “emissions reduced”, not “full electrification.” And reducing emissions is cheaper than destroying the world we live in.
How much do you want to pay for zero/negative emissions?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How much do you want to pay for zero/negative emissions?
reducing emissions is cheaper than destroying the world we live in.
You know that's not my question, and you also know I represented the author accurately (See "forget o&g")